Bingowings said:

Happy not being run from Westminster day.

Wish us luck on getting our own please.

what do you mean?  Isn't Britain independent?  

everyone should watch this video today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyttEu_NLU

Anchorhead said:

FanFiltration said:

"JAWS" DAY!

Indeed it is.  Got it ready for this afternoon.

 

"...shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark will go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away.

Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes.

When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'."

 

 

I don't watch Jaws today,  I watch another movie.  Hint:  it takes place in Philadelphia, and its title is numeric with four digits. 

oh.  Well, you do at least have representation in Parliament, right?   Don't you also have a separate Scottish parliament?  Also I don't think that Queen Elizabeth exercises the same amount of power and influence in Scotland today that King George III exercised in America in 1776.    I believe the British crown used to be a lot more powerful in 1776 than it is today.

FanFiltration said:

Warbler said:

I don't watch Jaws today,  I watch another movie.  Hint:  it takes place in Philadelphia, and its title is numeric with four digits. 

But do you have the rare Laserdisc version with restored extra footage?

no, I don't have that.   I have the DVD.   I would love it if it came out on Blu ray with the director's cut(which what is on the DVD),  the original theatrical cut, and the Laserdisc cut.  It would also be neat to have a combo of all three cuts that is designed to get as close as possible to how the thing was originally staged on Broadway.  But I doubt that will ever happen.

not really sure why President Thatcher or Blair is worse than PM Thatcher or Blair.     

Is it not correct that in Britain, in order for a piece of legislation to become law, it has to be signed by the Queen?   Does she not technically have the power to block legislation.   This is a person who was not elected by anyone, but has her power solely because of who her father was.   I deem that as a horrible situation.   I am not saying to you should totally get rid of your monarchy,  I just think the monarch should have no power whatsoever.   Even if her power is just a formality, she shouldn't have it.  No one elected her.   I thank God I have no king or queen. 

you never answered as to if you have representation the British parliament.  In 1776, America had no representation in the British parliament.

Anchorhead said:

Warbler said:

I watch another movie.  Hint:  it takes place in Philadelphia, and its title is numeric with four digits. 

Dude, I don't think that's Philadelphia....

 

that is not the movie I was referring to.

twister111 said:

 

 

I like this picture very much.    Someone needs to do fan edit of this and replace Hitler with Bin Laden.

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Happy not being run from Westminster day.

Wish us luck on getting our own please.

what do you mean?  Isn't Britain independent?  

*sigh*

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

not really sure why President Thatcher or Blair is worse than PM Thatcher or Blair.     

Is it not correct that in Britain, in order for a piece of legislation to become law, it has to be signed by the Queen?   Does she not technically have the power to block legislation.   This is a person who was not elected by anyone, but has her power solely because of who her father was.   I deem that as a horrible situation.   I am not saying to you should totally get rid of your monarchy,  I just think the monarch should have no power whatsoever.   Even if her power is just a formality, she shouldn't have it.  No one elected her.   I thank God I have no king or queen. 

you never answered as to if you have representation the British parliament.  In 1776, America had no representation in the British parliament.

President Thatcher would be the head of state, she would represent the spirit of the nation and be the focus of patriotism

um . . . President Bush never represented the spirit of my nation to me, nor was he the focus of patriotism for me.  Nor is Obama.   I am sure most Americans would agree with me on both.

Bingowings said:

she would also be a professional transient politician, elected by under 30% of the people (who could be bothered to vote) that's about the same percentage of people who want to abolish the monarchy in the UK.

not sure why only she would be elected by only 30%.     And if you don't bother to vote, that is your problem, it isn't a reason to not have the country run by elected officials. 

Bingowings said:

Thatcher PM famously adopted the Royal We when announcing the birth of her grandchild and Blair PM frequently acted as if he was an absolute monarch as was one of the most hated people in the country until Brown replaced him.

well, this is why you have checks and balances on the power of the President.    In our country the President is not regarded at all as a royal figure. 

Bingowings said:

The monarch represents no single party, is trained from birth (usually) for that role, has only constitutional powers of ceremony (she is the living host of the crown, a symbol of state) and she is appointed by God (who kind of out-ranks the twits who get into debt paying for the pre-teens designer underpants and hardly bother to vote when they have the chance).

1.  you don't see a problem with someone whom is not elected having Constitutional powers?   Again is it not true that if she doesn't sign legislation, it doesn't become law? ?  Doesn't the person elected to become PM have to visit Elizabeth and kneel before her and get her permission before becoming the PM?   I'd have a HUGE problem with a non-elected official having that kind of power.      

And as for the concept that she is appointed by God, I have to believe that atheists and agnostics and whatnot have a huge, huge, problem with that idea.   Also I'd have to believe that Jews and Muslims and other non-Christian  religious people also have a problem with that idea, cause traditionally the God that is believed to have appointed her was the Christian God 

Bingowings said:

Personally I'm coming to the opinion that the monarch should be picked by lottery or a talent contest (it's something most people understand and could get behind, they'd get into debt with the phone company ringing in their votes for that show).

how about just electing the person?  And if only 30% show up to vote, that is who should decides things.   If you care so little that you won't vote, you have no right to complain later on. 

Bingowings said:

You win the right to wear the crown for life but can abdicate when it gets too much.

I'd say they should only be allowed to wear the crown for 4 years if it were up to me.

Bingowings said:

The Queen is also the head of the established church so imagine what a spaced out weird CofE there would be if an urban dance troop were the Royal Family.

As someone who is a big believer in the concept of separation of church and state,  I'd have a big problem with the head of state being the head of an established church.