Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?

[Cas Stark]

Just now, RhaenysBee said:

And this whole thread is becoming awfully sad and upsetting and radical for my unstable little psyche. Take deep breaths, y’all. Have toffifee and love and respect and sweet dreams or a great day depending on your time zones. 

Yes.  Better to get back to Harry's frostbitten 'todger' and Kate hoarding lipgloss and Harold with the sads because Big Willy had a better room at Balmoral.

[JGP]

31 minutes ago, mormont said:

I've said before, but Charles isn't worth £0.01. The stuff he 'owns' and the stuff he 'doesn't own' all comes from the same source: it's all Royal inheritance, not a penny of it earned. The only real difference is what governments long ago agreed to designate as family property and what they agreed to take over and pay for.

When we abolish the monarchy, not long now, we should seize the lot. Morally, it's all ours anyway.

If I've come off as anti-UK in general, or contributed to a general sense of that [someone mentioned it in the last thread] I want to apologize. I mean, of course I'm going to laugh and occasionally deride something stupid, and I'm sorry your Royal family is such a stupid and historically harmful thing. Take consolation in that I am no one, no prince, nor perfect person, and that I got way more beef with my country Canada.

But yeah, I'm for rejecting the monarchy in this country too, and divvying up all the Crown land. It would impress me if that was done in a manner that honors our Treaties, but faint hope of that. There would also be the entire mess of the provinces, their Treaties [the entirety of BC is unceded] their split on Crown, and how municipalities then in turn deal with.

Canada should also tear up any contract itself or province herein has made with Nestle et al [narrows eyes at Tywin briefly] 

But yeah, anyway.

I saw some clip with Harry on Colbert, discussing the killing of Afghanistani in context as actually written. This shit is either going to go half fucked in every direction like some kind of chaotic quiver or pizzle out. Just, one of the damnedest things.   

 

Edited January 11 by JGP

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

Or, I know you will disagree with this, but the state could have not imposed punitive inheritance and estate taxes, designed specifically to kill the aristocracy, that caused the houses to be unaffordable. 

I do disagree with this.

Increasing the public good is worth a few aristocrats—many of whom owe their wealth to sucking on society’s tit—losing their mansions. 
For instance a better healthcare system to keep people from dying.
 

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Putting a strip mall in the middle of acres of parkland and farmland?  Interesting. Sounds kinda capitalistic to me. 

Eh possibly, I’m just more concerned about what actions can be reasonably taken by government  to reduce human suffering and increase well-being.

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But, I guess beauty is expensive so it is to be shunned.

I prefer the term Decadence.

Beauty can be as freely enjoyed, like looking up the stars at night.

[Varysblackfyre321]

20 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Good

Bad—you’re level apathy has allowed for a whole list human rights, corruption, and civil erosion.

21 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

I have no spare energy to (want to) invest in viewing the functions of government. Sure it would be bad, could I do anything about it (other than vote for a different government)? No.

Fundraise for groups who promise to stop the dumping of tax payer money in the hole, do civil disobedience through blocking people from dumping money in the hole,  he’ll just put up a sign up saying dumping tax payer money in the  hole is bad.

26 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

So is it worth for me to get mentally and physically ill over it? Heck no. 

At least a little grossed out wouldn’t be bad.

[Secretary of Eumenes]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Nutella is vile and should be illegal.

Heredary rulers have existed in almost all societies across history. I assume OP means in the modern context.

I'm pretty sure I was first exposed to this odd substance by the film 

Our Lips Are Sealed

Like, I'm pretty sure. VHSssss ain't been around for a long goddamn time. Anyway, yeah. It looked gross. But in America you have to thank people for giving you a Reese's. Like true American Girls, however, the Olsen Twins dispensed with your hideous EuroCommie sludge 

(I THINK it was this "nutella" stuff that was in the movie. Seriously, as I think back on it now I'm like yo that was at least twenty years ago. Anyway, this has been a presentation of Jace's Autism. Thanks for stopping by.)

46 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

They can always bulldoze it all down and put malls with Apple stores and Starbucks in its place 

all YIELD all hail RHAEs!

all YIELD all hail RHAEs!

30 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah what's incredibly sad and wasteful is the idea that we should publicly fund the upkeep and maintenance rich people's homes. 

If you need to keep these buildings so so so badly turn them into homeless shelters or something, otherwise, send in the bulldozers.  Preceded by the guillotines or not I guess is up for debate.  

...

...

Bonus points if SIR Michael reads poetry to the chirens as evening lessons! 

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes.  Better to get back to Harry's frostbitten 'todger' and Kate hoarding lipgloss and Harold with the sads because Big Willy had a better room at Balmoral.

Now if he was sad Will got a bigger mansion than him that’d be understandable/s

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Now if he was sad Will got a bigger mansion than him that’d be understandable/s

Not a mansion, mansion. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Tywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Preceded by the guillotines or not I guess is up for debate.  

To be fair, we could make a killing via gambling if we forced them to fight in an arena. And the PPV money could go to the poor!

Edited January 11 by Tywin et al.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Now if he was sad Will got a bigger mansion than him that’d be understandable/s

Where's your ire for a prince worth $20M complaining all he can afford is an Ikea lamp and a used couch that he made his girlfriend buy for their free cottage?  There was a whole dustup about whether H&M were getting an apartment in Kennsington Palace next to Big Willy and Lipgloss Katie, with various reasons given why this didn't happen...including that H and M didn't want it and that Big W refused to have them living next door and some other probable false reasons that were less personal.  

[Raja]

49 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah what's incredibly sad and wasteful is the idea that we should publicly fund the upkeep and maintenance rich people's homes.

Absolutely wild the amount of kool aid being drunk when this needs to be said

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Where's your ire for a prince worth $20M complaining all he can afford is an Ikea lamp and a used couch that he made his girlfriend buy for their free cottage? 

Dude I was just mocking your bellyaching on rich people losing their decadent mansions and having to settle for a living standard still better than the vast majority of humanity.

As for Harry’s so long as he’s not using tax-payer money on it I can’t say I care that much—

So long as they’re not parasitic like  the Royal family I can’t say I care.
 

edit I should clarify so long as Harry is making his money through not doing anything immoral I have no problem with he chooses to spend his money on.

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Big Willy

Heh. Big Willy is a euphemism to say penis.  

Edited January 11 by Varysblackfyre321

[Makk]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Forgive me but that’s incredibly lazy view of the functions of government especially a democratic one. A government can decide to simply divest money that could give funding its poor healthcare into building a big hole to dump money into. That choice would be bad.

My understanding is that based on polls the British monarchy would actually win the vote if they had one on whether or not to ditch them. That's democracy for you.

[Secretary of Eumenes]

8 minutes ago, Makk said:

My understanding is that based on polls the British monarchy would actually win the vote if they had one on whether or not to ditch them. That's democracy for you.

Well the great thing about democracy is that it has the ability within it to change a little every day, don't it?

_Big things have small beginnings_

[Spockydog]

25 minutes ago, Makk said:

My understanding is that based on polls the British monarchy would actually win the vote if they had one on whether or not to ditch them. That's democracy for you.

This is nothing but a Kent Davison 'death bump.' A year ago, it was 60/40 in favour of getting rid.

It won't take long for Charles III to drive down their favourability.

Edited January 12 by Spockydog

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 minutes ago, Makk said:

My understanding is that based on polls the British monarchy would actually win the vote if they had one on whether or not to ditch them. That's democracy for you.

 

Probably so, most people tend honestly hate significant change from

the status quo rather that be positive or negative.

 

[Makk]

52 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

This is nothing but a Kent Davison 'death bump.' A year ago, it was 60/40 in favour of getting rid.

It won't take long for Charles III to drive down their favourability.

I think inevitably the monarchy will be ended via democracy once they become unpopular enough. The majority of royalists are in the older age brackets? I wasn't aware it was already this unpopular though.

[Tywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, Makk said:

I think inevitably the monarchy will be ended via democracy once they become unpopular enough. The majority of royalists are in the older age brackets? I wasn't aware it was already this unpopular though.

The monarchy shouldn't have 5% support of the people. It's an absolute joke. 

But hey, some people really just enjoy being conned. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The monarchy shouldn't have 5% support of the people. It's an absolute joke. 

But hey, some people really just enjoy being conned. 

Hey, I enjoy traveling to a country where other taxpayers support this very entertaining anachronistic institution!  I mean I might not even reclaim my VAT as a donation.

[Tywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Hey, I enjoy traveling to a country where other taxpayers support this very entertaining anachronistic institution!  I mean I might not even reclaim my VAT as a donation.

You and taxes:

 

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, Raja said:

Absolutely wild the amount of kool aid being drunk when this needs to be said /cdn-cgi/mirage/66f13cc1ec40c47a552cf76b4a23da3dc72dd0e563ec470f4607d57e1f181a00/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_lol.gif

Not really directed at you, but the concept of the “rich” being forced to sell their homes.

Do you realize that during WW 2 the top tax rate in the UK was 99.25%? After the war it was lowered to 90%, during the 40s, 50s and 60s. The top rate on investment income in the 70s was 98%. There’s a reason why rock stars and movie stars and corporate millionaires fled the country.

If some fucker from the government showed up at my house and told me they were taxing my investment income at 98% I’d bloody well make sure I owned a shotgun so I could take down as many of the effing bastards as I could before the police showed up and gunned me down.