The country topic........

[Lemmy Claypool]

It's all under control so far. Heated debate is fine so long as nobody throws a tantrum or starts calling names. If this thread starts going all GameFAQs I'll shut it down berore you can say "fk u fagt noob".

[Aerolithe Lion]

You can't compare the Queen of England to Michelle Obama! The Queen represents hundreds of years of English Monarchy, some Scottish, much of which has shaped a great deal of the world! Putting any Obama in the same line as the Queen is laughable; the Royal Family is also adored by the majority of the country (apart from those clueless anarchists) and they unite the whole country in a way that no politician would be able to (unless you count Churchill back during the war.) That 'title' she is 'living off' carries with it a history of gold which NO American president could compare too. Your logic is that the Queen is to Michelle Obama what Cameron is to Barack Obama. That makes very little sense to me

Well in conjecture, the British monarchy was pretty despised by commoners for a large part of those 'hundreds of years', as to why it's no longer a Monarchy. Also, it's not as if the first lady idea is a new thing with the current presidency. 'Hundreds of years' would also suffice in that regard. And besides, I'm comparing the current governmental responsibilities of the Queen. Not what some King did 600 years ago.

It seems the country topic is a bomb waiting to go off, people don't seem to like when you compare it to the wrong thing.

Do you?

Lemmy's edit: Try not to double post please Aerolithe

[Hirathien]

Hello Mr Doubleposter, no, I do not have any issue whatsoever if people would compare anything to something which I'd think is a stretch.

If you want to compare things blindly, by all means, have at you.

[LadyCyclone]

the Royal Family is also adored by the majority of the country (apart from those clueless anarchists)

This is something of a sweeping generalisation. There are many different schools of thought within anarchism and not all of it goes hand in hand with anti-royalist sentiment. In fact, it is such a broad ideology that not only are there differences from subsect to subsect, many of them actually contradict one another.

Though I don't consider myself a true anarchist as such (I'm in no way politically active) I do identify with many anarchistic philosophies much more than any other part of the political spectrum. That being said, I'm also literally the only person I know personally that has no problem with the royal family. Where I live the general consensus (though granted not amongst everybody, obviously) is that they are a bunch of inbred, out of touch, freeloading, toffee-nosed wastes of space. So your statement that most of the country adore them is also a generalisation. I however don't share such resentful sentiments and actually quite like the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world to still uphold a monarchy, even if they are little more than figureheads.

Just don't tar us all with the same brush

Plus I like to think that I'm not quite clueless, but that is yet to be medically confirmed.

It has become a nasty habit of mine to express a thought in full only haphazardly; perhaps I should have worded it differently? When I speak of anarchists, I refer to the ones (and there are an awful lot of these ones) who are so against the royal family that they would be happy to storm the palace and shoot the lot of them, French-revolution style; the same ones who graffiti over Churchill's statue and who are so dim that they believe rich=evil and poor=good/victimized. My statement also about the majority of citizens adoring them refers to how united the country became, for example, during the Queen's Jubilee and the celebrations of individuals, as though it were Christmas; I don't think anyone would have expected to see just how much they are loved. Obviously different places within the island are either for or against in certain areas; for example, as I'm sure you know, there are a lot of places in London where people are repelled by the royal family, certainly where I live, and it would appear they want to see them abolished. But they are not only disregarding the revenue they bring in, but also the history associated with them. I tend not to mince my words but I do like to think I'm smart enough not to generalize ... For example, all Jews are greedy, all blacks are criminals, all Americans are obese - I suspect my laziness of connecting brain to paper is proving a hindrance?

[LadyCyclone]

You can't compare the Queen of England to Michelle Obama! The Queen represents hundreds of years of English Monarchy, some Scottish, much of which has shaped a great deal of the world! Putting any Obama in the same line as the Queen is laughable; the Royal Family is also adored by the majority of the country (apart from those clueless anarchists) and they unite the whole country in a way that no politician would be able to (unless you count Churchill back during the war.) That 'title' she is 'living off' carries with it a history of gold which NO American president could compare too. Your logic is that the Queen is to Michelle Obama what Cameron is to Barack Obama. That makes very little sense to me

Well in conjecture, the British monarchy was pretty despised by commoners for a large part of those 'hundreds of years', as to why it's no longer a Monarchy. Also, it's not as if the first lady idea is a new thing with the current presidency. 'Hundreds of years' would also suffice in that regard. And besides, I'm comparing the current governmental responsibilities of the Queen. Not what some King did 600 years ago.

Hardly hundreds of years; the states are a fairly young country so you can't compare the British Monarchy to the American Presidency. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the monarchy was despised by commoners during the large part of their reign; it's always been a cliche for the poor to despise the rich; but during the reign of Elizabeth I, for example, the people loved her, because she loved them back and showed them just how much she did. In fact, the Tudors were very popular with the general population. Perhaps you're thinking of Cromwell and the Stuarts? Charles I, only one king of many. Any monarch will be despised if they are tyrannical but if the monarch openly loves the people then many people will feel the same way back.

You might be comparing today's Queen to the governmental positions of America, rather than 'some king' hundreds of years ago, but you're totally disregarding the history behind the royal families, which I've mentioned before. My suggestion is you order a book of British History, read about the wealth of history in there and then perhaps you might retract your response. Your attitude towards the history of the monarchy is rather blithe but I can only put this down to a lack of knowledge.

[Aerolithe Lion]

The US presidency was established in 1787. That was quite literally hundreds of years ago

[LadyCyclone]

English (I meant to say English originally in my last post) Monarchy has been flitting since 400 AD. That's something of a huge gap til 1787.

[Hirathien]

The US presidency was established in 1787. That was quite literally hundreds of years ago

Ah, do tell us the humble tale of your country, how it was established and all that. Let's see if it's all glory and praising presidents.

[Noraibah]

The political and economic situation is currently extremely unstable. The political situation is now similar to Indonesia and the economic situation,well......the middle class are suffering terribly. If this continues.......there may be a Civil War between the Malays and the Chinese.

Edit II: I had just visited the Chinese district in KL's sister city and well, all of the men there seemed extremely unsatisfied and anxious.It's probably due to the fact that the Malay people are still obtaining many advantages while the Middle Class Chinese don't.The Upper Class Chinese are on the pinnacle of Malaysian society and the Middle and Lower Class are the Social 'Untouchables'
in Malaysian and Chinese society.