Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Long before then, countries like ancient Greece and Rome had already had separation of powers that were more advanced and fair than the British system that you are actually trying to pretend was the basis of the more modern ideas from a Frenchman.

I never denied that Greece and Rome had these idea.s My point is that Montesquieu was one of the men who inspired the founding fathers to implement seperation of ideas

And this can't be used to state that the US constitution is owed to the British for quite a few reasons.

1) Montesquieu was heavily influenced by classical philosophy from Greece and Rome.
2) The framers of the US constitution were influenced not only by Montesquieu, but by several figures, several past civilizations.
3) External influence wasn't the only basis of the constitution, much of it was also original and based on the ideas of the framers themselves.

therefore Britain affected the way the US is.

Nope.

Britain was the country that the US defied, defeated, and became the antithesis of.

Hell, if you won't accept that then lets use your own argument against you.

Yous aid it yourself, the US system is the anti-thesis of the British one. Correct?

If so then, the constitution can be viewed as a reaction against the british style of governing, ie, no room for a tyrannical monarch. Correct?

LOL that's just about the wackiest argument you can possibly make. That's like saying that Germany should owe its prosperity to Hitler because Hitler started the war that ended up with Germany being destroyed, but later being rebuilt into a better country it is today.

Yep, Germany owes its prosperity today to Hitler because he started a war that devastated Germany.

That is, of course, according to your wacky logic.

Otherwise I won't cede that incredible wacky point, because it's convenient that way.

Except I have evidence for my point and you do not.

I conclusively shattered your point.

Yes, but there is no proof that the enlightenment thinker took any of his ideas from the British monarchy.

Except for the fact that it's the general consensus amongst historians who know more about the subject than you and I combined.

Lol, are these historians British by chance?

I'd like you to find some proof, an actual writing by Montesquieu, or something to sho that his ideas were more influenced by the British system than on classical systems.

Because he wrote a whole hell of a lot about Rome and Greece, and just about nothing about Britain's system.

You have to prove something before you apply it to an argument, you can't apply it and consider it sound just because it can't be disproved.

Except my argument is based around my fucking degree

No it's not.

So go on, disprove it.

I already discredited it and showed how it is not applicable to your points, and does not validate what you say at all.

Oh, and here's one article of his writing that shows his criticism of the British.

Of the Principle of Democracy

There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.

What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person entrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction.

Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone.

A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was inffamed by the success of the most daring of their members; as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth. At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.

Quick question for all the blatent American nationalists. When did the US become a democracy? It looks like people are claiming that it was a democracy when it was founded, but that would be an insane point to argue.

At 12/19/07 07:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Nope, because although advancements happened under the watch of the British Empire, its very brutal and oppressive nature stymied what could have been.

Well then it looks like we're reaching what I said was an interesting discussion as to what extent the same improvements could have been made without British Imperialism. I'm not denying the brutality of it.

It is therefore quite certain that the British Empire held humanity back a bit. When the US became an independent country, the US did far better than when under British rule, and did far better than any previous British subject nation. When the US became the world's premiere force, and the British empire waxed and waned, the world became far better than when under British control.

Uh I dunno, it took you guys a while to become the world's premier force, and a lot of improvements had happened prior to that, when Britain was the premier.

What did Britain do when it conquered countries or even gained influence over previously friendly countries? It annexed them, exploited them, took away their freedom, and controlled them with an iron fist.

It was pretty good for ensuring democracy and liberalism when we gave them back though.

What has the US done to countries that it has defeated in wars, or had power over after wars? Oh yeah, the US allowed them to have democracies, rebuilt their countries free of charge, and asked for only plots of land to bury dead American soldiers as payment.

So did Britain. Took us a while to get our act together, but we weren't that bad at building a workable society before granting independence in the late 19th and early 20th.

Look at WWI, the allies won and the British got concessions and reparations from the Central Powers, essentially fucking over those countries. Look at WWII, the US ended up occupying Italy, Germany, and Japan... and those countries were rebuilt by the US, and are now some of the most successful countries in the world because unlike the British, the US didn't exploit their weakness.

Thank you, America, for your staunch opposition of the Versailles Treaty - o wait, no, you supported it entirely and were one of the key drafters - you're just as bloody responsible as the rest of the Allies. And we helped rebuild Germany after WW2, too, because everyone had learnt from the treaty of Versailles, including your country.

So I don't see your point, in the slightest, tbh.

Based on history, had the Brits not been so dependent and vulnerable to the US after WWII, they would have done to Germany and Italy what they did to the Central powers in WWI. There would be NO historic precedent for the British doing anything different, because they were a greedy empire, that's what they did.

No, we realised that WW2 happened because of the treaty of Versailles and didn't act so retarded at the end of that.

And that's why they held back humanity, because true innovation can't exist in a monarchy.

Again, total denial of the innovation in Victorian Britain. Because we had a Queen. I could provide a long list of important innovations in Victorian Britain, if you so desired.

But it can exist in liberalized, capitalist democracies that exist in the world today due to the fact that empires like the former British empire no longer hold sway.

What's even weirder is that you claim the UK isn't a liberalised capitalist democracy, because we've got the Queen. And the former British Empire still holds sway, anyway, there's still the Commonwealth of Nations.

At 12/19/07 09:06 AM, Earfetish wrote:

What has the US done to countries that it has defeated in wars, or had power over after wars? Oh yeah, the US allowed them to have democracies, rebuilt their countries free of charge, and asked for only plots of land to bury dead American soldiers as payment.

So did Britain.

No it absolutely did not. If the US wasn't more powerful, and the British didn't owe the US so much, both literally and ideally, the British would have done the exact same thing they did in WWI.

Look at WWI, the allies won and the British got concessions and reparations from the Central Powers, essentially fucking over those countries. Look at WWII, the US ended up occupying Italy, Germany, and Japan... and those countries were rebuilt by the US, and are now some of the most successful countries in the world because unlike the British, the US didn't exploit their weakness.

Thank you, America, for your staunch opposition of the Versailles Treaty - o wait, no, you supported it entirely and were one of the key drafters - you're just as bloody responsible as the rest of the Allies.

Nope.

You're incredibly wrong again.

What the US put forward was far less devastating than what the French and British did. In fact, quite damn reasonable. The British and French rejected what the US put forward because they wanted reparations and so forth, and also wanted revenge.

The US didn't propose any reparations or damaging measures against Germany.

And we helped rebuild Germany after WW2

How is that so, when the US was also rebuilding your country as well in the Marshal Plan? In fact, your country got about as much aide from the US as France and Germany combined did. GRAPH.

No, we realised that WW2 happened because of the treaty of Versailles and didn't act so retarded at the end of that.

Nope, you were no longer the dominant post-war force, and you had to follow the whims of the US. The US wouldn't have allowed to you to do just what you did after WWI.

Hell, at the meetings at Yalta, the US was the one who opposed proposals from Stalin and Churchill of what to do with post-war Europe. Both Churchill and Stalin wanted territory for fuck sake.

And that's why they held back humanity, because true innovation can't exist in a monarchy.

Again, total denial of the innovation in Victorian Britain. Because we had a Queen. I could provide a long list of important innovations in Victorian Britain, if you so desired.

Are these going to be even more of your complete lies?

You don't exactly have much credibility given the fact that most of what you claimed about Britain was proved wrong.

But it can exist in liberalized, capitalist democracies that exist in the world today due to the fact that empires like the former British empire no longer hold sway.

What's even weirder is that you claim the UK isn't a liberalised capitalist democracy, because we've got the Queen.

The UK is NOW a liberalized capitalist democracy. But it still is less democratic than the US in areas of separation of powers, and in areas of economic freedom.

But the liberalized, capitalist democracies that exist today wouldn't were it not for the soft influence of the US.

And the former British Empire still holds sway, anyway, there's still the Commonwealth of Nations.

So would that mean you're saying you're still an empire and in fact have not changed your ways and made amends?

At 12/19/07 06:24 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/19/07 06:03 AM, Brick-top wrote: lol You guys are so angry. Lighten up. Have a cookie

I'm out of cookies, that's why I'm angry.

Come on guys. Be happy. It's the festive season. I've been so nice to people in the street today. I had a lovely conversation with a total stranger for no reason whatsoever.

And I'll say again you guys are way off topic.

At 12/19/07 07:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Based on history, had the Brits not been so dependent and vulnerable to the US after WWII, they would have done to Germany and Italy what they did to the Central powers in WWI. There would be NO historic precedent for the British doing anything different, because they were a greedy empire, that's what they did.

That's funny, I could of sworn. Britain defeated Spain in the napoleonic wars, then France backstabbed spain by invading them, And Britain liberated Spain and Portugal, restored their goverment, and could of easily stayed there. Do you know what they asked for in return, To follow Britains suit and Ban slavery. O know. Britain did something good.

And don't be so stupid. America saw that One of the main reasons for WW2 was because of the unfair demands on Germany after WW1. Of which America was one of the powers even so doing remarkably little in it.

And when I was saying the atrocities in war, I wasn't talking about the war itself. I was talking about the terrible things some of the gd old Americans did.

Also cellardoor. Britain didn't wan't terriotry of the countries it defeated. Britain wanted Peace.

His Idea of a united Europe wasn't so that Britain had an iron fist over europe. It was to improve Franco-German relations and eventually other european countries, to prevent Conflict. It's a mistake, pricks like your self make.

At 12/19/07 01:29 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/19/07 07:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Based on history, had the Brits not been so dependent and vulnerable to the US after WWII, they would have done to Germany and Italy what they did to the Central powers in WWI. There would be NO historic precedent for the British doing anything different, because they were a greedy empire, that's what they did.

That's funny, I could of sworn. Britain defeated Spain in the napoleonic wars, then France backstabbed spain by invading them, And Britain liberated Spain and Portugal

HAHA liberated?

And don't be so stupid. America saw that One of the main reasons for WW2 was because of the unfair demands on Germany after WW1.

And the funny thing is that the 14 measures the US proposed for the Treaty of Versailles to end WWI was not harsh at all, as opposed to what the Brits and French put for which consisted of reparations, and basically revenge.

Of course you conveniently left that part out of the quote because you can't deal with it.

Of which America was one of the powers even so doing remarkably little in it.

Tawc, holy hell you just keep lying out of your ass after you get proved wrong ALL THE TIME. After you just get battered and bruised in previous threads, you come back in and start talking smack about the very same subject you know you always get proved wrong in.

At 12/19/07 01:37 PM, tawc wrote: Also cellardoor. Britain didn't wan't terriotry of the countries it defeated. Britain wanted Peace.

Britain was an Empire that simply wanted more power, and had absolutel no desire for a benevolent compromise. The only reason Britain and Russia didn't cut up western Europe for their own countries was because the US prevented it, just like the US was the only power in WWI that didn't want the allies to exploit and oppress the countries that were defeated or vulnerably.

His Idea of a united Europe wasn't so that Britain had an iron fist over europe. It was to improve Franco-German relations and eventually other european countries, to prevent Conflict. It's a mistake, pricks like your self make.

Tawc, when are you going to realize that you have ZERO credibility? Everything you ever say is just crap you make up off of the top of your head as you go along. What you did, yet again, right now... is completely ignore the facts that were provided, and instead you fabricate new ones that are more convenient for you.

Quit talking out of your ass.

Actually cellar, that's not quite right.

The French were the ones who wanted REALLY harsh treatment of Germany, so did the British people.

David Lloyd George, however, privately was more moderate than he said he would be. So it was Clemenceau who was harshest, with Wilson the one for most liberal treatment, with George in the middle.

Wilson was a good man but some of his Fourteen Points were flawed. Self-determination, for example, was used by Hitler as an excuse to invade the areas surrounding Germany. The League of Nations was a good idea, but it was undermined by the fact that the USA, Russia and Germany took no part in it until later.

His idea, fair treatment to ensure a richer and more peaceful world, was a good one but he lacked experience and agreed to support Clemenceau's 'punishment' of Germany if France joined the League.

The British people may have been angry at Germany, but in actual fact their leader at Versailles was much more moderate. Saying that the US was the only country which didn't want to exploit its enemy isn't strictly correct. Anyway, you have to view this in context. The people had been devastated by the war. They were hungry and half a generation had been wiped out. Right now, we can look back with perspective at them but it was a different situation.

But yes, George agreed with Wilson on a lot of his points. And if he had supported the French on everything, then it would have been a LOT worse for the Germans.

There really isn't one the royal family is simply a bi-product of Britains creeping from monarchism to democracy. Since we had no reveloution we didn't kill them like the French did, it was just a slow and steady process of taking power from them to our parliament. I think charles will be the last king, after that the line will cease to produce heirs worthy of the title and society will resent the royals grip on land and money.

At 12/19/07 08:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/19/07 01:29 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/19/07 07:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Based on history, had the Brits not been so dependent and vulnerable to the US after WWII, they would have done to Germany and Italy what they did to the Central powers in WWI. There would be NO historic precedent for the British doing anything different, because they were a greedy empire, that's what they did.

That's funny, I could of sworn. Britain defeated Spain in the napoleonic wars, then France backstabbed spain by invading them, And Britain liberated Spain and Portugal

HAHA liberated?

HAHA yes liberated. Defeating the french in Spain and restoring the country to it's previous state.
Prick

Of which America was one of the powers even so doing remarkably little in it.

Tawc, holy hell you just keep lying out of your ass after you get proved wrong ALL THE TIME. After you just get battered and bruised in previous threads, you come back in and start talking smack about the very same subject you know you always get proved wrong in.

I've rarely talked about WW1, but yes America didn't do that much. They only did slightly more than Canada (of course Canada did a huge huge amount in relation to the size of their country.

At 12/19/07 01:37 PM, tawc wrote: Also cellardoor. Britain didn't wan't terriotry of the countries it defeated. Britain wanted Peace.

Britain was an Empire that simply wanted more power, and had absolutel no desire for a benevolent compromise. The only reason Britain and Russia didn't cut up western Europe for their own countries was because the US prevented it, just like the US was the only power in WWI that didn't want the allies to exploit and oppress the countries that were defeated or vulnerably.

Show me something to back it up you twat. Maybe the people of Britain, just like the people of America wanted something back from the axis after the war. And I expect alot of people in goverment for both the US and Britain wanted revenge and such. But Churchill at the time wanted peace. Don't get me wrong he loved the Empire, and he wanted to hold on to it. But he didn't want to gain any through violent means.

His Idea of a united Europe wasn't so that Britain had an iron fist over europe. It was to improve Franco-German relations and eventually other european countries, to prevent Conflict. It's a mistake, pricks like your self make.

Tawc, when are you going to realize that you have ZERO credibility? Everything you ever say is just crap you make up off of the top of your head as you go along. What you did, yet again, right now... is completely ignore the facts that were provided, and instead you fabricate new ones that are more convenient for you.

here you go wanker.

At 12/13/07 08:28 PM, Brick-top wrote: Me and Columbo have a question.

What is the fucking point of the Royal Family?

Are they representatives and ambassadors for the country? So the rest of the world needs to think we're all mega rich, super ugly snobs that live in solid gold houses? Don't think so.

Is it tradition? That's one expensive tradition. I'm sure the tourists going around in the mind numbing tours to see Buckingham Palace will love you for it.

Why do we even need them? What is their responsibility on this little Island?

Before I start, I'm English.

The reason we still have them is because, you may be surprised to hear, they actually do make us money. Yes, they cost a lot, but they bring in an alarming amount of tourists who come to see the queen. Also, it's traditional, and in theory the monarch has the power of law to rule the country over the government, they just don't use it.

At 12/20/07 01:58 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/19/07 08:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/19/07 01:29 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/19/07 07:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Based on history, had the Brits not been so dependent and vulnerable to the US after WWII, they would have done to Germany and Italy what they did to the Central powers in WWI. There would be NO historic precedent for the British doing anything different, because they were a greedy empire, that's what they did.

That's funny, I could of sworn. Britain defeated Spain in the napoleonic wars, then France backstabbed spain by invading them, And Britain liberated Spain and Portugal

HAHA liberated?

HAHA yes liberated.

Interesting, you mean retreating after having had a success against another power because the British forces were too weakened by war?

Prick

It's funny because basically 90% of your argument consists of hilariously childish insults. You have nothing to back up what you claim, so you end every sentence with "prick" or "twat" or "cunt".

At 12/19/07 01:37 PM, tawc wrote: Also cellardoor. Britain didn't wan't terriotry of the countries it defeated. Britain wanted Peace.

Britain was an Empire that simply wanted more power, and had absolutel no desire for a benevolent compromise. The only reason Britain and Russia didn't cut up western Europe for their own countries was because the US prevented it, just like the US was the only power in WWI that didn't want the allies to exploit and oppress the countries that were defeated or vulnerably.

Show me something to back it up you twat.

LOl coming from you... you never back up anything you ever say.

It's well known that both Stalin and Churchill wanted to control countries after the war, and this is what was being discussed at the Yalta Conference.

Maybe the people of Britain, just like the people of America wanted something back from the axis after the war.

Funny that you say Americans wanted something back, considering the US got nothing but burial plots for dead American soldiers. Meanwhile, the US rebuilt Italy, Japan, and Germany, as well as your own country, France, Holland etc.

And I expect alot of people in goverment for both the US and Britain wanted revenge and such. But Churchill at the time wanted peace.

Peace and exploitation of countries is not mutually exclusive.

Don't get me wrong he loved the Empire, and he wanted to hold on to it. But he didn't want to gain any through violent means.

Yes, he wanted to fight a war with the guise of being legitimate and benevolent, but then he wanted to use that to gain power for Britain, just like Stalin used the Soviet Union's strong position to gain land and annex countries.

The difference is, the British couldn't have done this because the US wouldn't have allowed it, and the British were enormously indebted to the US. The US was calling the shots for the western allies at least, couldn't really control the Soviets but could at least contain them. The British, as was their tendency, would have probably done what the Soviets did if they had that much power after the war. There isn't really any historical precedence for you to claim otherwise given the history of the British Empire, which Churchill wanted to not only keep intact, but increase the strength of.

here you go wanker.

Funny, because that doesn't prove what you said.

At 12/20/07 08:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/20/07 01:58 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/19/07 08:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/19/07 01:29 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/19/07 07:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Based on history, had the Brits not been so dependent and vulnerable to the US after WWII, they would have done to Germany and Italy what they did to the Central powers in WWI. There would be NO historic precedent for the British doing anything different, because they were a greedy empire, that's what they did.

That's funny, I could of sworn. Britain defeated Spain in the napoleonic wars, then France backstabbed spain by invading them, And Britain liberated Spain and Portugal

HAHA liberated?

HAHA yes liberated.

Interesting, you mean retreating after having had a success against another power because the British forces were too weakened by war?

What are you on about? After Britain Defeated the french in Spain. Britain invaded france. Britain came out of the napoleonic wars the most powerfull fighting force in the world. It could of easily Stayed in spain.

At 12/19/07 01:37 PM, tawc wrote: Also cellardoor. Britain didn't wan't terriotry of the countries it defeated. Britain wanted Peace.

Britain was an Empire that simply wanted more power, and had absolutel no desire for a benevolent compromise. The only reason Britain and Russia didn't cut up western Europe for their own countries was because the US prevented it, just like the US was the only power in WWI that didn't want the allies to exploit and oppress the countries that were defeated or vulnerably.

Russia, yes. But i'm sorry to break it to you. But Britain didn't. Show me a link or something which proves it.

LOl coming from you... you never back up anything you ever say.

It's well known that both Stalin and Churchill wanted to control countries after the war, and this is what was being discussed at the Yalta Conference.

Thats not proving it. Show me with your amazing skill of finding sources.

Maybe the people of Britain, just like the people of America wanted something back from the axis after the war.

Funny that you say Americans wanted something back, considering the US got nothing but burial plots for dead American soldiers. Meanwhile, the US rebuilt Italy, Japan, and Germany, as well as your own country, France, Holland etc.

I'm talking about the people of America. Of course they wanted revenge for a war so did British people. But both the British and American goverments didn't want it
. And STOP fucking saying all America asked for was land to bury their dead. That is the case for many countries. Countries which sacrificed alot more than america.

And I expect alot of people in goverment for both the US and Britain wanted revenge and such. But Churchill at the time wanted peace.

Don't get me wrong he loved the Empire, and he wanted to hold on to it. But he didn't want to gain any through violent means.

Yes, he wanted to fight a war with the guise of being legitimate and benevolent, but then he wanted to use that to gain power for Britain, just like Stalin used the Soviet Union's strong position to gain land and annex countries.

No he didn't. He wanted peace in europe you fucking twat. And he didn't want any controll over europe

here you go wanker.

Funny, because that doesn't prove what you said.

Yes it does. Actually read it.

At 12/21/07 07:39 AM, tawc wrote: What are you on about? After Britain Defeated the french in Spain. Britain invaded france. Britain came out of the napoleonic wars the most powerfull fighting force in the world. It could of easily Stayed in spain.

Britain withdrew from mainland Europe because its military was overstretched and overtaxed after the Napoleonic wars.

Russia, yes. But i'm sorry to break it to you. But Britain didn't. Show me a link or something which proves it.

Okie Dokie.

Thats not proving it. Show me with your amazing skill of finding sources.

You're in no position to request anything given the fact that you never, ever provide facts for anything you say.

Based on what happened after WWI, it is quite obvious that Britain not only wanted to maintain its empire but wanted to increase its power.

No he didn't. He wanted peace in europe you fucking twat.

Just like Stalin, Churchill wanted revenge and power.

And he didn't want any controll over europe

Yes it does. Actually read it.

I read it, and it doesn't prove what you said.

At 12/20/07 05:47 PM, ShmenonPie wrote:

At 12/13/07 08:28 PM, Brick-top wrote: Me and Columbo have a question.

What is the fucking point of the Royal Family?

Are they representatives and ambassadors for the country? So the rest of the world needs to think we're all mega rich, super ugly snobs that live in solid gold houses? Don't think so.

Is it tradition? That's one expensive tradition. I'm sure the tourists going around in the mind numbing tours to see Buckingham Palace will love you for it.

Why do we even need them? What is their responsibility on this little Island?

Before I start, I'm English.

The reason we still have them is because, you may be surprised to hear, they actually do make us money. Yes, they cost a lot, but they bring in an alarming amount of tourists who come to see the queen. Also, it's traditional, and in theory the monarch has the power of law to rule the country over the government, they just don't use it.

To start with, fuck tradition. It's gotton us nowhere. And why can't we turn their property that they'll eventually not able to afford into museums and hotels?

What would you rather do? Look at a beautiful building from 300 feet away, or sleep in one? I know I'd pick the latter. Also, how do you know the amount they get yearly is greater than the amount of tourists spend. And I'm not talking about the tourists that want to visit, I'm talking about the ones the purly want to visit and see the Royal family.

It is really a mascot, and they are not particularly expensive compared to the amount they do. Monarchy is traditional and whats wrong with traditions?

i don't think anyone's mentioned this, but, the queen has one good thing- that is, she can dissolve parliament if she thinks it should, so it would act like a limit to stop any mad prime minister from creating any silly laws

At 12/22/07 09:37 AM, Wampbit wrote: It is really a mascot, and they are not particularly expensive compared to the amount they do. Monarchy is traditional and whats wrong with traditions?

If your dad raped you every night that could be considered a tradition, yes? Well than what's wrong with it?

At 12/22/07 09:37 AM, Wampbit wrote: It is really a mascot, and they are not particularly expensive compared to the amount they do. Monarchy is traditional and whats wrong with traditions?

The thing is, they don't do anything. And keeping something around cos its traditional is the worst reason for keeping old habits around. I only view the monarchy as a financial matter. If they cost the economy enough to hire one teacher, then they've got to go.

At 12/22/07 09:37 AM, Wampbit wrote: It is really a mascot, and they are not particularly expensive compared to the amount they do. Monarchy is traditional and whats wrong with traditions?

TRADITIONS ARE USELESS!

At 12/14/07 12:27 PM, animehater wrote: That's a pretty fucking stupid National symbol. I propose a republic.

Bam

At 12/22/07 12:10 PM, Nightkuri wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:27 PM, animehater wrote: That's a pretty fucking stupid National symbol. I propose a republic.

Bam

I suppose a republic would make the whole Cromwell era seem considerably less interesting, though.

We need a royal family, to keep Cromwell interesting!

At 12/18/07 06:48 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 12/17/07 11:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Name one single invention in the last say... 50 years that can be credited solely to the British?

Viagra

The hovercraft?

Oh, wait, how about THE WORLD WIDE WEB?
Tim Berners-Lee > cellardoor6

If it wasn't for Berners-Lee, I wouldn't be able to type that, nor would you be able to read it.

At 12/22/07 04:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Britain withdrew from mainland Europe because its military was overstretched and overtaxed after the Napoleonic wars.

Britain emerged the most powerfull nation in the world. Britain could of easily stayed in Spain and Portugal.

Russia, yes. But i'm sorry to break it to you. But Britain didn't. Show me a link or something which proves it.

Okie Dokie.

Churchills Ideas don't seem any worse than Americas. It seems that Stalin and Rossevelt wanted thousands of German officers executed. Churchill didn't. That doesn't prove anything.

You're in no position to request anything given the fact that you never, ever provide facts for anything you say.

Fuck of. I can request what I fucking want.

And he didn't want any controll over europe

Yes it does. Actually read it.

I read it, and it doesn't prove what you said.

However, this is often seen as his supporting Britain's membership in a united Europe, which is far from the truth. Rather, he saw Pan Europeanism as a Franco-German project which would foster cooperation amongst European countries and the rest of the world and prevent war on the European continent. This can be seen in Churchill's landmark refusal to join the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)

At 12/22/07 02:18 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Viagra

The hovercraft?

Na, I'd stick to me viagra thanks lol