Rabu, 06 Juni 2012

Re: [Mufc] Re: The Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

 

Are some emails not getting through? I see DA quoted in the response but I
never got his original email.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:17 AM, dr_anova <pskarratt@hotmail.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In MUFC@yahoogroups.com, Paul Rodes <prodes111@...> wrote:
>
> > 1. The Queen works a hell of a lot harder at her job than I do at mine,
> and I dare say she's better at it. Where do people get this "doing very
> little" thing?
>
> Paul, surely the effort you put into your job isn't the objective
> benchmark by which everyone else is judged? I'm sure the Queen works hard
> at what she is expected to do (open shopping centres, meet-and-greets,
> entertaining dictators at the palace, etc.), but she doesn't have to get up
> at 5am for her shift at the factory, just to put food on the table for her
> family.
>
> > 2. If they weren't royals they'd still be incredibly rich. Most rich
> people have careers and wealth that are guaranteed just by being who they
> are. Haven't you noticed that yet? People just don't complain about it so
> much with the non-royal sort.
>
> In Britain they do complain about it! The Monarchy stands at the pinnacle
> of the British class system, representing centuries of accumulated wealth
> and status on the basis of bloodline rather than merit. Britain is not a
> meritocracy, which is why it has one of the lowest rates of social mobility
> in the developed world. It is why only 7% of the population are privately
> educated and yet go on to occupy between 24-70% of the top professions (
> http://goo.gl/p4Dp1).
>
>
> > 3. The foundation of almost every nation in Europe is bloody conquest,
> whether it has a monarchy or not. In most cases the absence of a monarch is
> also due to bloody conquest. Should the Frenchies stop singing La
> Marseillaise too?
>
> A lot of blood has indeed been spilled during the founding of many
> nations, but that says nothing about whether a 21st-Century society should
> be monarchical, especially in light of my point above.
>
> > 4. As a Yank (and an anglophile) I would pay good money to go see the
> queen, whereas I can't even name the presidents of Italy or Ireland or
> Germany, the kind of ceremonial figurehead they would replace her with. Why
> would anyone prefer that?
>
> Let's flip the argument. Would you really come to the UK rather than
> Italy, Ireland or Germany just BECAUSE of the Queen? And what does it mean
> to say you'd pay good money to see her? You'd be lucky to catch a 10-second
> glimpse as she passes by in a carriage. I fear you'd go home disappointed
> if you spent thousands of dollars for that experience.
>
> As for your question about who should replace her, it's simple: Someone
> who is elected to that position.
>
>
>
> > 5. A midfielder! Praise be! :-)
>
> Agreed!
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Subscription info WWW http://red11.org/list

Reply to: Mufc@yahoogroups.com
Mufc-subscribe@yahoogroups.com  = subscribe to the list.
Mufc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com = unsubscribe from the list.
Post message MUFC@yahoogroups.com
.

__,_._,___

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar