[knox]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

about the wedding, i tend to believe that if smth like this was happening here, there would be more opposition due to political/idealism reasons, rather than financial ones.

I think that's what Glice is trying to say. Like British people are kind of 'afraid' of having ideals these days and they keep using the same boring money justification, instead of saying what they really think out loud.

But I guess, unlike for many of us, there isn't a sense that "democracy is something we (the people) conquered".

[knox]

What do you mean? What do you find disturbing?

[Genteel Death]

 

[Genteel Death]

i agree pretty much with what nick said above.
plus, this video sums up the attitude the police is adopting more and more in london (and I imagine in other parts of the uk) when it comes to voicing one's disaproval.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eITZ-Rsc14&sns=fb

[SonicBebs]

she is well fit though

[knox]

protesting is a right.

and I agree with nik on everything and I understand what Nefeli meant now.

It's a dangerous idea, the idea that some people are better than others by birth. And they happen to be all 100% white too. The idea that we're providing you with a service with our theatre, we're protecting you from some unimaginable unknown danger, so we're entitled to live off your work.
Just because we can, and you cannot complain, otherwise we will arrest you. The less it makes sense the more radical they'll be.

[Pookie]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/la...olice-arrested

[!@#$%!]

happy international workers day, you cunts

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by knox

Well, I didn't even read properly that but:

Most economists agree that although it does generate some profit, the losses are greater (e.g.: losses for the economy because of days off, lack of investment in other areas etc.). The profits balance out the costs a little bit, but it still costs quite a lot.
.

Yes, elections are basically a total loss, and in African countries (and sometimes in the Americas too) they are generally quite dangerous and destructive wastes of time as well.

Originally Posted by Glice

The problem with arguing with economics is always these discrete revenue streams. That's why I mention the immigrant thing - it's easy to see an unemployed immigrant as an unnecessary drain on the economy, and easy to argue for it; it's equally easy to argue against it, because s/he still needs food, housing, beer as well as contributing to the building of Orthodox churches, synagogues, mosques etc.

.

I try to make that point to Americans when discussing amnesty but across the color line most Americans are very much xenophobic if not blatantly racist. They are also bitterly naive. Here in LA we STILL have the residual racism from the Prop187 days and it fucking sucks. So many people still believe the myth that immigrants cost tax payers money simply because they do not pay federal income taxes. Illegal immigrants in the US contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the tax system through sales taxes, state payroll taxes (even if on skewed books), property taxes (even if just in payin their rent, somebody owns the building and that person is paying some taxes on it), etc etc. Only racists jackasses believe that illegal immigrants are a net drain on our society, the Congressional Budget Office and the IRS release statistics every year that beg to differ.. Plus the economy as a whole booms because of exploitation wage structures..

Originally Posted by knox

As for the immigrants, it's not that easy. It's a fact that immigrants = profit and growth but that can be easily ruined with a shit/neglectful immigration policy.

The argument monarchy brings tourism is one of the weakest I can think of.

.

Did you not see the crowds of people visiting the UK or the piles of endless crappy souvenier merchandise? Are you blind or just ideologically blinded?

And in regards to immigrants, societies and governments actually make even MORE profits from shit immigration policies, it maintains the status quo of exploitation. Further it makes both sides afraid, the nativists are are afraid they will somehow lose something and the immigrants are afraid they will get rolled and deported by the Gestapo..

Originally Posted by Glice

Yeah - one wedding is a drop in the ocean compared to how much we subsidise them anyway, year-on-year.
.

Ehh, the UK invests approximately $100-150 million dollars annually on the monarchy, and while that sounds like a shitload, its really nothing. International tourism for people to come and take a quick snap shot in front of Buckingham Palace generates probably ten to a hundred times that for London alone! Again, the monarchy then seems to be a good investment for British economy, and further, extreme leftists aside, it seems that many Britons quite enjoy the sense of patriotism and commonality that the Monarchy gives them, one which we Americans simply do not have. Closest thing we have in the US is the blind allegiance to one political party, and that is hardly unifying, its actually more so divisive and insidious. The flaw in democracies is the lack of long term continuity, there is literally no time to make effective changes and progress as the political pendulum keep swinging back and forth between extremes like in 1984

Originally Posted by Nefeli

no taxes are paid, plus immigrants and good for them, invest all that money to their countries.

Come off it, in Greece NOBODY pays taxes, the place is more corrupt than Zimbabwe

Here in the US, undocumented immigrants generate HUGE revenue streams for the IRS and the states' coffers, as I pointed out above, in property taxes, in sales taxes, in skewed payroll taxes (ie, a corrupt employer falsifies their tax records to pay say regular taxes for one employee under legit SS# but actually have tens of undocumented workers doing the real labor, see you have to at least throw some crumbs to the IRS or they get very suspicious, after all they are not really that stupid or naive, more so just complacent)

and well..we have voted for far more idiots and dangerous people afterwards. but at least, you know..it was by choice blablabla.

And it being by choice actually makes you feel better? To be honest, that is the absolute worst part! In monarchies we can rightfully blame the sovereign, but in elected governments we have no one to blame but ourselves, and that makes it even harder to change things or accept them

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

i
suchfriends, in applauding this sham of an event you are applauding learned passitivity to the official state narrative of reality and actually trying to claim that THIS makes us less violent? that's not logic man, that's just absurdity. it disturbs me. you're equating things like comraderie and empathy and sincerity with our passive consumption of a media spectacle. an event totally seperate from us, one we are barred from. one we are subjected TO. this is tragic, because so many people think like this now. learning to feel empathy for media events instead of your fellow man. that's not good. neither was a FUCKING ROYAL WEDDING. if this is what they call culture, i refuse to accept it is even happening. they should be ashamed to show their faces. A FUCKING ROYAL WEDDING? this is culture in 2011? i get to post about it on message boards like some twat who thinks his opinion actually matters for shit to our ruling elites? oh blessed joy. fuck that. fuck them.

Listen, I played the anarchist role sincerely for years, it only made me more and more pissed off. Inevitably I came to my senses and realized that, yes, all governments are pure evil. Of course the Crown is bullshit. They have a distracting media frenzy to make both the Americans and the Brits forget all about the bombing campaigns in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a dozen other concurrent places. However, you missed my point. In the scheme of things, benign govt attempts at mass brainwashing are far more safe than martial law and tanks on the street like in Syria. Personally, I'd rather have a sham society based on puppeteering and charades rather than a dangerous society where every asshole with an idea in his or her head feel almost divinely entitled to force that agenda down the rest of their neighbor's throats in the name of democracy? In that regard, the monarchy is then harmless. Besides, its not the monarchy that is waging war, the monarchy is merely a symbol, its the supposedly elected, democratic regime that is fighting the wars, and pursuing self-defeating "austerity measures" so who is the real enemy there? A harmless old lady that makes millions of people feel warm and fuzzy (and true, pisses off and alienates a whole other segment of people) or a bunch of crooks in suits and ties that kill kill kill everyday as if it were just going to the office?

[knox]

I was talking about the wedding, such friends.
The costs/losses were greater than the profits.
And you complain about MY smokes, jeez.

Also, let's stop pretending that everyone who criticizes anything is an anarchist. It's a boring game.
Another thing, let's stop speculating that without monarchy tourists wouldn't be interested in going to the UK. That's bullshit.

[!@#$%!]

so glice & suchfriends argue that the monarchy is good for "the economy" because people waste their money in shitty merchandise; that's like saying cancer is good for the economy because it keeps hospitals and researchers in business (it does--but is it?).

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so glice & suchfriends argue that the monarchy is good for "the economy" because people waste their money in shitty merchandise; that's like saying cancer is good for the economy because it keeps hospitals and researchers in business (it does--but is it?).

you misunderstand me. I didn't necessarily say it was the best investment, I just said it was by no means a loss, and in the scheme of things, governments waste a lot more money are a lot worser things, like war and destruction. At least this bullshit wedding made people smile rather than die in the streets

Originally Posted by knox

The costs/losses were greater than the profits.


Also, let's stop pretending that everyone who criticizes anything is an anarchist. It's a boring game.
Another thing, let's stop speculating that without monarchy tourists wouldn't be interested in going to the UK. That's bullshit.

Were you even paying attention to this crappy Wedding? It cost pennies compared to the amount of revinues it generated, probably in bullshit TV ratings alone!! Again, I am not trying to say the pageantry is inherently good because it made money, just trying to argue against folks here who are saying that on top of it being morally reprehensible, it always was a loss of money which frankly is not true. I deal with truth, I would not lie just to support my own agenda or ideology, we have to call it as we see it. Sure, there are BETTER ways to invest $45,000,000 but in the scheme of things, couldn't we just be happier that that money was spent on a little over-top pageantry over say, yet another week of bombing campaigns in Libya (which cost approximately the same figures as the wedding). We can't be purists,we have to be pragmatic. The "elected" UK govt is pursuing nothing but austerity measures, so we can't honestly expect them to have invested the money where it belongs, so I say pick the best of the worse evils. We in Rastafari believe in doing the best you can where you at in the circumstances that are there, anything else would quixotic or even arrogant.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

We in Rastafari believe in doing the best you can where you at in the circumstances that are there, anything else would quixotic or even arrogant.

And the winner of the most bizarre comment on SYG ever goes to...

[knox]

Not really, such friends. MOST studies show that even tho it generated profits the costs and losses (especially associated with the entire economy stopping with the days off) all things considered, it ended up costing them approximately 2 billion USD (estimates, of course).

Some like to claim it was profitable, but these statistics completely ignore how much the economy lost by giving everybody a day off.

Not that I care, that's not the point for me at all, just bursting your bubble a little bit.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by knox

Not really, such friends. MOST studies show that even tho it generated profits the costs and losses (especially associated with the entire economy stopping with the days off) ended up costing them approximately 2 billion USD (estimates, of course).

Some like to claim it was profitable, but these statistics completely ignore how much the economy lost by giving everybody a day off.

Not that I care, that's not the point for me at all, just bursting your bubble a little bit.

you can't burst my bubble with ideologically tainted numbers that are frankly not true. Its alright my dear, I'm used to it, that is the only way Americans argue also, very little substance, mostly conflated or misinformed numbers games. Do tell me where you found this "$2 Billion" dollar loss figures, because frankly it sounds a bit nonsensical. Who honestly believes the economy shut down? It was a Wedding for Christ's sake, it wasn't the Sabbath

[Pookie]

Samantha Cameron DIDN'T WEAR A HAT!

David Cameron told Nick Clegg he'd had to have his trousers let out!

[knox]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

you can't burst my bubble with ideologically tainted numbers that are frankly not true. Its alright my dear, I'm used to it, that is the only way Americans argue also, very little substance, mostly conflated or misinformed numbers games. Do tell me where you found this "$2 Billion" dollar loss figures, because frankly it sounds a bit nonsensical. Who honestly believes the economy shut down? It was a Wedding for Christ's sake, it wasn't the Sabbath

So you are denying that a country loses money when people take days off? Lol. Many businesses were closed for an entire week. Restaurants, bars and hotels are not the most significant part of an economy fiy.

Everytime people don't go to work when expected there is a revenue loss, sad fact isn't it?

The only way to call it 'profitable' is to ignore the 'days-off' factor.

[Pookie]

We were talking to a neighbour about the wedding and she said that you have to support anything British because the country's being taken over by Muslims.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Pookie

We were talking to a neighbour about the wedding and she said that you have to support anything British because the country's being taken over by Muslims.

And that's when you should have told her you are a Muslim, a big bad one.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by knox

And that's when you should have told her you are a Muslim, a big bad one.

I have worked with the public a lot in my life and am used to ignoring stupidity. My wife however is increasingly intolerant of ignorance and pointed out very succinctly (and without recourse to physical violence) that she was in fact talking out of her hat.