• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Let the taxpayer buy the Queen a new yacht says Tory

Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
Putin in Russia, who lives in opulence the Royals can only dream of.
Click to expand...

My diamond's bigger than your diamond?

Do tell what it is that makes the Royals dream in envy.

Coz I'm betting you're talking shit and can't come up with a single verifiable fact.

PS I like this single line quoting. Mr Small Bites. :p
 
[Deleted poorly judged personal attack on a man who's politics I find foul but that's no excuse]
 
Last edited:
Easy on mate, there's no need for that. Ad hominems don't make your point stronger, they just undermine it, because it looks like you have nothing else to say. You might not agree with MSB, but he hasn't resorted to bashing you, if you think you're better than him then you ought to be able to extend him the same courtesy.
 
Our system is very good? The gap between the rich and the poor are ever becoming bigger and with things like "work for your JSA*" and privatized prisons the country is slowly becoming a slave state.

*Capitalism wants unemployment to keep wages down. There isn't enough jobs in the country for every unemployed person in it.. By far.
 
jancrow said:
What are those examples of as some seem to relate to your previous point (loosely, I'd hardly call two non-successive presidents in America a dynasty) and one to your second sentence, and that's Putin, and there's only one of him living in opulence rather than a huge clan of Putins raping the taxpayer and lining up to take over once he's gone? I assume that his family are probably fairly well looked after and he's clearly a massively shifty bastard who I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy but that is a bit of a sideline. I would also point out that I'm not arguing for a presidency, never have and never would. I actually think that the PM / Cabinet model works reasonably well in theory, and I simply don't believe that the monarch has any significant influence on the democratic process. She signs shit off but it's a completely ceremonial role.

While I appreciate what you are saying about five years not being long enough to establish firm relationships with other world leaders I honestly think that you are overstating the queen's importance on the world stage. Let's not forget that most other countries (that we have diplomatic relationships with, anyway) shift leaders about as regularly as we do so there is no significant advantage in hanging on for ever and ever. She's 85 and has lived a largely isolated life during which she has never had to fend for herself, pass an exam, get a job or go to the shop for ten B&H and a packet of rizla. How can someone so removed from everyday reality possibly understand or represent our interests at home or abroad? How useful can someone who has never had to rely on her own resources be in the cut and thrust of international diplomacy? She's the one who, if I squint and I'm feeling generous I can just about see the point of. Yet you seem to be supportive of the entire royal family including the hangers on at the fringes and I can't see any reason for that but blind sentimentality.

I'm not saying anything about those presidencies beyond the fact that I don't think anyone can claim there's a significant pattern in Pakistan when it has been in existence for such a short time. I'm not making a judgement on the nature of the presidencies and it would be Knight's Move thinking for me to transpose those processes onto a British republic in any case.

EDIT: Also, Putin 'lives in opulence the Royals can only dream of'? Do you have a source for this comparison or is it more of the same brand of conjecture which I see again and again across the last couple of pages?
Click to expand...

I don't support the Queen's extended family getting an easy ride, I just don't care, and I certainly don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water (so to speak) i.e. throw out the Queen to get rid of them too. You say that I am the one peddling conjecture, but I posted my link saying the amount the Queen costs, where as you replied with 'no she costs more than that' with no source. Nevertheless, i'll give you a couple of examples (and SHM if he is reading this):

-Putin has his own jet, solely for him, that has gold plated fixtures and fittings. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/legacygallery/gallery-9700/Airfor-ski-Its-Putins-gold-plated-plane-.html)

-Putin has put his own friends and family in charge of various state institutions, which makes them a damn site more than any of the Royals do. One easy example is his cousin Igor Putin who is in charge of Master Bank. He has also made sure several of his friends become oligarchs, each with personal wealth in the billions.

-Whilst being in charge of the state, Putin has managed to amass a wealth of over $40 billion

Sarkozy has not one but 2 private jets, soley for him: http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2011/11/13/is-that-a-president-in-the-sky
 
vader said:
Easy on mate, there's no need for that. Ad hominems don't make your point stronger, they just undermine it, because it looks like you have nothing else to say. You might not agree with MSB, but he hasn't resorted to bashing you, if you think you're better than him then you ought to be able to extend him the same courtesy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I actually had my tongue in my cheek, but maybe this didn't come across!

MSB: My apologies, that was mean, but was meant to be a light-hearted post. I've not slept much in the last three days so my judgement is probably off.
 
knockando said:
I don't know what made me ever think MSB could be converted from this Middle England, nimby, Clarksonesque, reactionary, bowing, scraping and tugging the forelock caricature that he portrays into a communist of all things. If anything he's got worse over the festive season.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's reactionary about liking the Queen? Sure it isn't cool, or 'liberal', or Guardian reader, or whatever name we are using to call each other (as a side note the conformity in the non-conformity on here is lol worthy). Keep trying to tell yourself that you are changing the world with your arm chair socialism, but you'll never change me! :)
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
My diamond's bigger than your diamond?

Do tell what it is that makes the Royals dream in envy.

Coz I'm betting you're talking shit and can't come up with a single verifiable fact.

PS I like this single line quoting. Mr Small Bites. :p
Click to expand...

Look up a few posts ^^^ Not one single verifiable fact, but several :O:O:O If you were willing to bet me, the least I can expect is an apology, although I doubt you'd let your ego be dented by something like admitting you were wrong.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
It was a bit of an obssession for me. Military strategy, Russia/USSR, and socialism, are my specialities :D
Click to expand...

Military strategy and the USSR have nothing to do with communism. This is an example of why we talk at cross purposes. We use words to refer to different things.
 
knockando said:
Military strategy and the USSR have nothing to do with communism. This is an example of why we talk at cross purposes.
Click to expand...

They are 3 different subjects that interact and overlap nicely IMO. I have studied socialism in various guises; Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyist, Marxist etc. There is no need to talk at cross purposes because I have studied other subjects with cross over.
 
May I respectfully request we keep it civil children. And on topic please.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
They are 3 different subjects that interact and overlap nicely IMO. I have studied socialism in various guises; Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyist, Marxist etc. There is no need to talk at cross purposes because I have studied other subjects with cross over.
Click to expand...

Communism is a classless, stateless society. The USSR was therefore not a communist society. I'm sure I've tried to cover this before with you! I am deeply reluctant to try again with someone who claims they are an expert but refuses to get a simple thing like this! The Queen would be proud of you.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
-Putin has his own jet, solely for him, that has gold plated fixtures and fittings. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/legacygallery/gallery-9700/Airfor-ski-Its-Putins-gold-plated-plane-.html)
Click to expand...

Yeah and the Queen travels on Easy Jet.

-Whilst being in charge of the state, Putin has managed to amass a wealth of over $40 billion
Click to expand...

While not denying Putin's a cunt, this figure is the most wildly inaccurate (and out of date - 2007) that you could glean from one look at a google page.

But maybe you're right. Maybe every rich scumbag is really permanently in a state of misery being envious of the even richer scumbag on top of them.

Poor Queenie.
 
knockando said:
Communism is a classless, stateless society. The USSR was therefore not a communist society. I'm sure I've tried to cover this before with you! I am deeply reluctant to try again with someone who claims they are an expert but refuses to get a simple thing like this!
Click to expand...

This is where the confusion is coming in for you; I am not claiming that the USSR was communist! I have stated emphatically they are socialist, which many agree is meant to be the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. I was just telling you that I specialised in military strategy, the USSR/Russia, and socialism - all in seperate classes :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top