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: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


I've stated the Queen is the United Kingdoms head of state, so unless you feel none of the worlds leaders have a right to speak at the UN, why do you feel that the UK in particular has no right to a voice at the UN?




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
ok i will not contest what you people have stated as her qualifications as "your" leader. the question remains. if a vocal opponent to vices/virtues that are viewed as being western wants to express his/her disdain at the "queen", is it inappropriate?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
ok i will not contest what you people have stated as her qualifications as "your" leader.


She's only mine because I still feel linked to the Commonwealth.


the question remains. if a vocal opponent to vices/virtues that are viewed as being western wants to express his/her disdain at the "queen", is it inappropriate?


I think so. Everyone here has called her the "Head of State." I don't think Liz is. She's the Figurehead of state. The "Defender of the Faith." If she is "reptilian" I hope she out lives both her idiot son and her equally idiotic husband. He's a disgrace. They both are.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Since I'm already well hated around these parts for having my own opinions and not being a "true conspiracy theorist". Im just gonna come out and say it, where the hell do you pull that from? Ive never met an American that would even casually bring up the topic of the royal family neverless obsess over them. Dont be offended Im not trying to cut you down or anything but seriously I've heard more truth from the mouth of Obama himself.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Hey Intrepid. Give me credit. I am trying to back you guys up.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
some girl over in some european country slapped prince charles in face and commented on iraq war and got put into mental institute for god knows how long. dont bother matey, they are the law, would u heckle a police officer, well she is one



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Surely the Royals are also self serving cretins as you put it. At least the politicians are elected and accountable and face public scrutiny.


Personally, I don't think they are that self-serving. Their lives are under the highest scrutiny, they have their diaries filled by beaurocrats and poiticians, they do loads of work for charity, can't be seen to profit off almost anything they do and have very little time to "self-serve". I wouldn't want to be a Royal, that's for sure.


Originally posted by woodwardjnr
as you seem to be the expert on these matters Stu. How much land do the Royal Family own? How much do they cost the taxpayer? what is so outstanding about this family compared with other British families?


Landwise, they have significant holdings. For example, the Duchy of Cornwall and it's income is made available to the Heir so to provide him with an income as he gets nothing from the taxpayer. It is privately owned land, same as anyone elses so I am not sure how anyone can complain against it.

Cost to each taxpayer is something like 12 pence per year. I lose more than that down the back of the sofa. Also, like I said earlier, the taxpayer only pays for the Civil list, which only gives money to the Queen and her hubby to pay for official expenses incurred performing their role.

I don't think the family is any more special, in fact, I would hate to be them. If you're a minor Royal, you do get more freedom to do what you want than the major ones, but you're still under scrutiny. For major Roayls, your life is pre-ordained and run by Civil Servants and the like, no decision is your own and you constantly have to do as your told.

If anything, they are the one family in the UK which lacks the freedoms we enjoy. I can go to the pub, have a beer, have a smoke, go and play football. Harry and Wills can't do any of this without being watched, photgoraphed and managed by their lackies. Not a moment goes by without them having to consider their actions, maintain an image, consult with the Government etx.

It must suck at times, to be honest.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


To be fair, Freeborn, if the Queen did dissolve Parliament, she is trustworthy enough that we all know she'd call fresh elections and not hold onto power. If she did try, I may go against her too. But she does have a role to perform and that is one of her functions, yet she chooses not to exercise it so it has become convention.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by Silk
 

According to Christine Fitzgerald this is what Princess Diana told her.

“The Queen Mother... now that’s a serious piece of wizardry. The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think. To be honest, the Royal Family hasn’t died for a long time, they have just metamorphosised. It’s sort of cloning, but in a different way. They take pieces of flesh and rebuild the body from one little bit. Because it’s lizard, because it’s cold-blooded, it’s much easier for them to do Frankenstein # than it is for us. The different bodies are just different electrical vibrations and they have got that secret, they’ve got the secret of the micro-currents, it’s so micro, so specific, these radio waves that actually create the bodies. These are the energies I work with when I’m healing.


That's it then. Conclusive proof the Queen and her family are indeed shape shifting Alien lizards. I was such a fool to believe otherwise...


You honestly believe this, do you?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


Oh dear Lord....

You post a thread about heckling the Queen, based on some notion she has no right to be at the UN..

This goes back to the comment I made earlier, namely that most people seem to be having an opinion about something (in this case the Queen) without knowing ANYTHING about it.

The Queen is our Head of State. The same as your President, or the French President, or the Dutch Queen. Are you into denying some nations their right to send their HoS? Would you object to the French President speaking?

The Queen is also the head of the CoE, go look up Henry VIII.

Once you have educated yourself on the topic, then come back. There is no point in this discussion if you quite obviously know nothing.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
so the "commonwealth" is a state; by your understanding. and for you the "queen" presides over you as you are her subject; am i wrong?but as she presides over you; she is also the head of the stated "commonwealth"?

i fail to see how a nation is a subject to her person. if she is a true queen she would have to be made to be in the un. she may be your true "queen" in the guise of your own perception.but how do you find it legal for her to be in assembly in the un?

ill try and speak in christian commoners english.

a seed that springs forth a fruit can be valued as the root. yet it is not.a fruit that allows itself to be subject to a seed can never tell the root it is master.a root cannot know a seed by means of many fruits nor a seed by many...


to me you people who claim her as your "queen" have expressed to me she is your "seed" and you are "her" "fruit"; but "her" is not the "root".and attempting to make your "root" present at the un general assembly is an expression of your "fruit". is it wrong of any person to say this fruit is distasteful and ugly and deserves to be trampled? what claim does a seed have with a root that means it must be the only path or RESPECT= ie. to re grow; in the form of the fruit you are presenting?


if you would like to educate someone do that! and not the act of trying?!


in america it is illegal for a cop to arrest me because a woman was interested in me and the cop thought it would be his thoughts intent that the woman and i made a good couple.


the general assembly and the "queen" make a good match?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


With all due respect, what on earth are you talking about and why are you so hung up over Queen Elizabeth speaking at The UN?

She's not hurting you, she has no effect on you, she is no real relevance to you.
So again, what is your problem.

You attempt to speak in methaphoric riddles to appear wise yet you just confuse things.

Lot's of people have addressed The UN Assembly, Pope's - Bill Gates etc, why be so upset and concerned about Liz?

Pathetic is the only word I can think of to sum this up!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


Dude, that made about as much sense as a chocolate fireguard...

Until you can speak in at least a semi-coherent mode, then I don't think any progress can be made on this "issue"...



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
but back on topic.

its not wrong for a communist that has a seat at the assembly to heckle bill gates.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
but back on topic.

its not wrong for a communist that has a seat at the assembly to heckle bill gates.



Back on topic,
So what reasons could be given to heckle the Queen?

edit to add. it might not be wrong from them to Heckle him, but why would they when they purchase his software?

[edit on 21/6/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


Communist? Bill Gates? Who what? Where did that come into the convo?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
you prior poster has shared the greatest in this thread in the last few posts i have read.

it would be illegal for people like chaves to heckle the "queen" when/if she attends the assembly because of the "products" they "buy" from her.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


Look it's pretty straight forward, Queen Elizabeth is due to address the UN Assembly, like lot's of Head's Of State and prominent people have done before her.
Those that have preceeded her have been treat with the dignity and respect that you would expect from such an organisation, why should she be any different?

And why are you so concerned about her?

Just why are YOU so concerned about it?

What relevance is it to you?

Maybe you should just sit back, listen to what she has to say and then if you have any cause for concern then take appropriate action.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Typical British Monarchy - they have created havoc ever since their existence

- WW 1 & 2
- Israel & Palestine conflict
- India & Pakistan religious dissection
- South Africa & Zimbabwe apartheid
- Iraq & Afghanistan anti-Islamic war
- 911 and now doomsday

British Petroleum / Monarchy was funding for all these atrocities with the help of BBC as their mouth piece and now its payback time, I hope they never getup again.

They only believe in divide and rule, when will they ever learn to stop - enough is enough.

stupid sneaky little bastards of small people.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
my last post was to thoughtsfull.how some other post got added in between my reply is anyones guess.

but if anyone has been keeping up with this thread is it still on topic?




[edit on 22-6-2010 by Ausar]




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join