Can Someone Tell Me How The English Queen Is Part Of The G-20 Summit?

[Armelius]

Too many British and other Europeans tell me she is just a figurehead.

[themadscientist]

She knighted Ted Kennedy, show some love.

[smockers83]

She's part of it because her country is part of it?

Just because she's a figurehead doesn't mean she can't participate.

[Armelius]

Well I am sure glad I got that information along with news from an ABC reporter saying that the queen broke her iPod when she visited the colonies (US) last year.

[themadscientist]

Well many Americans treat Obamalamadingdong like the messiah so showing the queen some respect should not be too hard now should it?

[Armelius]

I guess I am not much for selling out to phony make believe monarchy crap. Call me a realist or a cynic but I think we should progress beyond that medieval thinking.

[themadscientist]

how are you for a cult of personality?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I guess I am not much for selling out to phony make believe monarchy crap. Call me a realist or a cynic but I think we should progress beyond that medieval thinking.

Calling the Queen a phony make believe portion of government is like calling, say, the judicial system phony because they don't have an "offensive" power.

The Queen is a functioning part of the British government, and uses her position as such.

Now, calling a constitutional monarchy "medieval thinking" is a matter for philosophical debate.

[Armelius]

Government is just one group of people taking advantage of another. The question should be who benefits?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Government is just one group of people taking advantage of another. The question should be who benefits?

Governments are people sacrificing individual freedoms in exchange for a social contract to remove man from the state of nature.

"The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

-Hobbes on a man existing without a social contract.

Everyone benefits from government, those that feel like they aren't are free to take actions to remove themselves from the social contract.

[Armelius]

Governments are people sacrificing individual freedoms in exchange for a social contract to remove man from the state of nature.

"The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

-Hobbes on a man existing without a social contract.

Everyone benefits from government, those that feel like they aren't are free to take actions to remove themselves from the social contract.

Almost hilarious. How about we just call government a religion? The true believers find nirvana or whatever, and those that dislike it will be in eternal pain?

Makes more sense that whatever Hobbes might say about it.

I am so glad that I was created in the ultimate image to eat and take a crap on someone like Hobbes.

[480sx]

Calling the Queen a phony make believe portion of government is like calling, say, the judicial system phony because they don't have an "offensive" power.

You are really bad with analogies..

I mean ffs, i want to dive into it but, thats just horrible and should spontaneously combust.

Charlio, maybe you need a quick Wiki on the Queen and what she really does and the power that she actually has..? Functioning part of the government...?!?! Lol @ comparing her to the judicial branch...

It seems as if your last post is just bait(apart from the original quote), and im not really feeling it.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

You are really bad with analogies..

I mean ffs, i want to dive into it but, thats just horrible and should spontaneously combust.

Charlio, maybe you need a quick Wiki on the Queen and what she really does and the power that she actually has..? Functioning part of the government...?!?! Lol @ comparing her to the judicial branch...

It seems as if your last post is just bait(apart from the original quote), and im not really feeling it.

The analogy is a reach, I'll agree.

However, if you look into the point, you'll find my logic is sound. The connection with the judicial branch's lack of power to offensively change laws can make it seem like the weakest part of government. It is not. It acts inside the powers granted it, much like the Queen.

From a quick wiki on the Royal Family's constitutionally granted powers:"the Sovereign's role is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honours.""When necessary, the Sovereign is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister""According to Lascelles Principles, if a minority government tried to dissolve Parliament to call an early election to strengthen its position, the monarch could refuse and allow opposition parties to form a coalition government.""The monarch may in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister...""The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.The monarch is commander in chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states."It is the prerogative of the monarch to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament

That last one I did not know, and is an extremely powerful...power.

The British Monarchy functions to the fullest extent allowed by the "British Constitution".

To dismiss it as useless could be interpreted as an attack on the theory of balance of powers on a whole.

Almost hilarious. How about we just call government a religion? The true believers find nirvana or whatever, and those that dislike it will be in eternal pain?

Makes more sense that whatever Hobbes might say about it.

I am so glad that I was created in the ultimate image to eat and take a crap on someone like Hobbes.

Wal Mart has tinfoil on sale. Would you like to me purchase you some?

[Cold_Zero]

The monarch is commander in chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.

Which was evident when Prince Harry's unit was being deployed to Afghanistan the Ministry of Defence and I am sure Royalty Protection branch (SO14) nixed the idea of Prince Harry being deployed to a combat zone. It was the Queen of England that granted Prince Harry his waiver to serve in Afghanistan.

[480sx]

Wiki - "Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign"

While the queen might have those theoretical powers, there is a few major issues with her being a figure of real political power. First and formost, those powers(namely the huge ones)? Have so rarely been used by the Queen that its as if she doesnt have those powers at all. If she were to try to exercise them, that whole part of their constitution(written in the 1600's) would come under so much litigious fire it would stalemate the government for a long damn time, along with whatever power play she made.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Wiki - "Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign"

While the queen might have those theoretical powers, there is a few major issues with her being a figure of real political power. First and formost, those powers(namely the huge ones)? Have so rarely been used by the Queen that its as if she doesnt have those powers at all. If she were to try to exercise them, that whole part of their constitution(written in the 1600's) would come under so much litigious fire it would stalemate the government for a long damn time, along with whatever power play she made.

Which was evident when Prince Harry's unit was being deployed to Afghanistan the Ministry of Defence and I am sure Royalty Protection branch (SO14) nixed the idea of Prince Harry being deployed to a combat zone. It was the Queen of England that granted Prince Harry his waiver to serve in Afghanistan.

Yup. Totally theoretical and never used.

Ever heard of the War Powers Act? If Congress would bother to apply it, it would theoretically change the way troops can be deployed.

[Cold_Zero]

It should also be pointed out that the Queen of England gets a daily/weekly security-intelligence briefing (similar to what the President of the United States receives) from the Prime Minister. If she was just a theoretical 'figure head' why even bother with briefing her?

[480sx]

"(namely the huge ones)" <--- The 'real' powers, the ones that you bolded, the ones that arnt used. The ones i specified and targeted out with my post. The ones you yourself realized were a big deal, and the 'real' or, frightening powers. Theoretical as they may be. The others arnt what i would consider power comparable to the justice branch. The 'power' you quoted that CZ brought up really isnt much of a power at all, just the power to protect her family.

Im not saying that she isnt powerful, but the lions share of the power is split between the PM and Parliament. Again, if the queen tried to exercise those massive 'theoretical(you can argue with wiki)' powers, the country would be thrown into the biggest legal flustercluck imaginable.

Whats the relevance to the War Powers Act(USA Government) and your argument(NOT USA government..)?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

"(namely the huge ones)" <--- The 'real' powers, the ones that you bolded, the ones that arnt used. The ones i specified and targeted out with my post. The ones you yourself realized were a big deal, and the 'real' or, frightening powers. Theoretical as they may be. The others arnt what i would consider power comparable to the justice branch. The 'power' you quoted that CZ brought up really isnt much of a power at all, just the power to protect her family.

Im not saying that she isnt powerful, but the lions share of the power is split between the PM and Parliament. Again, if the queen tried to exercise those massive 'theoretical(you can argue with wiki)' powers, the country would be thrown into the biggest legal flustercluck imaginable.

Whats the relevance to the War Powers Act(USA Government) and your argument(NOT USA government..)?

You're clearly too dense to get complex analogies. Enjoy your simple world.

[Cold_Zero]

The others arnt what i would consider power comparable to the justice branch. The 'power' you quoted that CZ brought up really isnt much of a power at all, just the power to protect her family.

Just a point of clarification, it is the job of the SO14 to guard the Royals. In my example, it was the MoD who was merely (I am sure) trying to mitigate their risk by not deploying a Royal to Afghanistan and SO14 was doing their job to protect HRH Prince Henry of Wales, not HM The Queen. When the MoD and SO14 went to HM The Queen, She was not acting as the Matriarch of the Royal Family, but in Her official duty. I think that you may have missed that point, however small. I must admit, since She is not my Commander in Chief and Her government is not my government. So I am not as well versed in the intricacies of how their government functions.

I just get the sense from you and a few other people that the old paradigm that was taught to us in grade school, that the Sovereign of the UK, Canada and Australia is just a ‘Figure Head’ has been bought lock stock and barrel. This paradigm may not be the case.

[480sx]

You're clearly too dense to get complex analogies. Enjoy your simple world.

You clearly got pwned so badly that you resort to personal attacks instead of defending the argument that YOU tried to make. Sorry, i have a habit of ripping fallacious and faulty arguments apart, maybe you should gtfo?

At least i can make complex analogies. Hell at least i can make them period. Considering that... In this same thread, you failed at making a simple analogy, then, in the same thread you attack my ability to understand analogies.. After you accepted that your own analogy was a 'stretch'(your being nice to yourself really) because i called you out on it, thus displaying my ability to understand analogies, their formation and use, then you say i cant understand complex analogies.. So, seeing as to how you cant even make a simple analogy(this is twice in the last few months, your only attempts), what makes you think you can understand analogies? Anyway, a real analogy is not complex. Thats what makes a great analogy, that it can be understood and enjoyed by most who read it.

That wasnt even an analogy that you tried to make(at least in your second to most recent post, i assume you'v moved on past your self admitted 'stretch' of an analogy), they are called parallels. In addition, AGAIN, it didnt support your argument. Your comparing tobacco to english muffins.

Complex analogies, what a joke you just became. Creating your own refuse that you despise so much. Enjoy thinking your the hottest s*** here while not being able to defend himself against a dense, simple minded angry hippie's argument.

Oh by the way, find where the war powers act has 'theoretical' powers. From the research iv done, those powers are pretty real and can be exercised by a POTUS. Multiple POTUS's since Vietnam have used it despite the fact that almost every POTUS since the act was passed has viewed the act as unconstitutional. In addition, they were written 30 years ago, Vs in the 1600's as the queens 'powers'. I was trying to get you to explain yourself in a way that gave you a chance, but you took the high road. Oh wait..

You can put the word theoretical in front of anything, but it doesnt necessarily make it theoretical. For instance ; Theoretically, Charlieo thinks hes more intelligent than anyone else here. That, in reality, isnt much of a theory.

CZ - Agreed. I definitely see that she is not the figure head that she has been portrayed to be. Still her true power is 'iffy' IMO because its never exercised. I go back to what i have stated in previous posts, if she were to try to exercise the bolded powers, i believe the countries constitution, especially that segment outlining her powers, would come under an immense amount of legal fire.
Modified by 480sx at 4:00 PM 4/8/2009

[smockers83]

You clearly got pwned so badly that you resort to personal attacks instead of defending the argument that YOU tried to make.

Closely characterizes a few people here.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

You clearly got pwned so badly that you resort to personal attacks instead of defending the argument that YOU tried to make. Sorry, i have a habit of ripping fallacious and faulty arguments apart, maybe you should gtfo?

At least i can make complex analogies. Hell at least i can make them period. Considering that... In this same thread, you failed at making a simple analogy, then, in the same thread you attack my ability to understand analogies.. After you accepted that your own analogy was a 'stretch'(your being nice to yourself really) because i called you out on it, thus displaying my ability to understand analogies, their formation and use, then you say i cant understand complex analogies.. So, seeing as to how you cant even make a simple analogy(this is twice in the last few months, your only attempts), what makes you think you can understand analogies? Anyway, a real analogy is not complex. Thats what makes a great analogy, that it can be understood and enjoyed by most who read it.

That wasnt even an analogy that you tried to make(at least in your second to most recent post, i assume you'v moved on past your self admitted 'stretch' of an analogy), they are called parallels. In addition, AGAIN, it didnt support your argument. Your comparing tobacco to english muffins.

Complex analogies, what a joke you just became. Creating your own refuse that you despise so much. Enjoy thinking your the hottest s*** here while not being able to defend himself against a dense, simple minded angry hippie's argument.

Oh by the way, find where the war powers act has 'theoretical' powers. From the research iv done, those powers are pretty real and can be exercised by a POTUS. Multiple POTUS's since Vietnam have used it despite the fact that almost every POTUS since the act was passed has viewed the act as unconstitutional. In addition, they were written 30 years ago, Vs in the 1600's as the queens 'powers'. I was trying to get you to explain yourself in a way that gave you a chance, but you took the high road. Oh wait..

You can put the word theoretical in front of anything, but it doesnt necessarily make it theoretical. For instance ; Theoretically, Charlieo thinks hes more intelligent than anyone else here. That, in reality, isnt much of a theory.

CZ - Agreed. I definitely see that she is not the figure head that she has been portrayed to be. Still her true power is 'iffy' IMO because its never exercised. I go back to what i have stated in previous posts, if she were to try to exercise the bolded powers, i believe the countries constitution, especially that segment outlining her powers, would come under an immense amount of legal fire.

Modified by 480sx at 4:00 PM 4/8/2009

*yawn*

You're the only person in this thread that still isn't getting it. I've hardly been pwned. You just actually are dense.

Dense as water. I'll break it down one last time Barney-style for you:

The Supreme Court, because it lacks the ability to actively pursue changes in laws, could be considered useless (by people with a limited understanding of the US government [ie: a British you, apparently]). In reality, they are simply limited by a constitutional balance of power.

The Royal Family, because it has powers that are limited by the "British Constitution", could be considered useless. In reality, they are simply limited by a constitutional balance of power.

Back to the War Powers Act:I'm actually thinking you are incapable of making logical extrapolations.

It doesn't matter if we're comparing the US Gov to not the US Gov. We're talking constitutionally limited balances of power, and in the WPA's case, theoretical ones (because you insist the Queen's theoretical powers don't matter). Hell, your connection to POTUS and the WPA's theoretical powers indicates you don't understand the WPA at all. The WPA provides Congress with powers it hasn't used (hence, theoretical) in controlling what the POTUS can or can't do with the troops. The POTUS doesn't use the WPA, Congress would. Read here.

Also, I'm really goddamn intelligent. I am not, it seems, intelligent enough to word this so you can comprehend it. Nobody's perfect, I guess.

CZ gets it, why don't you?

[480sx]

Also, I'm really goddamn intelligent.

You're clearly too dense to get complex analogies. Enjoy your simple world.

Prove it by not spewing trash like that in a politics forum. You can call yourself intelligent and think you are all day. There is a big difference between acting intelligently and being intelligent. If you are as you say, then try to play the roll.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Prove it by not spewing trash like that in a politics forum. You can call yourself intelligent and think you are all day. There is a big difference between acting intelligently and being intelligent. If you are as you say, then try to play the roll.

Yeah, you've missed the point. No sense trying anymore, good luck to you!

[themadscientist]

I'm just glad he didn't bow to her. Only Saudi kings get that.

[480sx]

Actually i didnt feel like forming a response to your argument tonight. I wanted that post to sit for a while and let it get digested before i addressed the substance of your post.

You really have no idea.

[smockers83]

One can be really intelligent but if he/she doesn't know how to express him/her self, what use is that intelligence?

Writing is an essential part to life as it allows us to convey our ideas. Some people write really well, some don't. The people who write really well can convince others that something is true when it is actually false, but one who cannot write well cannot convince others that something is true when it really is true. The only way to get better at it is to write more.

Look at reporters in the MSM outlets and the following they carry in the general population.

I'm not trying to insult anyone by this post, but this is just something that happens with a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum, intelligent and not intelligent. This is more like those deep op eds you see once in awhile where it challenges you and who you are.

[Armelius]

Quote »Everyone benefits from government, those that feel like they aren't are free to take actions to remove themselves from the social contract.[/quote]This is a sign that you are not intelligent Charlio. Feel free to buy up all the foil you can find. Right now aluminum is going for about .59 a pound. Is that foil on sale for you at Wal-Mart?

[themadscientist]

So we disregard protocol and put hands on the queen of England and then disregard protocol again and bow to to the king of Saudi Arabia?



Well, at least they're consistent, at being wrong.