Nik the Trik said:
That, and all the dumb comments on twitter from their fans/brainwashed idiots.
Useless Thread
- Thread starter Leafaholic99
- Start date
That, and all the dumb comments on twitter from their fans/brainwashed idiots.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Yeah, it's pretty painful. It seems as though as sports websites became just a smidgen more diverse/enlightened/whatever there was some great big migration of the worst of sports fans to places like barstool.
It's always a bracing reminder that we've sort of sorted ourselves into these little bubbles where we might have isolated ourselves from the most regressive examples of sports fandom but those people are still out there.
Two things. First of all, the royal family in England actually brings in more money to the country than they cost the taxpayers.WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Second, we pay $50 million a year to have the queen here. She holds a veto power and can be seen as a voice of reason. The Americans sure could use something like that right about now under Trump.
I will say however that I did not appreciate it when the queen made Stephen Harper our prime minister. Not cool. I also hear that the queen removed a sitting prime minister from Australia in 1975.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Can you source that for me please?
Also, be aware that I?m sitting of plenty of research that suggests quite the opposite.
Sorry if this post is too aggressive.
Also, be aware that I?m sitting of plenty of research that suggests quite the opposite.
Sorry if this post is too aggressive.
Hmm it was quick actually. Here is one link, I will be back with the other. And you guys should all be aware of what happened in 2009 if you live in this country.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
TimKerr
New member
sickbeast said:
You hadn't posted the second link when I responded. But again, thanks for being an arrogant pr***.
Maybe I should call you a troll who is ruining the board? Or does that only work when someone does it to you?
Yes, you are right, it costs Canadians $50M based on that article.
Kin
New member
So a couple of things:
1. I don't think anyone can say definitively how much money the Monarchy generates for the UK because at it's heart is a fundamental question with no real answer, namely do tourists come to see things because of them? Or do they see it for the history? I can say personally that when I went to London I went to the Tower of London because of what happened there in the 15th and 14th centuries, not because of Prince Charles. Also, people still go to see Versailles even if nobody is living there.
2. The link that claims that the Monarchy costs Canada 50 million dollars a year links to a study I couldn't find. Also, the study is by "The Monarchist League of Canada" who might not be the most impartial observers.
3. Most studies like this are bunk anyway. Ever see one of those "March Madness costs companies so and so billion dollars a year in productivity" headlines? Junk science based on guesses, assumptions and really bad logic.
4. It's probably not accurate to blame the Queen for decisions made by a Governor General or confuse the two. Also, if you're going to be pro-the Governor General having constitutional powers, you have to accept they'll use them.
1. I don't think anyone can say definitively how much money the Monarchy generates for the UK because at it's heart is a fundamental question with no real answer, namely do tourists come to see things because of them? Or do they see it for the history? I can say personally that when I went to London I went to the Tower of London because of what happened there in the 15th and 14th centuries, not because of Prince Charles. Also, people still go to see Versailles even if nobody is living there.
2. The link that claims that the Monarchy costs Canada 50 million dollars a year links to a study I couldn't find. Also, the study is by "The Monarchist League of Canada" who might not be the most impartial observers.
3. Most studies like this are bunk anyway. Ever see one of those "March Madness costs companies so and so billion dollars a year in productivity" headlines? Junk science based on guesses, assumptions and really bad logic.
4. It's probably not accurate to blame the Queen for decisions made by a Governor General or confuse the two. Also, if you're going to be pro-the Governor General having constitutional powers, you have to accept they'll use them.
bustaheims
Well-known member
sickbeast said:
This is a poor misrepresentation of what actually happened. While it's true that the Liberals and the NDP had an agreement to form a coalition (with the support of the Bloc Quebecois), the Queen didn't veto anything. The Governor-General granted Harper's request to prorogue parliament. These are two different things, and, while the GG is the Queen's representative, I can't find any definitive evidence the decision to grant the prorogue was approved by the Queen - never mind mandated by Her Majesty.
Over the course of the prorogue, the Liberals changed leadership and the Conservatives changed their budget to something the Liberals were willing to vote for - which is how the Conservatives maintained power. Still, no evidence of direct involvement from the Queen.
Make no mistake, the governor general is a figurehead of the queen. She is here by proxy. I'm personally kind of indifferent to it. I see the good and the bad. But once Charles is king I will probably want rid of it. The current queen I don't mind. Charles is an idiot though.