# Happy Birthday Prince Philip



## PhotonGuy (Jun 10, 2020)

Today Prince Philip turns 99, I would like to wish Prince Philip a Happy Birthday. Just one more year before he hits 100, it would be awesome for him to make it to 100 and beyond.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Today Prince Philip turns 99, I would like to wish Prince Philip a Happy Birthday. Just one more year before he hits 100, it would be awesome for him to make it to 100 and beyond.


well with access to the very best of the best medical science its a fair bet he will make it.

that coupled with the fact he has never done anything that remotely resembles a days '' work''  also helps


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 11, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Today Prince Philip turns 99, I would like to wish Prince Philip a Happy Birthday. Just one more year before he hits 100, it would be awesome for him to make it to 100 and beyond.



Rumour has it, hes applied to become a Bond stunt driver, so little chance


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 11, 2020)

jobo said:


> well with access to the very best of the best medical science its a fair bet he will make it.
> 
> that coupled with the fact he has never done anything that remotely resembles a days '' work''  also helps


He never did anything that remotely resembles a days work? He was in the Navy and fought in WWII, I would call that more than what amounts to a "days work."


----------



## jobo (Jun 11, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> He never did anything that remotely resembles a days work? He was in the Navy and fought in WWII, I would call that more than what amounts to a "days work."


he was a senior officer, do you think they have princes swabbing decks ?

he was a senior officer not because of ability but because of birth, so its fairly likely they didn't let him make any important decisions( he does seem to be particularly stupid unpleasant and entitled man but thats what 2000 years of inbreeding does )put him in charge of strawberries perhaps ( kane muttony reference)

either way, swanning about in a nice uniform doesnt count as a days work, most people of his birth date are long dead because they spent their working life doing very dangerous things in dreadful conditions.

the navy were particularly fond of killing people through asbestos exposure, im im pretty sure he has never done a ship refit


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 11, 2020)

jobo said:


> he was a senior officer, do you think they have princes swabbing decks ?
> 
> he was a senior officer not because of ability but because of birth, so its fairly likely they didn't let him make any important decisions( he does seem to be particularly stupid unpleasant and entitled man but thats what 2000 years of inbreeding does )put him in charge of strawberries perhaps ( kane muttony reference)
> 
> ...


Is it likely that he never did a days work while in the military, or is it a fact? Those are two different things.


----------



## jobo (Jun 11, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Is it likely that he never did a days work while in the military, or is it a fact? Those are two different things.


WELL ITS TRUE , he was dropped into a senior role with little training and no experience, its true that princes dont swab decks or anything but swan about in a nice uniform, its true the royal family wear a significant amount of medals they haven't in anyway earnt, its true they have been known to lie about their military record . its true that before and after marriage he spent not a little time in the company of high class prostitutes


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 20, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> He never did anything that remotely resembles a days work? He was in the Navy and fought in WWII, I would call that more than what amounts to a "days work."


Just like how Prince Harry and William were front line soldiers putting their lives at risk right?.....yeah sure. They just get to run around playing soldier whenever they feel like it while making racist remarks on camera


----------



## granfire (Jun 21, 2020)

Haters gonna hate

From Wiki


> *Naval and wartime service*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

granfire said:


> Haters gonna hate
> 
> From Wiki


well you need to ask yourself how much of that is true ? its not at all hard for the British royal family to fake a war record in the Royal navy

he was a Greek prince, just what was he doing as a cadet in the royal navy, that he was already subject to an arranged marriage with princess Elizabeth is quite obvious,

so the answer would be, if he was there at all, to build his britishness to make him more acceptable to the public, by the start of the war Elizabeth was heir to the throne, and philip would therefore be her consort.. so as he was already earmarked for the second most important role in the land, its seems highly unlikely they would have risked his life

when he did become the royal consort being a '' war hero was a major pr scoop, for what was at the time an unpopular royal family, that they had all fled to Canada whilst their subjects were being blown to hell( something that has also been airbrushed from history), was not easily forgot, so lets build him into a hero,, maybe he was in Canada as well


----------



## granfire (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> well you need to ask yourself how much of that is true ? its not at all hard for the British royal family to fake a war record in the Royal navy
> 
> he was a Greek prince, just what was he doing as a cadet in the royal navy, that he was already subject to an arranged marriage with princess Elizabeth is quite obvious,
> 
> ...



Read the bio. 
and unlike our very own Nigerian prince family the royals have a long record of serving. 
So in essence, haters gonna hate. 
he has a considerable body of work in his own right, and as spouse he was also subject to public duties which may or may not seem to be important to haters. 
You know, heading charities (unless one needs this particular one) 
Seems he had over 22 thousand appearances without the queen over the course of his active duty as royal spouse, not considering the joint ones. And non for personal business trips. 

Maybe it is to their detriment that they don't toot their own horn at all, so much of what they do goes unnoticed by the detractors. But then again, if you spend you whole life in the lime light....not getting noticed might be a blessing at times. 

It is quite snobbish to assume a person in a certain position has never done anything worthwhile.


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

granfire said:


> Read the bio.
> and unlike our very own Nigerian prince family the royals have a long record of serving.
> So in essence, haters gonna hate.
> he has a considerable body of work in his own right, and as spouse he was also subject to public duties which may or may not seem to be important to haters.
> ...


yea its a really hard life being married into the richest family on earth, 22 thousand over 70 years, that doesn't sound like a full time job


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 21, 2020)

Forgot to say this earlier-Happy Birthday dude! (though I'm sure he'll never read it).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> yea its a really hard life being married into the richest family on earth, 22 thousand over 70 years, that doesn't sound like a full time job


I did some quick math. A full time job is typically 5 days/week, with 52 weeks in a year (not including vacations), that's 260 days per year that a full time job is. Now multiple that 260 by 70 to figure out how many days someone working fulltime would be expected to work over that period of time. You get 18,200. So working 22,000 over that time period,would be more than a full time job (I am assuming that these appearances normally have prep work, talking to people afterwards, to make it take up more of the day. 

On top of that, the retirement age is 65 in the UK, and he retired at 96 years old. Even if he was not doing much those last few years (I don't know enough to state either way), he was still choosing to work for 31 years passed expected retirement.


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I did some quick math. A full time job is typically 5 days/week, with 52 weeks in a year (not including vacations), that's 260 days per year that a full time job is. Now multiple that 260 by 70 to figure out how many days someone working fulltime would be expected to work over that period of time. You get 18,200. So working 22,000 over that time period,would be more than a full time job (I am assuming that these appearances normally have prep work, talking to people afterwards, to make it take up more of the day.
> 
> On top of that, the retirement age is 65 in the UK, and he retired at 96 years old. Even if he was not doing much those last few years (I don't know enough to state either way), he was still choosing to work for 31 years passed expected retirement.


yea it sounds a **** job, marry into a family worth 72 BILLION and then be driven to a few places say hi and then to the next i bet he was exhausted


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> yea it sounds a **** job, marry into a family worth 72 BILLION and then be driven to a few places say hi and then to the next i bet he was exhausted


Not saying if it's a tough or easy job. I hinestly have no clue. But just based on the numbers it is a full time job.


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Not saying if it's a tough or easy job. I hinestly have no clue. But just based on the numbers it is a full time job.


well seems as they spend all of the summer and most of the winter not doing anything it clearly isnt


----------



## granfire (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> yea it sounds a **** job, marry into a family worth 72 BILLION and then be driven to a few places say hi and then to the next i bet he was exhausted


well, he has to talk to all kinds of people, nice ones, and not so nice ones. 
the point is, he is DOING stuff. 
But arguing with you is worse than talking to a wall....
you enjoy your biases and pat yourself on the shoulder and celebrate your state of 'knowledge' of another person's life circumstances while ignoring evidence to the contrary. 
Like I said, those 22.000 appearances were solo, not counting the ones with the queen.

The man alone has served the public longer in WWII than our complete Nigerian royal family total!

TTFN, I hope the man has a grand birthday, and lives another couple of decades, if only to despise his detractors!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> well seems as they spend all of the summer and most of the winter not doing anything it clearly isnt


The math based on your numbers suggest otherwise, but okay. You can go back to your conspiracy theories that the monarchy has faked military records.


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> yea it sounds a **** job, marry into a family worth 72 BILLION and then be driven to a few places say hi and then to the next i bet he was exhausted


Well it’s probably for the publics best interest he gets driven everywhere....we all know what happened last time he got behind the wheel (didn’t get charged of course )


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> The math based on your numbers suggest otherwise, but okay. You can go back to your conspiracy theories that the monarchy has faked military records.


 coz your working on the assumption they do one engagement in a day in stead of several.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2020)

At the time Phillip was in the Royal Navy he was a very poor relation coming from a Greek Royal Family that had been deposed and were in exile. He joined the Royal Navy aged 18 before the war started and trained as all Naval officers do as cadets at Dartmouth College. In 1940 he was a Midshipman, a very lowly rank, 1941 he was promoted to sub Lieutenant after training at Portsmouth, still a lowly rank though but the normal progression for naval officers. His war record is pretty food and quite real, the men he served with have affirmed that many times. As for the rest of his life, well maybe he worked maybe he didn't but frankly who would anyone get worked up about it unless they themselves have nothing better to do?


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2020)

granfire said:


> Read the bio.
> and unlike our very own Nigerian prince family the royals have a long record of serving.
> So in essence, haters gonna hate.
> he has a considerable body of work in his own right, and as spouse he was also subject to public duties which may or may not seem to be important to haters.
> ...


I agree with your post.  It struck me as funny, though, that you're suggesting members of the royal family are the _subjects _of snobbery.


----------



## granfire (Jun 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> I agree with your post.  It struck me as funny, though, that you're suggesting members of the royal family are the _subjects _of snobbery.


the commoners are known to be snobby and classist as well. 
Strange thought, eh?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 24, 2020)

granfire said:


> the commoners are known to be snobby and classist as well.
> Strange thought, eh?


I've found this true in general. Lower/middle/upper class all tend to be snobs against the other classes. I view it just as general classism.


----------



## Steve (Jun 25, 2020)

granfire said:


> the commoners are known to be snobby and classist as well.
> Strange thought, eh?


By definition, snobs view themselves as higher class, and snobbery is a disdain for things or people who are viewed as "low-class."  To be clear, I get that the common folk can be disdainful of the upper class and/or royalty.  But, by definition, snobbery goes one direction, from top to bottom.  The idea of common folk being snobbish to royalty is literally funny.  (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense, not the figurative sense)


----------



## jobo (Jun 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> By definition, snobs view themselves as higher class, and snobbery is a disdain for things or people who are viewed as "low-class."  To be clear, I get that the common folk can be disdainful of the upper class and/or royalty.  But, by definition, snobbery goes one direction, from top to bottom.  The idea of common folk being snobbish to royalty is literally funny.  (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense, not the figurative sense)


its the concept of inverted snobbery, where you pride yourself on how down to earth you are.

this manifested at my first wedding, where all her posh  relatives and friends  sat on one side of the room and all my down to earth relatives and friends  on the other,  with both sides sneering at the other with complete contempt,

what really anoyed her lot, is the actual royalty that had come to the wedding, a viscount no less, came and sat with my friends all night, he was an alright guy for a toff

it went down hill from there  with numerious fist fights breaking out, nearly all involving me


----------



## Steve (Jun 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> its the concept of inverted snobbery, where you pride yourself on how down to earth you are.
> 
> this manifested at my first wedding, where all her posh  relatives and friends  sat on one side of the room and all my down to earth relatives and friends  on the other,  with both sides sneering at the other with complete contempt,
> 
> ...


Jobo, for a guy who was talking about how precise the English are with regards to language, you're missing the point here.  I get the concept, but it's just the wrong word.  Inverted snobbery isn't a thing, because the definition of snobbery relates intrinsically to a class relationship. 

It's kind of like sexual harassment.  A subordinate employee can be inappropriate to a member of management, but a subordinate can never sexually harass their boss.  The behavior is the same, but the power dynamic matters.

It's not a big deal.  I understand what was intended.  Just, as I said initially, it struck me as funny to think of a common person being snobbish to a member of royalty.  That's a humorous thought.


----------



## jobo (Jun 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Jobo, for a guy who was talking about how precise the English are with regards to language, you're missing the point here.  I get the concept, but it's just the wrong word.  Inverted snobbery isn't a thing, because the definition of snobbery relates intrinsically to a class relationship.
> 
> It's kind of like sexual harassment.  A subordinate employee can be inappropriate to a member of management, but a subordinate can never sexually harass their boss.  The behavior is the same, but the power dynamic matters.
> 
> It's not a big deal.  I understand what was intended.  Just, as I said initially, it struck me as funny to think of a common person being snobbish to a member of royalty.  That's a humorous thought.


what do you mean its not a thing, it even has its own dictionary definition, that generally makes it a '' thing ''

INVERTED SNOB | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


----------



## Steve (Jun 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> what do you mean its not a thing, it even has its own dictionary definition, that generally makes it a '' thing ''
> 
> INVERTED SNOB | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


I stand corrected. I guess we have a new phrase to use when referring to Trump supporters.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I stand corrected. I guess we have a new phrase to use when referring to Trump supporters.


Ummm, Im quite sure you're not supposed to discuss politics here.


----------



## Steve (Jun 26, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Ummm, Im quite sure you're not supposed to discuss politics here.


I'm pretty sure you're not.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 29, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Ummm, Im quite sure you're not supposed to discuss politics here.


We are not. And another mod is free to give me a warning/points for this. But the trump idea is almost perfectly encapsulated by the idea of inverted snobbery (whether accurate or not), so I think Steve's post makes sense, without actually being any sort of political stance.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> We are not. And another mod is free to give me a warning/points for this. But the trump idea is almost perfectly encapsulated by the idea of inverted snobbery (whether accurate or not), so I think Steve's post makes sense, without actually being any sort of political stance.


 maybe we can discuss politic science ?

i think the rise in identity politics has broken the existing model of politics.

certainly in the UK, where political allegiance has historical been down to class of birth, if your born in a lower class, you want more fairness and in a high class you want less fairness, this is largely irrelevant of how much wealth you accumulated, but as the lower class faced unfairness from birth they seldom acquire much wealth so it doesn't really matter much, and a sprinkling of middle class idealists who want more fairness when they are young and have little and then changes sides when someone wants to redistribute their wealth later in life or if they become uber rich retain their socialist ideas, but move to a tax heaven

we have been locked in a near 50 50 split for a 100 years, with each side moving the election boundaries to favour their portion of the vote.

however the last election was fought largely on the concept of British identity, a concept that is a lot stronger in the poor working class areas than it is in the more affluent areas, so the vote more or less reversed, with poor area voting for the more right wing party and the more affluent areas voting socialists

this of course is not with out an element of self regard. the rich had grown richer under the auspices of being part of Europe so both sides were still looking out for their own interests, just the party they thought would do that changed

i take the comment about trunmp appealing to inverted snobs to mean that perhaps a similar revesal is happening in america with the poor less educated being drawn by the concept of american identity and the more educated being drawn by the concept of less nationalism


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 30, 2020)

jobo said:


> maybe we can discuss politic science ?
> 
> i think the rise in identity politics has broken the existing model of politics.
> 
> ...


I see, you say some really interesting stuff. Anyway, without getting too much into politics Im wondering how the government functions in your country. From what I know there's the parliament and the prime minister but I was wondering how much influence the reigning monarch, in this case the Queen, has over them. At one time I think she could fire the prime minister and any of the members of parliament although I don't think that's how it is now.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> We are not. And another mod is free to give me a warning/points for this. But the trump idea is almost perfectly encapsulated by the idea of inverted snobbery (whether accurate or not), so I think Steve's post makes sense, without actually being any sort of political stance.


Exactly.  I shouldn’t have used the name.  I was referring to the idea some have that intelligence, education, and culture are bad things, not good. For example, the issues we are seeing with wearing a mask being a conspiracy to take folks’ rights away.  I think inverted snobbery seems very apropos to this.  Not intended to be political, per se.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2020)

jobo said:


> i take the comment about trunmp appealing to inverted snobs to mean that perhaps a similar revesal is happening in america with the poor less educated being drawn by the concept of american identity and the more educated being drawn by the concept of less nationalism


Pretty much.  In America, there is an idea that if you work hard enough, you can become rich.  So, it’s complicated.  Education is mistrusted by some.  Plain language is valued, and vocabulary is met with skepticism.  Scientists are elitists.

But business men are the idols.  A lot of poor folks revere and protect the interests of rich folks, because somewhere in their psyche they believe two things to be true.  1: rich people are smart, because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be rich. But this is the right kind of smart... street smarts. Not book smarts, which is elitist. And  2: if I work hard enough, I could be one of them.   I’ve known many of these folks, many in my own family,  I grew up lower middle class in Texas, and my older brothers, and most of my mom’s family fall into this category: very poor and very reverential of the rich businessman.  

so, inverted snobbery (thank you, @jobo!) seems spot on, but only against a perceived elitist class that includes some celebrities, some athletes, pretty much every academic, and anyone who even whiffs of “socialism.”  Exempt from this, regardless of wealth or class, are businessmen and clergy (unless they’re gay).


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> I see, you say some really interesting stuff. Anyway, without getting too much into politics Im wondering how the government functions in your country. From what I know there's the parliament and the prime minister but I was wondering how much influence the reigning monarch, in this case the Queen, has over them. At one time I think she could fire the prime minister and any of the members of parliament although I don't think that's how it is now.



its exactly the same as it has been for three hundred years, the queen appoints the prime minister and can fire him if she wishes,, what would happen if she did is another matter, the main argument for having a constitutional monarchy,  is that we couldnt have a govenment that went mad and started killing every one, as the queen would put a stop to it, she of course being in charge of both the army and the police , what happen if she goes mad and starts killing everybody, is never answered


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 1, 2020)

jobo said:


> its exactly the same as it has been for three hundred years, the queen appoints the prime minister and can fire him if she wishes,, what would happen if she did is another matter, the main argument for having a constitutional monarchy,  is that we couldnt have a govenment that went mad and started killing every one, as the queen would put a stop to it, she of course being in charge of both the army and the police , what happen if she goes mad and starts killing everybody, is never answered


So it sounds like the Queen has the final say to everything even if she doesn't exercise it all that much. If she can fire the prime minister  for whatever reason then she could make demands that the prime minister would have to either follow or lose his or her job. If she ultimately controls both the army and the police then I suppose technically she could go mad and start killing everybody although I seriously doubt she ever would.


----------



## jobo (Jul 1, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So it sounds like the Queen has the final say to everything even if she doesn't exercise it all that much. If she can fire the prime minister  for whatever reason then she could make demands that the prime minister would have to either follow or lose his or her job. If she ultimately controls both the army and the police then I suppose technically she could go mad and start killing everybody although I seriously doubt she ever would.


 its in  relatively recent  memory that the '' queen''fire the prime minster of Australia, caused quite a row at the time, she as you possibly know the queen of lots of places not just the UK


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> its in  relatively recent  memory that the '' queen''fire the prime minster of Australia, caused quite a row at the time, she as you possibly know the queen of lots of places not just the UK


Alright well as an example, lets say the Queen wanted to make it a felony to wear New England Patriots paraphernalia in public in the UK, would she be able to do that?


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright well as an example, lets say the Queen wanted to make it a felony to wear New England Patriots paraphernalia in public in the UK, would she be able to do that?


no, though she would be able to stop the govenment doing it, though she could concievably declare war on new england

all laws have to be passed by parliment AND signed by the queen.

some issues like decaring war are subject to the royal perogative, this is normal exercised bt the prime minister on her behalf, though i cant see that should coudnt do it her self if she had a real down on the patriots

durring the recent britex debacle, we had numerous court cases concerning the age old question of who was in charge, parliament,  elected by the people or the govenment appointed by the queen and exercising  the royal perogative, it seemed to be a draw


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> no, though she would be able to stop the govenment doing it, though she could concievably declare war on new england
> 
> all laws have to be passed by parliment AND signed by the queen.
> 
> ...


Just so you know, the New England Patriots are a Football team based in Boston, I couldn't see her declaring war on them. I only used that as an example because I don't like the New England Patriots, Im a Philadelphia Eagles fan, so I was only using the idea of the Queen making the wearing of New England Patriots paraphernalia in public as an example of whether or not the Queen could pass any law she wants at her own whim. 

Anyway I was wondering if the Queen could make Parliament pass certain laws, if she were to say that if they don't pass a certain law she would fire them, how would that go down?


----------



## jobo (Jul 8, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Just so you know, the New England Patriots are a Football team based in Boston, I couldn't see her declaring war on them. I only used that as an example because I don't like the New England Patriots, Im a Philadelphia Eagles fan, so I was only using the idea of the Queen making the wearing of New England Patriots paraphernalia in public as an example of whether or not the Queen could pass any law she wants at her own whim.
> 
> Anyway I was wondering if the Queen could make Parliament pass certain laws, if she were to say that if they don't pass a certain law she would fire them, how would that go down?


no, she can fire the govenment, as the govenment belongs to her, 

she cant fire parliment, we had a civil war about that very issue and the king lost


----------



## jobo (Jul 8, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Just so you know, the New England Patriots are a Football team based in Boston, I couldn't see her declaring war on them. I only used that as an example because I don't like the New England Patriots, Im a Philadelphia Eagles fan, so I was only using the idea of the Queen making the wearing of New England Patriots paraphernalia in public as an example of whether or not the Queen could pass any law she wants at her own whim.
> 
> Anyway I was wondering if the Queen could make Parliament pass certain laws, if she were to say that if they don't pass a certain law she would fire them, how would that go down?


no, she can fire the govenment, as the govenment belongs to her, 

she cant fire parliment, we had a civil war about that very issue and the king lost

we recently had a ciyrt case about her majestys govenment try to shut down parliment to prevent it from stoping the govenment from doibg exactly what it wanted to do

the govenment lost that as well


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> no, she can fire the govenment, as the govenment belongs to her,
> 
> she cant fire parliment, we had a civil war about that very issue and the king lost


What's the difference between the parliament and the government? I thought the parliament was part of the government.


----------



## jobo (Jul 10, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> What's the difference between the parliament and the government? I thought the parliament was part of the government.


Good god no,,,

Parliment is elected by the people, like say the house of reprentatives, the queen is like our president, only we cant get rid of her till she dies.

The queen, ( our president) appoints the prime minister( who is generally the leader of the largest party, but not always so),  from the parliment and he or she appoints the rest of the govenment.

There is then a secind chamber, like the Senate,  only theres about 600 of them, we cant get rid of those either till they die

Some times this works fine, some times like last year the whole thing descends in to open war fare


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> What's the difference between the parliament and the government? I thought the parliament was part of the government.


Parliament is part of the government, but, like in the USA, it's not the whole thing.  We have a president, and they have a queen.  We have congress, and they have parliament.


----------



## jobo (Jul 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> Parliament is part of the government, but, like in the USA, it's not the whole thing.  We have a president, and they have a queen.  We have congress, and they have parliament.


no it isnt, the govenment is part of parliment  but definelty not the other way round


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> Parliament is part of the government, but, like in the USA, it's not the whole thing.  We have a president, and they have a queen.  We have congress, and they have parliament.



The Prime Minister, rather than the Queen.


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> no it isnt, the govenment is part of parliment  but definelty not the other way round


The queen isn't part of the government?  Or are you saying the queen is part of parliament?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> The queen isn't part of the government?  Or are you saying the queen is part of parliament?



In the real world of today, the Queen has just about enough power to blow her nose, so long as she does it in private. She's not exactly a vital part of the government in anything other than a symbolic way.


----------



## jobo (Jul 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> The queen isn't part of the government?  Or are you saying the queen is part of parliament?


no im saying that parliment isnt part of the goven ment

the queen however is part of parliment, and the govenment and the queen are much the same thing, they


----------



## jobo (Jul 10, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> In the real world of today, the Queen has just about enough power to blow her nose, so long as she does it in private. She's not exactly a vital part of the government in anything other than a symbolic way.


the queen has significant power, at the moment she is succesfully sheilding her son from prosicution.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> the queen has significant power, at the moment she is succesfully sheilding her son from prosicution.



She has significant _*influence*_, not power. And that influence is essentially derived from cultural inertia. It's left over from the days when the Crown actually did exercise power.


----------



## jobo (Jul 10, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> She has significant _*influence*_, not power. And that influence is essentially derived from cultural inertia. It's left over from the days when the Crown actually did exercise power.


influence is power, 

but no she has a significant amount of constitional power, if she choose to use it, if she does she has so much power we wouldnt find out about it


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> no im saying that parliment isnt part of the goven ment
> 
> the queen however is part of parliment, and the govenment and the queen are much the same thing, they


Parliament ISN'T part of the government...  but the queen is part of Parliament... and the queen is synonymous with government?  I think I said this in another thread, so to reiterate, you should take some logic classes either online or at the local college.  I really think you'd have a blast (seriously, I think it's right up your alley), and you'd also learn why your sentences above are not mathematically cogent.


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> influence is power


I always thought knowledge is power.  

As your body grows bigger
Your mind must flower
It's great to learn
'Cause knowledge is power

It's Schoolhouse Rocky, the chip off the block
Of your favorite schoolhouse, Schoolhouse Rock!


----------



## Buka (Jul 10, 2020)

I say we appoint a Queen here in the states.

Any suggestions as to who?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 10, 2020)

Buka said:


> I say we appoint a Queen here in the states.
> 
> Any suggestions as to who?



My wife is already my Queen. And no, she's not reading over my shoulder as I type this.


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2020)

Buka said:


> I say we appoint a Queen here in the states.
> 
> Any suggestions as to who?


Ru Paul?


----------



## Buka (Jul 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> Ru Paul?


----------

