Juan Carlos

[Dr. Croccer]

What I'm advocating happened quite before socialism was around and it was done by the bourgeois.

Doesn't change the fact that it amounts to the same thing. Forced appropriation of the former ruling class' property by the new one. I fail to see how the fact that it was done by the middle class somehow makes it okay.

And if it was really socialist, you would probably support it. Wouldn't you?

I don't support forced appropriation of anyone's property under any circumstances, whereas you do when it's done against people you personally dislike, and simultaneously oppose it when others do it to others.

Leaving the property issue aside, and given the lack of answer on the rest, I guess you agree with me, none of the argument presented in the video make the royal family a necessity.

Well, no, because I never said that he royal family was a 'necessity'. Just that there's no logical reason to get rid of them. You were the one who claimed that they were parasites, and I pointed out that the British royal family is a net contributor to the British state, and a president would only cost more.

[Basil II the B.S]

Well, no, because I never said that he royal family was a 'necessity'. Just that there's no logical reason to get rid of them. You were the one who claimed that they were parasites, and I pointed out that the British royal family is a net contributor to the British state, and a president would only cost more.

Government-run lands generate that net contribution, not the family. Pragmatically speaking, expropriation would be by far the better choice, the family is useless and the average Brit would be better off without them.

[Count of Montesano]

If it's any consolation, Michelle Obama took a bunch of girlfriends for an extremely spendy shopping spree in Europe during the height of the American recession. Granted, the Obamas did pay out of pocket for a lot of things, but it was still a very tone deaf move with so many American families struggling to keep the lights on.

[Dr. Croccer]

Government-run lands generate that net contribution, not the family.

No, it isn't, Crown Estates are managed by the Crown Estates. Again, they're a private corporation, not a part of the British state. They remain the legal property of the Queen, who donates the proceeds to Parliament. Why is this so hard to understand?

Pragmatically speaking, expropriation would be by far the better choice, the family is useless and the average Brit would be better off without them.

Even though you've yet to prove that. What we've established thus far is that the abolition of the monarchy would only cost the state more money. In the even of a President not being created, the PM would get more power, and, as we all know, British Prime Ministers have such a wonderful recent track record regarding honesty, appropriation of government funds and listening to the public.

Since when is blatant violation of the law 'pragmatism'? Again, by the same logic, why don't we expropriate all major corporations, they're no different in any legal or practical sense?

[Basil II the B.S]

No, it isn't, Crown Estates are managed by the Crown Estates. Again, they're a private corporation, not a part of the British state. They remain the legal property of the Queen, who donates the proceeds to Parliament. Why is this so hard to understand?

Hmm, okay, doesn't change the fact that the monarchy doesn't generate those profits. And 200-0 still beats 200-40.

What we've established thus far is that the abolition of the monarchy would only cost the state more money.

Lol no. If anything, the opposite. What exacly would be that cost? If the monarchy is abolished, the state will still get the revenues without having to give free money to a doing-nothing monarch. Abolition of the monarchy implies the loss of whatever they were entitled to.

In the even of a President not being created, the PM would get more power, and, as we all know, British Prime Ministers have such a wonderful recent track record regarding honesty, appropriation of government funds and listening to the public.

Which is still nothing compared to the history of appropriation done by monarchs. If monarchs had to give back every single thing they got abusing their power and position, they would remain with nothing left. And they should.

Since when is blatant violation of the law 'pragmatism'? Again, by the same logic, why don't we expropriate all major corporations, they're no different in any legal or practical sense?

Corporations never pretended to receive powers by gods in the first place. Corporations don't sit on a throne doing nothing but creating scandals for tabloids to write on. They actually produce goods for society. Comparison doesn't stand.

[Tiberios]

Lol no. If anything, the opposite. What exacly would be that cost? If the monarchy is abolished, the state will still get the revenues without having to give free money to a doing-nothing monarch. Abolition of the monarchy implies the loss of whatever they were entitled to.

Again, monarchs have the same duties as a President would have. The notion that monarchs do nothing is simply false. And the state will hardly save that many money if a President is to succeed the monarch. Like the monarchy, a President and his family require security, they have have official duties, their official residence needs staff and upkeep.

The notions that monarchs do nothing and that the expenses of a monarchy will all go away if the monarchy is abolished seems to be quite common, yet still false.

[Kanaric]

If it's any consolation, Michelle Obama took a bunch of girlfriends for an extremely spendy shopping spree in Europe during the height of the American recession. Granted, the Obamas did pay out of pocket for a lot of things, but it was still a very tone deaf move with so many American families struggling to keep the lights on.

blah blah blah, rich people will spend money. Who cares?

I bought a car in a recession, I guess I should go to prison.

[Facupay]

blah blah blah, rich people will spend money. Who cares?

I bought a car in a recession, I guess I should go to prison.

It's different when you are a king, you never lifted a finger in your life and all your money comes from the people and you are supposed to be a symbol.


Hunting elephants while your country's economy sinks and 1 out of 4 people are unemployed isn't very sensible.

[Menelik_I]

It's different when you are a king, you never lifted a finger in your life and all your money comes from the people and you are supposed to be a symbol.


Hunting elephants while your country's economy sinks and 1 out of 4 people are unemployed isn't very sensible.

Are people 4 years old to have hurt feelings about Elephants in Africa ? Let me cue you in something : African park owners made big bucks with this hunting and are laughing all the way to the bank.


Lets be frank, this the Socialist Party and Co trying to damage the newly elected Conservative Government by igniting the ''hey rich people are having a good time, please forget how we ed up Spain''.

[Facupay]

Are people 4 years old to have hurt feelings about Elephants in Africa ? Let me cue you in something : African park owners made big bucks with this hunting and are laughing all the way to the bank.


Lets be frank, this the Socialist Party and Co trying to damage the newly elected Conservative Government by igniting the ''hey rich people are having a good time, please forget how we ed up Spain''.

I'm not talking about animal rights, I'm talking about going to exotic, and as you said, expensive hunting trips while your country's economy is going down the toilet and the people who pay your bills are considered lucky if they can keep their jobs..

[Menelik_I]

I'm not talking about animal rights, I'm talking about going to exotic, and as you said, expensive hunting trips while your country's economy is going down the toilet and the people who pay your bills are considered lucky if they can keep their jobs..

I am pretty sure He could find the money to pay for his holiday in the $1.7 Billions the royal family control.

This is all about the Spanish Socialist trying to distance themselves from the mess they created, smokes and mirrors.

[Sphere]

Didn't the Spanish Socialists run one of the most fiscally responsible government's in Europe staying well below EU guidelines for debt while Italy, France and even Germany exceeded them?

[Facupay]

I am pretty sure He could find the money to pay for his holiday in the $1.7 Billions the royal family control.

This is all about the Spanish Socialist trying to distance themselves from the mess they created, smokes and mirrors.

I wonder how did the royal family got the 1.7 billions...

[Menelik_I]

Didn't the Spanish Socialists run one of the most fiscally responsible government's in Europe staying well below EU guidelines for debt while Italy, France and even Germany exceeded them?

Not screwing was too painful , so the Spanish Socialist decided to nuke the Spanish economy back to the stone age with ''green energy'', so much that the country could the set of the next Green Lantern movie.

I wonder how did the royal family got the 1.7 billions...

Even Nigerian petty kings have estates and investments, so why not the King of Spain ?

[Dr. Croccer]

Hmm, okay, doesn't change the fact that the monarchy doesn't generate those profits.

Except they do, because it's theirs. The sole condition for the revenue even going to the state is because of a deal made between the monarch and Parliament, a deal that ends the moment the position of monarch is abolished.

And 200-0 still beats 200-40.

Except, for the third time, the monarch's private property wouldn't go to the state. Because it's their ing private property.

Lol no. If anything, the opposite. What exacly would be that cost? If the monarchy is abolished, the state will still get the revenues without having to give free money to a doing-nothing monarch.

Of course it wouldn't, because it wouldn't automatically get the private property of the monarch. Which is this hard to grasp? If an American

Abolition of the monarchy implies the loss of whatever they were entitled to.

Yeah, the position of monarch. Not the complete appropriation of their entire private property. The Crown Estates remain the property of the House of Windsor, and only a completely illegal act of misappropriation would change that.

Which is still nothing compared to the history of appropriation done by monarchs. If monarchs had to give back every single thing they got abusing their power and position, they would remain with nothing left. And they should.

Monarchs have been no different from most landowners and corporations at the time. Again, the personal property of the monarch and royal family have never been equal to that of the state. If you're going to have a completely pointless and subjective investigation of historical appropriations, monarchs won't be the only ones on that list, I can assure you.

Corporations never pretended to receive powers by gods in the first place. Corporations don't sit on a throne doing nothing but creating scandals for tabloids to write on.

This nonsense again? Are you going to do anything else but repeat the same debunked claims again?

They actually produce goods for society. Comparison doesn't stand.

*sigh* Again, why is this so hard to grasp? The Crown Estates are a private corporation. They generate products which are sold and have profits and losses like any other corporation. There's little to no difference in a legal sense, and you're only flinging emotional and subjective accusations at the people who own it.

[Thorn777]

Not screwing was too painful , so the Spanish Socialist decided to nuke the Spanish economy back to the stone age with ''green energy'', so much that the country could the set of the next Green Lantern movie.



Even Nigerian petty kings have estates and investments, so why not the King of Spain ?

Ah yes, and you can show a source for that showing the relation as a primary cause of all their mess?

Funny Green Lantern Germany isnt the topic with all its industry. Energy efficiency per capita is actually a great asset of Europe, well recognized by all sorts of geo analysts.

[Ishoss]

Yep, the guy even made communists into monarchists as well and is the only current monarch that truly deserves the title.

I agree he is perhaps the greatest but I believe King Harald V of Norway is also worthy of his title. He demonstrated his usefulness as a national symbol last year. Norway's monarchs have always been great figures when the nation has been hit with catastrophies. King Olav V and Haakon VII proved their mettle during the war.

But I agree Carl Gustav has done a few things which suggests he should not be a monarch. He should abdicate. Victoria will be a good queen.

[Thorn777]

I think she will be allot better at giving the royal treatment.

[Astaroth]

Except, for the third time, the monarch's private property wouldn't go to the state. Because it's their ing private property.

The crown estate is not the monarch's private property.

[Menelik_I]

Ah yes, and you can show a source for that showing the relation as a primary cause of all their mess?

Funny Green Lantern Germany isnt the topic with all its industry. Energy efficiency per capita is actually a great asset of Europe, well recognized by all sorts of geo analysts.

- 700 000$ per green job created
- 1.5 millions per wind farm job created
- 5 jobs lots for each green job created

Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources Gabriel Calzada Álvarez PhD. Universidade Rey Juan Carlos.

Funny that people are complaining about poor old king spending is own money instead of asking why the PSOE is still around after their magnificent job creation record.