Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.

I am reminded of the "not born of woman" bit from Macbeth. Does this mean if you were a Caesarean you can't be President?

dæl wrote:

AustonT wrote:
The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.

I am reminded of the "not born of woman" bit from Macbeth. Does this mean if you were a Caesarean you can't be President?

dæl wrote:The Queen wouldn't ratify a law removing her last vestige of power, and therefore give Parliament the power to make and pass laws without her.

She wouldn't have a choice the Royal Prerogative(s) can be removed by Parliament at any time Parliament chooses.

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.

But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.

The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.

Uh... would you care to give me an example of how a natural-born US citizen can be born outside of the US?

EDIT: But that doesn't mean you're wrong.

azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.

But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.

The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.

Uh... would you care to give me an example of how a natural-born US citizen can be born outside of the US?

EDIT: But that doesn't mean you're wrong.

Sure.
Should a woman who is a US citizen currently residing in the US become pregnant and give birth on a busines trip abroad or something that child born in, lets say Bali; is a US citizen.
Expressly mentioned in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and upheld by the Supreme Court, though replaced with different verbiage later.

the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.

But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.

The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.

Uh... would you care to give me an example of how a natural-born US citizen can be born outside of the US?

EDIT: But that doesn't mean you're wrong.

Sure.
Should a woman who is a US citizen currently residing in the US become pregnant and give birth on a busines trip abroad or something that child born in, lets say Bali; is a US citizen.
Expressly mentioned in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and upheld by the Supreme Court, though replaced with different verbiage later.

the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

Or a child born to a member of the US Military who is posted overseas

Maybe make another thread for this sideline of debate?

I wish i could be a british citizen. well.. born as such.

Kylie was on the stage too meowwwwwwwwwwww~.

Don't worry chum, everyone wishes they were British. The ones that say they don't; really want it but are lying to themselves.

Fortunately despite being surround by water we have notoriously porous borders, generous benefits and useless immigration officials, so come and see the Queen and stay a while.

But if you don't mind waiting it is only a matter of time before the Queen decides it is time to regain the Empire by unleasing the Corgi Corps on an unsuspecting world...

If only it would actually happen...

That would be pretty awesome...

Manchu wrote:Maybe make another thread for this sideline of debate?

No need. AustonT & Treadhead have convinced me. I'm done here.

I had a lovely time at the Jubilee. Watched the pageant from Parliament - the atmosphere was awesome, and the barge carrying HM looked pretty spectacular in the flesh.

I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.

Long Live the Queen.

Albatross wrote:
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.

It's not just me then...

But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check

Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check

Can you clarify this point?

Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

There is a significant difference between the UK and some gakhole dictatorship - a few million in the UK is an insignificant drop in the ocean to celebrate a tradition of rule which stretches back hundreds of years and hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies at the expense of everyone else living in absolute poverty being and brutally repressed and/or killed on a whim...

purplefood wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check

Can you clarify this point?

All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?

Bongo_clive wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

Can you clarify this point?

All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?

That's hardly blind, devoted fanaticism...
It rains all the time so that's no exactly a factor...
And she's done a fair amount of good (Charities and such) but also it's about her status as a symbol not just for the UK but for the entire commonwealth...
And it was quite a nice show...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

There is a significant difference between the UK and some gakhole dictatorship - a few million in the UK is an insignificant drop in the ocean to celebrate a tradition of rule which stretches back hundreds of years and hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies at the expense of everyone else living in absolute poverty being and brutally repressed and/or killed on a whim...

The Royal family don't need to dip their hands in, we GIVE them loads of money, but even so, Prince Andrew is just one example of sucking every ounce of privilege out of a position. And they've been doing it as long as they've been around.

Plenty of people live in absolute poverty in Britain.

And with the new laws of detention without charge, plenty of people are being repressed. Do you think they'd let you hold a demonstration anywhere along that route last weekend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

Can you clarify this point?

All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?

That's hardly blind, devoted fanaticism...
It rains all the time so that's no exactly a factor...
And she's done a fair amount of good (Charities and such) but also it's about her status as a symbol not just for the UK but for the entire commonwealth...
And it was quite a nice show...

Nelson old boy, her and her family have taken out a lot more than they've put in.

But then I'm Welsh, and that's probably where our view points are going to diverge

Bongo_clive wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

There is a significant difference between the UK and some gakhole dictatorship - a few million in the UK is an insignificant drop in the ocean to celebrate a tradition of rule which stretches back hundreds of years and hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies at the expense of everyone else living in absolute poverty being and brutally repressed and/or killed on a whim...

The Royal family don't need to dip their hands in, we GIVE them loads of money, but even so, Prince Andrew is just one example of sucking every ounce of privilege out of a position. And they've been doing it as long as they've been around.

Plenty of people live in absolute poverty in Britain.

And with the new laws of detention without charge, plenty of people are being repressed. Do you think they'd let you hold a demonstration anywhere along that route last weekend?

You're comparing a relative minority of people living in poverty to the massive famines and homelessness of 3rd world countries?
You're also comparing holding without charge (Admittedly quite bad) and not being able to hold a demonstration because something else was going on at the time to the active and brutal repression of people in, lets say China?
That's hardly the same thing, Matty has already addressed the issue concerning giving the royal family money. The amount they bring in for the tourist trade makes what they are given seem like nothing .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bongo_clive wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:
I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

Can you clarify this point?

All those people lining the bridges and river banks in the pouring rain, waving their little flags and going barmy for someone who is only there because of an accident of birth. I mean, I like the old girl, but really, what has she done for the lieks of you and me?

That's hardly blind, devoted fanaticism...
It rains all the time so that's no exactly a factor...
And she's done a fair amount of good (Charities and such) but also it's about her status as a symbol not just for the UK but for the entire commonwealth...
And it was quite a nice show...

Nelson old boy, her and her family have taken out a lot more than they've put in.

But then I'm Welsh, and that's probably where our view points are going to diverge

See previous posts about what they put in.
Being Welsh has nothing to do with it, it's hardly a Welsh national trait to dislike the royal family.

purplefood wrote:That's hardly the same thing, Matty has already addressed the issue concerning giving the royal family money. The amount they bring in for the tourist trade makes what they are given seem like nothing.

Oh why do I bother...

English Assassin wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?

Buckingham Palace visitor figures: 600,000 per annum. Cost of entry: £18 (I shall generously assume every visitor is an adult paying the full price.). Corporation tax rate: 24%.

Result: (600,000 x £18)/24 = £2,592,000. That's about less than a tenth of your estimate, even presuming that Buck House deducts absolutely no expenses from its profits. In practice, the figure will be vastly lower even than that, once the costs of commercial staff, advertising, insurance, security and business expenses have been deducted. So remind me: who must have flunked maths?

I also presume that you have never been to Paris. If you had, you might have noticed that Versailles is still quite the draw for tourists (2.5 million visitors per annum) despite no king having been in residence since 1789...

English Assassin wrote:

purplefood wrote:That's hardly the same thing, Matty has already addressed the issue concerning giving the royal family money. The amount they bring in for the tourist trade makes what they are given seem like nothing.

Oh why do I bother...

English Assassin wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?

Buckingham Palace visitor figures: 600,000 per annum. Cost of entry: £18 (I shall generously assume every visitor is an adult paying the full price.). Corporation tax rate: 24%.

Result: (600,000 x £18)/24 = £2,592,000. That's about less than a tenth of your estimate, even presuming that Buck House deducts absolutely no expenses from its profits. In practice, the figure will be vastly lower even than that, once the costs of commercial staff, advertising, insurance, security and business expenses have been deducted. So remind me: who must have flunked maths?

I also presume that you have never been to Paris. If you had, you might have noticed that Versailles is still quite the draw for tourists (2.5 million visitors per annum) despite no king having been in residence since 1789...

You might notice that people do more than just visit buckingham palace...
Food, drink, travel, stay...
It adds up eventually.

Edit: I'm a moron, you were calculating how much she gave the economy not how much was generated after tax.

purplefood wrote:You might notice that people do more than just visit buckingham palace...
Food, drink, travel, stay...
It adds up eventually.

For that argument to be valid, you would have to assume that tourists only visited London to see Buck House. Considering both the example of Versailles and the following 2011 visitor figures, that is unlikely:

SOURCE: AVLA
British Museum 5,842,138
Tate Modern 5,061,172
National Gallery 4,954,914
Natural History Museum 4,647,613
Science Museum (South Kensington) 2,751,902
V&A (South Kensington) 2,629,065
National Maritime Museum 2,419,802
Tower of London 2,414,541
St Paul’s Cathedral 1,892,467
National Portrait Gallery 1,819,442
Tate Britain 1,665,291
British Library 1,454,612
Westminster Abbey 1,394,427
Old Royal Naval College Greenwich 1,274,957

At 600,000 per annum, Buck House is only on a level with the National Railway Museum, York, Edinburgh Botanic Gardens or the Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art as a tourist destination.

Medium of Death wrote:Edit: I'm a moron, you were calculating how much she gave the economy not how much was generated after tax

I should have written it as (600,000 x £18)*0.24 = £2,592,000, but yes, it's tax revenue to the treasury that's the question. And as I said, though Buck House's expenses are not made available to the public, they would be considerable, and would likely reduce their profits (and thus their tax bill) to vastly less than the quoted figure. (10 - 20% pre-tax profitability seems to be the standard for cultural attractions run on a commercial basis in the UK.)

SilverMK2 wrote: hevent been sticking their hands in the treasury to fund themselves and their cronies

See the link I posted earlier in the thread about them using charity money earmarked for schools and those in poverty to pay to heat buckingham palace.

purplefood wrote:You're comparing a relative minority of people living in poverty to the massive famines and homelessness of 3rd world countries?
You're also comparing holding without charge (Admittedly quite bad) and not being able to hold a demonstration because something else was going on at the time to the active and brutal repression of people in, lets say China?

There are millions in the UK living in poverty, 10% of the population cannot afford to heat their house.
Holding someone without charge would not have happened if we had an actual tangible constitution.
And yes, not being allowed to protest anywhere at any time without police permission is repression, as is arresting people for pre-crime which they did before he royal wedding. It may not be on par with China, but is that the point we have to reach before people realise their rights have been eroded?

A funny, ironic twist, is that it is the unelected, hereditary Lords that stiopped that detention without charge going any further. If Blair and his creepy cronies had their way, they'd have banged you up for 60, or even 90 days without charge. Lords quickly put a stop to that!!

And this is why I do like the idea of a constitutional monarchy, keeps everyone in check.

As to the Welsh thing, I think you'll find we never asked to have a King/Queen of England as our head of state, and unlike the Scottish, we've never had our royal family incorporated into the royal line. the Queen means nothing to most Welsh, it's why we don't sing God Save The Queen, and why we consider ourself the oldest colony in the Commonwealth

Bongo_clive wrote:A funny, ironic twist, is that it is the unelected, hereditary Lords that stiopped that detention without charge going any further. If Blair and his creepy cronies had their way, they'd have banged you up for 60, or even 90 days without charge. Lords quickly put a stop to that!!

The majority of Lords aren't hereditary anymore, only 92 of the 786 are. And you'll note Warsi has just been caught with her hand in the till, a woman who has never won an election because she is an insufferable homophobe.

Albatross wrote:
I happen to think that British republicans tend to belong to that select group of people in our society that see people enjoying something and are determined to piss on their chips, because they think it makes them look astute and mature, when in fact the opposite is true. They just come across as moody adolescents.

It's not often I agree with Albatross, and this time it's like he sees the future.

Bongo_clive wrote:But if we saw an African or Asian country that was pretty much broke, with the gap between poor and rich widening all the time, lavishing millions of pounds on a celebration of the longevity of an unelected head of state, we'd shake our head and laugh.

I really don't understand the blind, devoted fanaticism involved.

On the other hand, having someone who has been trained for that role their whole life, hasn't wanted it, hasn't had to play the political game and all the crap that involves, is a pretty good thing in my mind. Keeps those devious, smarmy politicians in check