|
What the h3ll do we need a Queen for anyway?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kossack |
I seriously can not think of any practical reason why Canada should be under the theoretical command of an antiquated monarchist system. couldn't we use the vast amounts of money required to ship her royal bloomin' highness to canada and entertain her for something useful? (yes, i know there are some benefits to having a monarch, but i think they are outweighed by the costs!)
and just to be fair to her as a human being, how many times can a person really tolerate all of the incarnations of 'god save the queen' in one's life? |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| a few years ago there was this huge contraversy because money that was supposed to go into paying for extra medical equipment for Quebec city was instead reinvested into paying for one of the queens stupid trips where she sleeps at excessively expensive hotels and eats at excessively expensive restaurants. As an inderect result, people probably died because they didn't have the proper supplies to treat them. And you know what? The queen didn't even come to Quebec that time. I don't see why people who don't approve of a monarchy, and just plain don't like the queen to begin with, should have to pay for her expenses like that. Why do the british and canadians still pay for her expenses? I have nothing against her personally, but she needs to get a ing job and stop leeching! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| You should be grateful we let you have our Queen! If you didn't your country would fade away into the depths of international obscurity, like France! |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| I like the explosions |
|
|
| dave25285 |
| The alternative is to have a president which would cost just as much. So I just don’t see the point in changing. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by dave25285
The alternative is to have a president which would cost just as much. So I just don’t see the point in changing. |
No it's not. The alternative is to not have a queen. There's already a prime minister. The queen doesn't do anything but suck money. |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You should be grateful we let you have our Queen! If you didn't your country would fade away into the depths of international obscurity, like France! |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :haha: :haha: :haha: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| MarathonMan |
| I hate the queen! She lives off our taxes 0- bitch! |
|
|
| Dervish |
| Yeah and you can tell all the millions of tourists who come to see her pad in london to off too, we don't need their money. |
|
|
| kossack |
| yeh, but if there was no queen, you could charge 3 times as much to actually let people IN to ingham palace... |
|
|
| dave25285 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
No it's not. The alternative is to not have a queen. There's already a prime minister. The queen doesn't do anything but suck money. |
That’s wrong actually most countries without a monarch have a head of state (president) and a prime minister. Ie France, Germany, Italy, and Ireland all off the top of my head. USA seems to be the only exception, but in their case the president probably costs more than a monarch and a prime minister put together. |
|
|
|
|
