[solved]American questions for British people

No self-admiration intended in that post, Y. Loud or otherwise.  I don't really admire myself that much, tbh...I do tip well, though.  It's just reporting, not posturing...

I've never noticed any difference in the quality of service.

Last week I was at a Vietnamese restaurant and the tip was part of the bill. I hate that.

How can you show this kind of smut to children?

Is there a cartoon about a family of chodes, now? What the fuck, mate?

Well, I'll be damned. Never noticed that Peppa's face looked like a dick till just now.

You should see her dad and grandpa.

I don't know what TV show those pigs are from.

Peppa Pig is big news, my niece loves Peppa and is looking forward to a visit to Peppa Pig World.

Are the Brits excited about the Royal Baby or is this a media creation and most see it as one more inbred parasite that will bleed the nation dry?

This had been rolling news with no content what so ever for 12 hours today.

People are interested most people would say 'That's nice' I get the impression there's good will behind them but I think the media and especially The BBC in this country think it matters far more to people than it does.

We are a funny little country sometimes and this is one example of that.

i was reading about the Belgian change of royalty this week and it seems to me that the under reported aspect of European royalty today is that they aren't really just figureheads. they are pretty seriously woven into government affairs in many nations and have vague and far reaching powers that they mostly never use.

the Dutch ethnic factions in Belgium trying to fight for a change from constitutional monarchy to republic are interesting. i would personally be politically offended if i lived under constitutional monarchy at this point.

Constitutional monarchy? Ya want that? huh? do ya?


Really feeling the need to revisit this show lately, even though it's already ingrained so deeply into my brain.

jasperness wrote: i would personally be politically offended if i lived under constitutional monarchy at this point.

This is how I've always felt.

Living in a country where you get power from being in a certain family is annoying. Here it's not real power and it's just the Windsor. You've got Kennedy, Bush and Clinton.

For the record Queen Elizabeth II I have a lot of time for, she has done a very good job of it. Charles is an interfering bastard and will probably ensure the monarch is dead before this young prince gets near the throne.

Pete Best wrote:Living in a country where you get power from being in a certain family is annoying. Here it's not real power and it's just the Windsor. You've got Kennedy, Bush and Clinton.

I would feel less ashamed if we had a true hereditary monarchy in this country. Bush Jr. still required votes from millions of idiots. At least you guys have an excuse.

For all its faults I'd be surprised if the American system is particularly unique compared to other systems in disproportionately rewarding heredity or turning a blind eye to nepotism. Old habits die hard, and passing power down through families is one of the oldest habits there is.

i see where you guys are going trying to turn this whole thing on its head, but let's be real here. constitutional monarchy is a concept much more egregious to personal freedom and democratic values than nepotism in a republic. you can say that, in practice, certain American political families have been very successful at gaining power through generations, but to say that is "real power" and being the Queen of England ain't shit is pretty silly. being a Windsor is much more powerful than being a Clinton, in terms of the hereditary power associated with that name. the fact that Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton are by so many accounts, exceptional people, is separate from their name.

Yes, I agree I'd rather have some form of elected head of state than a monarch but other than in the constitutional sense it's very soft power. Yes, under the current system I can't be head of state but I don't feel that's a massive problem and infringement of my own rights.

Given a choice I'd rather keep the monarchy and have the House of Lords elected by proportional representation.

Pete Best wrote:Given a choice I'd rather keep the monarchy and have the House of Lords elected by proportional representation.

now that's another interesting beast all together

i'd love to do some deep reading on the powers of the House of Lords

This is the only House of Lords I acknowledge.

jasperness wrote:i see where you guys are going trying to turn this whole thing on its head, but let's be real here. constitutional monarchy is a concept much more egregious to personal freedom and democratic values than nepotism in a republic. you can say that, in practice, certain American political families have been very successful at gaining power through generations, but to say that is "real power" and being the Queen of England ain't shit is pretty silly. being a Windsor is much more powerful than being a Clinton, in terms of the hereditary power associated with that name. the fact that Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton are by so many accounts, exceptional people, is separate from their name.

I wanna poz this but I get nostalgic for a good negged Jasper post.

i do wonder if jasper's opinion on political nepotism would change if he were a chicagoan.

i don't see what the fact that large areas of urban poor are susceptible to corruption has to do with the fact that monarchy creates, in theoretical terms, a less politically free society than a nepotistic republic.