It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

heckling the queen at un

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
is it wrong to heckle the "queen" when she makes her trip to new york. i know its not against any american laws.


I for one would love to see the Queen heckled every single place she goes.

If you could possibly nail her in the face with some dog poo, I will send you 100$.




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Isn't she just a big waste of money?

What the heck do you need a Queen for? LOL


Tourism.

The amount of money she makes for Britain just by being alive is quite hard to believe.

She's worth every tax penny.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Y2Zgt
 


Heh. Nobiity. Yeah, born into a family that is noble?



Nobility of families is sooooooooooooooooooo 1700's.


I wouldn't have heckled the old bat, though. I didn't even heckle Bill Clinton in 2008 when he visited our little town to promote his wife for POTUS.

If you want to heckle people and it's acceptable, visit Fancy Farms in Kentucky during election season and the candidates all show up to speechify us.
It's expected that they will be heckled.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
And isn't that Canada's only high way? I imagine you'd be glad to have it.


It most certainly is...and fully traversable by dogsled 10 months a year.




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
The queen is one of the co-rulers of America...



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Miraj
 


I'd say on the contrary.. Americans LOVE royalty, we are jealous we don't have a Royal family of our own. Which is why we obsess over European Royals.

Do I think it's wrong to heckle the Queen? No. Nice? Depends on what was said. The Queen has protesters everywhere, even in Britain, so I doubt she was surprised.


I don't know anyone that "obsess" over European Royals.

I'm glad we have no royal family, we already have the incredibly rich to make us a lower class.

But I would do everything I could to prevent there ever being a true line of nobility ever again. Which probably wouldn't be much, but the sheer idea of it is no different than Apartheid or Jim Crow laws. It just discriminates on class and not race.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I have to say, that was pretty funny to watch..

You guys really need to get on protecting that national igloo



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Heckling anyone in a position of great power shouldn't be wrong if done by irate citizens since it is just showing their disapproval of what is going on or about governments' agendas. But to be done by anyone in another position of power, such as congress, senate, president, etc. should show their disapproval through bigger means and without heckling, like through the UN or other media outlets.

The people only have a voice when they shout out at someone together and shouldn't be condemned when they openly express their disapproval. Those who are in power have the ability to express themselves openly without much getting in their way and shouldn't have to resort to that to get their opinions heard.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
well she is spending a week in canada and a day in new york starting next week. and i just wanted to know if it would be inappropriate of people like chavez or other outspoken people who "profess" at the un; to heckle her for her association with "capitalism" or any other topic chavez or other people may associate with the "queen" who may be associated with the "west" by people.

if a congressman can heckle a person elected by his peers to preside over their actions; does a nation have the right in the un; or does a woman have a right to speak as equal to nations representatives at the un: anything regarding their own policies?

how does she even have rights in the un? is she respected as the vassal of the uk peoples and is treated like an emmisary?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


If Americans do not care about royalty, why did you love Princess Diana, and why do you love Sarah, the Duchess of Dork?

And I really mean Dork.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


I think Queenie has seen more hecklers than most over the years and if someone at the UN wants to be heckler her, be it Chevez or whoever, I am sure she knows how to handel the situation better than most leaders since she has played this game a long long time.

As for your other question, she is still the head of the Commonwealth, which I think covers some where in the region of 2 billion people.. so am sure that gives her some rights at the UN.

Taking it in other context, the only reason you might feel she has no right to be at the UN is if you feel Britain has no rights as a nation to be represented at the UN.

[edit on 20/6/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by Miraj
 


If Americans do not care about royalty, why did you love Princess Diana, and why do you love Sarah, the Duchess of Dork?

And I really mean Dork.


Why would you sterotype "Americans"? Many could care less. BTW - We aren't all "Yanks" either. Now that's offensive. LOL



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mapsurfer_
[m

New Zealanders are people who live in a very tiny island in the middle of huge seas.

We are New Zealanders, you are Americans - yanks or whatever, we are called kiwis - do we like that?

We have not been asked if we like that.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
commonwealth is a funny title; in nature a queen is the representation of a colonies wealth by means of "producing" rich "offspring" but commodities that the colony uses for maintenance equal to the commodity you trade on a stock market...

yet, you state she is leader of the "commonwealth"; this is a contradiction.


she is not respected as a national leader unless the british respect her as their national leader. though a drone has a function in a colony he is no less important that a queen and the service is a verb that does not have value that is weighted based on an observers perception who is drone and who is queen.

i do think she has been given because you have told me she has; so her presence at the un will mean her presence is necessary at that particular time.but is it right to go along with false diatribes for the sake of impersonal respect for another persons/things colony.

so if she is heckled is the heckler dissing the british or the person whom they claim as the highest person that is british.




about people whom their colonies project to them about america; your projections are your own, your reflections are mine to keep since they are images of the self.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Ausar]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Y2Zgt
 
Absolute nonsense, she could make a much bigger difference if she wanted to. The existance of the Royal family is the most obvious illustration of the inequality in this world. Born into a luxuary that the man on the street pays for.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   


You might find that there was never a class of nobles in America either. We did quite a bit to seperate ourselves from a monarchy.

Just because a few people idolize the brutal ways of old does not mean that she should be respected.


America has its own Royalty and Upper Class, it is just less formalized, exactly like clever Elite like it to be. Money and Power, not titles.

Considering the Oligarchy the US has going on, the same as everwhere else, should tell you you are different in words only.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
commonwealth is a funny title; in nature a queen is the representation of a colonies wealth by means of "producing" rich "offspring" but commodities that the colony uses for maintenance equal to the commodity you trade on a stock market...

yet, you state she is leader of the "commonwealth"; this is a contradiction.

she is not respected as a national leader unless the british respect her as their national leader. though a drone has a function in a colony he is no less important that a queen and the service is a verb that does not have value that is weighted based on an observers perception who is drone and who is queen.

i do think she has been given because you have told me she has; so her presence at the un will mean her presence is necessary at that particular time.but is it right to go along with false diatribes for the sake of impersonal respect for another persons/things colony.

so if she is heckled is the heckler dissing the british or the person whom they claim as the highest person that is british.

about people whom their colonies project to them about america; your projections are your own, your reflections are mine to keep since they are images of the self.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Ausar]


I'd be interested where you get the impression she is not a respected leader outside the UK??

Within the Commonwealth of Nations, some hate her, some love her, some want rid of her, others don't. Some even see the Duke of Edingbugh as a god! (go figure, but that is their choice) and others see him as an evil old git (I think of him as simply an old git)

So I see quite a variety of thoughts and feelings on the subject, myself I am quite neutral on the topic, but I don't get the impression she is not respected outside of Britain.

Nothing wrong with heckling a person/leader or whoever.. If someone wants to heckle Queenie I have no issues with that, but as head of State has the right to attend the UN.. You have a right to air your views, just as I have, even if you where to feel she is a shape shifting lizard.

As for the word "CommonWealth" "Commons" etc.. In my opinion what the use of that word does is reinforce the notion that this is our land, our wealth, and at any time we can always have a change in management, since that is all it really is..



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   





"Oh, king. Very nice. And how'd you get that? By exploiting the workers."


Sorry, I couldnt resist. This is a perfect example.


Monty Python, in all it's glory!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
The Queen is also one of the biggest land owners in the World.

The Queen is also iconic to "British" symbolism.

A part of our heritage...

A heritage, which brings in tourists from ALL around the World.

You can bring up anyones past, wether their normal or rich, they all have Skeletons in the wardrobe.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I find it amazing that so many non-UK citizens have such passionate opinions about The Queen and The British Monarchy.
Why?
She / they have absolutely no bearing or say on their lives, (she has very little influence in the UK).




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join