America welcomes the Queen (but struggles to lay the red carpet)
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Back to the OP by Blackhead
Sorry to resurrect it but the snotty manner in which this was posted makes me think on the significance of a red carpet....
I would soon live in a nation who never has to bend at the feet of another human to lay down a piece of woven material for them to walk on.
It is good that the layers of the carpet were clumsy because they are not used to doing this ugly task for anyone.
Much more appreciated would be a leader who doesn't mind getting his or her feet wet or dirty and never would ask another to lower himself in subjugation.
Sorry to resurrect it but the snotty manner in which this was posted makes me think on the significance of a red carpet....
I would soon live in a nation who never has to bend at the feet of another human to lay down a piece of woven material for them to walk on.
It is good that the layers of the carpet were clumsy because they are not used to doing this ugly task for anyone.
Much more appreciated would be a leader who doesn't mind getting his or her feet wet or dirty and never would ask another to lower himself in subjugation.
:idea:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/images/20050223-11_wg8o2322webjpg-515h.html
I won't tell if you don't
Really? Are you suggesting she sacked an Australian government? I've spent a good part of the last hour trying to verify recent Australian constitutional crises and come up empty on any activity by the Queen in them.
Is it the 1975 constitutional crisis you're referring to, when G-G Sir John Kerr sacked PM Gough Whitlam? Or the child abuse business involving G-G Peter Hollingworth that led him to resign a few years ago? Neither of those involved the Queen doing much.
Isn't your flag American? if so, don't you lay the red carpet for any movie star going.......just look at all the pomp and circumstance that Hollywood goes through every year for the Oscars.....
PhilB
That was an excellent rebuttal to what I said. It was not a demand made by the U.S.A. however.
The Slovakians chose to so honor Bush's visit - it was not a request by his staff at any time - nor has any other leader of the U.S.A. demanded such protocol. The nation was founded on the movement away from the pretense of royal behavior and that all men are equal.
American Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That was an excellent rebuttal to what I said. It was not a demand made by the U.S.A. however.
The Slovakians chose to so honor Bush's visit - it was not a request by his staff at any time - nor has any other leader of the U.S.A. demanded such protocol. The nation was founded on the movement away from the pretense of royal behavior and that all men are equal.
American Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Last edited:
Fingertrouble
Actually that bit of playacting was probably stolen from the Royal manner of entering a room or hall or other gathering - but it actually insults Royals who believe in that sort of tradition.
In addition the carpet doesn't signify that people bowed down to protect the feet of the entertainers - it is just a great backdrop for camera shots and shows off the beautiful gowns the women wear.
But it was also a good catch. People here are certainly protective of their Queen eh? Isn't it a shame we had to muck up the drama of the walk from the aircraft. Horror of horrors ... That's 'America' for you.
Well on the upside for the 'Merkans is we're not stuck for a lifetime with anyone. Eight years max! Plus we get to pick who's next!
Correct me if I am wrong, but, you have had a member of the Bush family as either President or Vice President for 19 of the last 27 years though, with a Clinton for 8 years in between, a Clinton currently in the running and an outside chance of another member of the Bush family of getting a VP pass on someone elses ticket.
PhilB
Nice try but no ribbon on that .... no primogeniture involved in the process.....
The people continue the 'line of succession' if you wish to compare.
Nice try but no ribbon on that .... no primogeniture involved in the process.....
The people continue the 'line of succession' if you wish to compare.
Not to mention that holding the office of Vice President is kind of like being the maid of honor at a wedding, 'cept that the maid actually has a function.
You missed a bit out ;-)
You show me your perfectly untainted democratic government and I'll show you mine:lol:
Last edited:
PhilB
And I'll remind you of Henry VIII....if we are gonna discuss tainted.
And the lobbyists ? The majority still rules. The lobbyists do not make up the majority.
The merely try to influence the majority. The public - the people - are still the majority.
And I'll remind you of Henry VIII....if we are gonna discuss tainted.
And the lobbyists ? The majority still rules. The lobbyists do not make up the majority.
The merely try to influence the majority. The public - the people - are still the majority.
I know that the lobbysits do not make up the Majority, but who exactly can run successfully for your presidency without being in the lobbyists deep pockets. You at the receiving end (the public) get to pick between 2 people both of whom are knee deep in someone elses grubby little pocket.
Nowt wrong with Henry the eighth, wouldn't have wanted to marry him like, but then I'm not that type of chap.
PhilB
You've got it backwards Phil.... the lobbyists run the campaign to raise money from the public
to put a guy in office.
Deep pockets come from groups, interested parties, activists, promoters and all kinds of rabble...and they still don't make up the majority vote.
The people do.
Then it is decided by the electoral vote anyway. So there. That should give you something to laugh at.
Henry was a joke so I'll laugh at that.
You've got it backwards Phil.... the lobbyists run the campaign to raise money from the public
to put a guy in office.
Deep pockets come from groups, interested parties, activists, promoters and all kinds of rabble...and they still don't make up the majority vote.
The people do.
Then it is decided by the electoral vote anyway. So there. That should give you something to laugh at.
Henry was a joke so I'll laugh at that.
Its interesting don't you think how things appear very different to the outside world at large.
Those in favour of a President view an apolitical constitutional Monarchy as a corrupt outmoded form of government.
Whereas
Those in favour of an apolitical constitutional Monarchy view republics as corruptable if not corrupt.
Which is the correct form - well neither, both are outmoded imho. That much control should not be exerted by one person over so many.
Those in favour of a President view an apolitical constitutional Monarchy as a corrupt outmoded form of government.
Whereas
Those in favour of an apolitical constitutional Monarchy view republics as corruptable if not corrupt.
Which is the correct form - well neither, both are outmoded imho. That much control should not be exerted by one person over so many.
PhilB
Interesting of course: The U.S. public have the right of impeachment if necessary which would take a couple of months of hearings...but it is part of the whole administrative process.
What does one do with royals? Off with their heads? The tower?
Interesting of course: The U.S. public have the right of impeachment if necessary which would take a couple of months of hearings...but it is part of the whole administrative process.
What does one do with royals? Off with their heads? The tower?