x
Click to expand

pizzapastasaurous

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 18
Steam Profile: marshallbritannic
Date Signed Up:6/25/2011
Last Login:5/06/2015
Location:England
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5643
Comment Ranking:#6919
Highest Content Rank:#5643
Highest Comment Rank:#2988
Content Thumbs: 152 total,  238 ,  86
Comment Thumbs: 1641 total,  2743 ,  1102
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 14 Content: New Here → Level 15 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 53% (53/100)
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:8904
Times Content Favorited:31 times
Total Comments Made:1199
FJ Points:1698
Five foot ten, black straight hair, blue eyes and pale skin.
>inb4 NEET

At University at the moment, studying Psychology and Philosophy; ayy.

latest user's comments

#25 - It was a joke how the Euro-Union is corrupt and broken. …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/19/2015 on map of the world 0
#27 - kanedam (02/19/2015) [-]
#23 - Does the Euro-zone mean anything to you?  [+] (3 new replies) 02/19/2015 on map of the world 0
#24 - kanedam (02/19/2015) [-]
emotionally or what?
User avatar #25 - pizzapastasaurous (02/19/2015) [-]
It was a joke how the Euro-Union is corrupt and broken.

The site need a rhetoric or sarcastic font desperately.
#27 - kanedam (02/19/2015) [-]
#26 - Nope, its one of those conspiracies that has been gaining a lo… 02/19/2015 on Hitler is not kill. -2
#33 - Except I have never been able to replicate myself in any game.. 02/18/2015 on master race gets more ass +1
#130 - Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fai… 02/16/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. 0
#13 - The Monarch is the Head of State, and protector of the realm. …  [+] (22 new replies) 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. +9
User avatar #28 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought it was to the point that she was just a figure head
#71 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
That is a very common misconception. You see, the monarchy possesses an incredible amount of power, but chooses not to use most of their powers (so as not to come into conflict with parliament) and instead just live the good life. If they wished to use them, The monarchy of the United Kingdom has the following powers (among others):

They can suspend or call parliament into session
sign all statutes into law (or refuse to do so, voiding the law)
appoint and remove all ministers (including the prime minister), the queen generally appoints the person who'd have the most support in the House of Commons
Can declare war as they choose
The Monarchy is literally above the law, and so cannot be prosecuted or made the target of civil actions
The Monarch can issue royal pardons, thus exonerating any convicted person they choose
The Monarch is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and all soldiers swear their oaths not to the UK, but to Her Majesty.
Probably her most commonly used power is that of granting honours, she can give anyone peerages (lordships) or knighthoods.

So yeah, while she is not a dictator like Putin or others, and has many of the traditional monarch powers restricted by judges or parliament, she is still the most powerful person in the UK and of course is wealthy beyond imagining (her total wealth-holdings) dwarfs Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The Windsor's just are not corrupt and choose not to use their power, which is one of the reasons they are so beloved.
User avatar #73 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Holy crap that gave me a ton of respect for the queen
User avatar #117 - questionableferret (02/16/2015) [-]
Respect the Queen, sure, and the young Princes, but the generation between them have gotten up to some really awful shit that we're not allowed to know about but we totally do, child Sex-abuse being one of them.

Lizzie is a damn fine gal but her kids, her cousins and their kids and some of their grandkids, have really pushed the extent of how people in the humungous commonwealth are willing to care for them.

By enlarge we're still fine with having the Royal Family. They're part of the identity and history of the commonwealth and have turned from vicious conquerers into regal figureheads that bring people joy. There is always still that looming axe above our necks though of the powers still vested in the crown (note, that phrase comes from the idea that the British Monarchy are given the divine right to rule by God, and that right is invested not in the King, but in the crown, which isn't the actual crown, but a general bulk of power that is considered to be in the hands of whoever is the monarch at the time) but so long as those powers aren't abused there's no reason to get rid of them.

In the US there's flags and founding fathers, in the Commonwealth there's the Monarchy. This has the added bonus of our national icons not being dead or inanimate objects.
#78 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Oh yeah, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family (I'm an American but got my graduate degree in England and lived here for 8 years). To be fair though, a lot of her reigning her powers in is also done in self-interest. Obviously, if she became a despot, her family would be overthrown like they have been in the past. Still, it takes a lot of self-control to let your ministers handle everything and take a back seat.

1 more thing, since you're curious, there are important governmental powers the monarch does NOT have anymore.
-They cannot raise their own personal army (bad things have happened when they were allowed to do that)
-They cannot raise taxes
-While they can void the law by not signing it (but haven't done so since Queen Anne), they cannot create new laws because British Common Law is determined by judges.
User avatar #82 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
What has happened with their own personal armies
#89 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Well, there were the three English Civil Wars, where parliament (headed by Oliver Cromwell) fought a very bloody war against King Charles I's own army and then it expanded to engulf all of the UK and Ireland. In those three, England lost 4% of its entire population, Scotland lost 6-8%, and Ireland was hit brutally, losing 616,000 of it's 1.5 million people (41%). In 1688, William of Orange also led a bloody civil war (The Glorious Revolution) against King James II. But yeah, That's why the Irish have always despised Cromwell and why Parliament and the judges removed that particular power from the Royal Family.
User avatar #91 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
pore Ireland
User avatar #130 - pizzapastasaurous (02/16/2015) [-]
Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fairness; in pre-medieval Britain the Irish were nothing but cunts.

They actually staged mass-immigration invasions of Pictland and Wales. And for 100s of years after they raided the English Kingdoms, Wales and Pictland.

Most people view the Irish as oppressed and undeserving of their punishment. But by God they certainly gave the English cause to attack them.
#93 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Yeah, Ireland's always gotten fucked over throughout time. Must be why they love their drink.
User avatar #65 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
Here in Australia we still sign contracts and stuff under the Queen's name.

When you buy a house the contract do have a term in there that kinda specifies that you are borrowing a piece of land from the royal family indefinitely and can be taken back if the monarch wishes.
User avatar #68 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
so she could like take your house if she wanted it?
User avatar #70 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
According to all Australian contracts, not the house as we built the house, but the land, if she wishes it would belong to her.
User avatar #74 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Its good she is not evil and corrupt then
User avatar #75 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
They wouldn't want to be corrupt. We would declare independence.
User avatar #76 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
But you are your own country
User avatar #77 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
We are an independent country.
But we still have a link to UK, which is that our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II and our laws are based on British constitution and all our laws specifies absolute power to the Queen.

We could have a referendum to have that changed if it gets bad. But Australians like the royal family.
User avatar #80 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
its strange to me cuz im American ge
User avatar #83 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
The Queen is still the head of state of your neighbour; Canada
User avatar #84 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
She has so much reach. jesus
User avatar #88 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
As of current days, only Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a handful of islands are part of the commonwealth realm but it's still enormous
#11 - The rent from all the Crown properties. Which is the majority …  [+] (24 new replies) 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. +8
User avatar #12 - revansfirst (02/15/2015) [-]
well damn. so thats how they stay revelent in these times
User avatar #13 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
The Monarch is the Head of State, and protector of the realm.

Contrary to believe England is not a democracy, its a constitutional monarchy. I don't know from where you hail but the Royal family is the core principle behind the Kingdom of Great Britain. Without them the state would cease to exist. Its like a country not having a constitution or a civil government.
User avatar #28 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought it was to the point that she was just a figure head
#71 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
That is a very common misconception. You see, the monarchy possesses an incredible amount of power, but chooses not to use most of their powers (so as not to come into conflict with parliament) and instead just live the good life. If they wished to use them, The monarchy of the United Kingdom has the following powers (among others):

They can suspend or call parliament into session
sign all statutes into law (or refuse to do so, voiding the law)
appoint and remove all ministers (including the prime minister), the queen generally appoints the person who'd have the most support in the House of Commons
Can declare war as they choose
The Monarchy is literally above the law, and so cannot be prosecuted or made the target of civil actions
The Monarch can issue royal pardons, thus exonerating any convicted person they choose
The Monarch is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and all soldiers swear their oaths not to the UK, but to Her Majesty.
Probably her most commonly used power is that of granting honours, she can give anyone peerages (lordships) or knighthoods.

So yeah, while she is not a dictator like Putin or others, and has many of the traditional monarch powers restricted by judges or parliament, she is still the most powerful person in the UK and of course is wealthy beyond imagining (her total wealth-holdings) dwarfs Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The Windsor's just are not corrupt and choose not to use their power, which is one of the reasons they are so beloved.
User avatar #73 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Holy crap that gave me a ton of respect for the queen
User avatar #117 - questionableferret (02/16/2015) [-]
Respect the Queen, sure, and the young Princes, but the generation between them have gotten up to some really awful shit that we're not allowed to know about but we totally do, child Sex-abuse being one of them.

Lizzie is a damn fine gal but her kids, her cousins and their kids and some of their grandkids, have really pushed the extent of how people in the humungous commonwealth are willing to care for them.

By enlarge we're still fine with having the Royal Family. They're part of the identity and history of the commonwealth and have turned from vicious conquerers into regal figureheads that bring people joy. There is always still that looming axe above our necks though of the powers still vested in the crown (note, that phrase comes from the idea that the British Monarchy are given the divine right to rule by God, and that right is invested not in the King, but in the crown, which isn't the actual crown, but a general bulk of power that is considered to be in the hands of whoever is the monarch at the time) but so long as those powers aren't abused there's no reason to get rid of them.

In the US there's flags and founding fathers, in the Commonwealth there's the Monarchy. This has the added bonus of our national icons not being dead or inanimate objects.
#78 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Oh yeah, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family (I'm an American but got my graduate degree in England and lived here for 8 years). To be fair though, a lot of her reigning her powers in is also done in self-interest. Obviously, if she became a despot, her family would be overthrown like they have been in the past. Still, it takes a lot of self-control to let your ministers handle everything and take a back seat.

1 more thing, since you're curious, there are important governmental powers the monarch does NOT have anymore.
-They cannot raise their own personal army (bad things have happened when they were allowed to do that)
-They cannot raise taxes
-While they can void the law by not signing it (but haven't done so since Queen Anne), they cannot create new laws because British Common Law is determined by judges.
User avatar #82 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
What has happened with their own personal armies
#89 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Well, there were the three English Civil Wars, where parliament (headed by Oliver Cromwell) fought a very bloody war against King Charles I's own army and then it expanded to engulf all of the UK and Ireland. In those three, England lost 4% of its entire population, Scotland lost 6-8%, and Ireland was hit brutally, losing 616,000 of it's 1.5 million people (41%). In 1688, William of Orange also led a bloody civil war (The Glorious Revolution) against King James II. But yeah, That's why the Irish have always despised Cromwell and why Parliament and the judges removed that particular power from the Royal Family.
User avatar #91 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
pore Ireland
User avatar #130 - pizzapastasaurous (02/16/2015) [-]
Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fairness; in pre-medieval Britain the Irish were nothing but cunts.

They actually staged mass-immigration invasions of Pictland and Wales. And for 100s of years after they raided the English Kingdoms, Wales and Pictland.

Most people view the Irish as oppressed and undeserving of their punishment. But by God they certainly gave the English cause to attack them.
#93 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Yeah, Ireland's always gotten fucked over throughout time. Must be why they love their drink.
User avatar #65 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
Here in Australia we still sign contracts and stuff under the Queen's name.

When you buy a house the contract do have a term in there that kinda specifies that you are borrowing a piece of land from the royal family indefinitely and can be taken back if the monarch wishes.
User avatar #68 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
so she could like take your house if she wanted it?
User avatar #70 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
According to all Australian contracts, not the house as we built the house, but the land, if she wishes it would belong to her.
User avatar #74 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Its good she is not evil and corrupt then
User avatar #75 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
They wouldn't want to be corrupt. We would declare independence.
User avatar #76 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
But you are your own country
User avatar #77 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
We are an independent country.
But we still have a link to UK, which is that our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II and our laws are based on British constitution and all our laws specifies absolute power to the Queen.

We could have a referendum to have that changed if it gets bad. But Australians like the royal family.
User avatar #80 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
its strange to me cuz im American ge
User avatar #83 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
The Queen is still the head of state of your neighbour; Canada
User avatar #84 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
She has so much reach. jesus
User avatar #88 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
As of current days, only Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a handful of islands are part of the commonwealth realm but it's still enormous
#4 - **** those parents. For all you normies that …  [+] (7 new replies) 02/15/2015 on FOR YOU -23
User avatar #41 - franchescarules (02/16/2015) [-]
you're a retard, sir.

My cousins first kid was born with CF, she had no idea she carried the gene and neither did her husband, it has never appeared in our family before Oscar was born so she had no inkling that it was going to happen.
As for the whole "you can test for it" shit, yes, yes you can but only if you know you have the gene in the family because it is a very specific and expensive test run only if the family has a history of CF and (spoiler alert) most people don't realise they have it. Both parents have to have the gene for the child to have a 1:4 chance of being born with CF and since the gene is rare (only 10,000 people have CF in the UK) it's not often people know they have it. When my cousin wanted another kid she had IVF to make sure that that the kids (they ended up as twins) wouldn't even carry the gene so they have 0 chance of having kids with CF themselves.

Oscar is now 4 and he lives a perfectly happy life, termination? fuck you my little cousin has just as much right to live as you do.It 's true he can get ill easily but people with CF have an average life expectancy of 60 now so its not "100% fatal and will kill young" , stop pulling bullshit out of your ass when you clearly know fuck all about this subject you fuckbrained nitwit.
User avatar #40 - IronTortureDevice (02/16/2015) [-]
I have a close friend with CF, and I think he's quite glad he was born, in the second year of his Masters in Mechanical Engineering, and even if he's not totally healthy, he doesn't live a cruel life. CF isn't as bad as it used to be, it's manageable at least nowadays.
#39 - seraphunbound (02/16/2015) [-]
How about fuck you?

My daughter was born with cystic fibrosis, and she is the happiest little girl on the planet, and the light of my fucking life.

We knew that there was a chance of her having CF. You wanna know when we found out? Week 32, when my genetic testing results came back. My wife had her prenatal testing done, and came up positive for the gene at week 16, so my blood was sent off to a lab and it took forever to come back. Even if it had come in the legal window for it, I still wouldn't have terminated. Neither would my wife, because even with both parents carrying the gene, there is only a 25% chance of the child developing the disease. It HAS influenced our decision to not have more children, because I will not roll the dice on another child's life.

Also, you misinformed fuckwit, advances in the treatment of CF have made it likely that patients will outlive their parents, with the average life expectancy of a double Delta F508 mutated patient (the most common CF gene mutation) sitting at a woefully young 52 years. The CFF and other organizations like it are working hard EVERY day to find a cure, and it's only getting better. Look up Kalydeco when you get a chance, and educate yourself before you post this garbage.

Don't you fucking judge them, and don't you fucking judge us. When faced with the decision to finally hold a child of your own after 6 miscarriages or throw a viable pregnancy to the wind, there isn't really an option.

I love my girl. I love her more than you can imagine, and I don't believe she will grow up hating me for giving her a shot at life.
#30 - Common Pepe (02/16/2015) [-]
I've got a neat genetic disease called marfan syndrome. Unfortunately, I've got a pretty severe case. On top of that, I've suffered from hormonal issues that are causing my body to periodically attempt suicide. This combination is almost certainly going to kill me before I'm 40, and my parents knew they had both before they had me.

I won't tell you about having a good quality of life. I've suffered a lot. It's painful - the circulation, the bones, the heart, the eyes, the headaches, and my body systematically attempting to shut down itself. My parents were in such denial the first time it happened, that they let me get to the brink of death before they called a doctor. They're bad parents, and my life is extremely painful.

But the funny thing about suffering, is that you appreciate the good times more than anyone else. The times when good things don't happen for a while are the worst. But something always eventually happens. And it feels great. It might not be the best, longest life. And I have my doubts about it during the worst times. But I can make it worth it. I am happy that I was born. I'm not happy that I had to have this condition, but I'm happy to have my own chance at happiness.
User avatar #10 - misleadinginfo (02/16/2015) [-]
We live in a beautiful world where every mother is completely aware and every fetus is screened for genetic defects during prenatal development so that we can all make informed decisions whether to terminate or not.
User avatar #6 - gingerlucy (02/15/2015) [-]
Can personally vouch that suffers can have a good quality of life . . .
User avatar #11 - misleadinginfo (02/16/2015) [-]
Serious post now- My best friend's mother has MS and a relatively good quality of life but that condition can deteriorate fast. I hope she remains healthy for the rest of her life though.
#8 - Thats actually not true. The Monarchy funds the parliament; re…  [+] (26 new replies) 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. +7
User avatar #9 - revansfirst (02/15/2015) [-]
Where does all of the money come from?
User avatar #11 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
The rent from all the Crown properties. Which is the majority of Great Britain.

Also the literal billions from tourism.
User avatar #12 - revansfirst (02/15/2015) [-]
well damn. so thats how they stay revelent in these times
User avatar #13 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
The Monarch is the Head of State, and protector of the realm.

Contrary to believe England is not a democracy, its a constitutional monarchy. I don't know from where you hail but the Royal family is the core principle behind the Kingdom of Great Britain. Without them the state would cease to exist. Its like a country not having a constitution or a civil government.
User avatar #28 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought it was to the point that she was just a figure head
#71 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
That is a very common misconception. You see, the monarchy possesses an incredible amount of power, but chooses not to use most of their powers (so as not to come into conflict with parliament) and instead just live the good life. If they wished to use them, The monarchy of the United Kingdom has the following powers (among others):

They can suspend or call parliament into session
sign all statutes into law (or refuse to do so, voiding the law)
appoint and remove all ministers (including the prime minister), the queen generally appoints the person who'd have the most support in the House of Commons
Can declare war as they choose
The Monarchy is literally above the law, and so cannot be prosecuted or made the target of civil actions
The Monarch can issue royal pardons, thus exonerating any convicted person they choose
The Monarch is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and all soldiers swear their oaths not to the UK, but to Her Majesty.
Probably her most commonly used power is that of granting honours, she can give anyone peerages (lordships) or knighthoods.

So yeah, while she is not a dictator like Putin or others, and has many of the traditional monarch powers restricted by judges or parliament, she is still the most powerful person in the UK and of course is wealthy beyond imagining (her total wealth-holdings) dwarfs Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The Windsor's just are not corrupt and choose not to use their power, which is one of the reasons they are so beloved.
User avatar #73 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Holy crap that gave me a ton of respect for the queen
User avatar #117 - questionableferret (02/16/2015) [-]
Respect the Queen, sure, and the young Princes, but the generation between them have gotten up to some really awful shit that we're not allowed to know about but we totally do, child Sex-abuse being one of them.

Lizzie is a damn fine gal but her kids, her cousins and their kids and some of their grandkids, have really pushed the extent of how people in the humungous commonwealth are willing to care for them.

By enlarge we're still fine with having the Royal Family. They're part of the identity and history of the commonwealth and have turned from vicious conquerers into regal figureheads that bring people joy. There is always still that looming axe above our necks though of the powers still vested in the crown (note, that phrase comes from the idea that the British Monarchy are given the divine right to rule by God, and that right is invested not in the King, but in the crown, which isn't the actual crown, but a general bulk of power that is considered to be in the hands of whoever is the monarch at the time) but so long as those powers aren't abused there's no reason to get rid of them.

In the US there's flags and founding fathers, in the Commonwealth there's the Monarchy. This has the added bonus of our national icons not being dead or inanimate objects.
#78 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Oh yeah, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family (I'm an American but got my graduate degree in England and lived here for 8 years). To be fair though, a lot of her reigning her powers in is also done in self-interest. Obviously, if she became a despot, her family would be overthrown like they have been in the past. Still, it takes a lot of self-control to let your ministers handle everything and take a back seat.

1 more thing, since you're curious, there are important governmental powers the monarch does NOT have anymore.
-They cannot raise their own personal army (bad things have happened when they were allowed to do that)
-They cannot raise taxes
-While they can void the law by not signing it (but haven't done so since Queen Anne), they cannot create new laws because British Common Law is determined by judges.
User avatar #82 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
What has happened with their own personal armies
#89 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Well, there were the three English Civil Wars, where parliament (headed by Oliver Cromwell) fought a very bloody war against King Charles I's own army and then it expanded to engulf all of the UK and Ireland. In those three, England lost 4% of its entire population, Scotland lost 6-8%, and Ireland was hit brutally, losing 616,000 of it's 1.5 million people (41%). In 1688, William of Orange also led a bloody civil war (The Glorious Revolution) against King James II. But yeah, That's why the Irish have always despised Cromwell and why Parliament and the judges removed that particular power from the Royal Family.
User avatar #91 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
pore Ireland
User avatar #130 - pizzapastasaurous (02/16/2015) [-]
Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fairness; in pre-medieval Britain the Irish were nothing but cunts.

They actually staged mass-immigration invasions of Pictland and Wales. And for 100s of years after they raided the English Kingdoms, Wales and Pictland.

Most people view the Irish as oppressed and undeserving of their punishment. But by God they certainly gave the English cause to attack them.
#93 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Yeah, Ireland's always gotten fucked over throughout time. Must be why they love their drink.
User avatar #65 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
Here in Australia we still sign contracts and stuff under the Queen's name.

When you buy a house the contract do have a term in there that kinda specifies that you are borrowing a piece of land from the royal family indefinitely and can be taken back if the monarch wishes.
User avatar #68 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
so she could like take your house if she wanted it?
User avatar #70 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
According to all Australian contracts, not the house as we built the house, but the land, if she wishes it would belong to her.
User avatar #74 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Its good she is not evil and corrupt then
User avatar #75 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
They wouldn't want to be corrupt. We would declare independence.
User avatar #76 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
But you are your own country
User avatar #77 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
We are an independent country.
But we still have a link to UK, which is that our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II and our laws are based on British constitution and all our laws specifies absolute power to the Queen.

We could have a referendum to have that changed if it gets bad. But Australians like the royal family.
User avatar #80 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
its strange to me cuz im American ge
User avatar #83 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
The Queen is still the head of state of your neighbour; Canada
User avatar #84 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
She has so much reach. jesus
User avatar #88 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
As of current days, only Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a handful of islands are part of the commonwealth realm but it's still enormous
#6 - Newlywed means someone that has recently been wed. Therefore; … 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. +1
#5 - *serve 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. 0
#4 - I never understood why some people despise random members of t…  [+] (32 new replies) 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. +16
User avatar #26 - jiichei (02/16/2015) [-]
I dunno. I have only heard that the younger royals are jerks. don't know don't care not my country (yet? fuck, I might be moving to england.)
User avatar #110 - sursum (02/16/2015) [-]
Both the princes are actually quite cool people. Harry, the younger, is a bit nuts like he parties and stuff but he was very aggressive about serving in Afghanistan despite the risks etc so you can't help but respect the guy.
#7 - Common Pepe (02/15/2015) [-]
Because if they weren't around, taxes would be slightly lower.
#10 - Common Pepe (02/15/2015) [-]
watch this, you fucking pleb The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
User avatar #8 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
Thats actually not true. The Monarchy funds the parliament; reduce taxes by about £1 per person.
User avatar #9 - revansfirst (02/15/2015) [-]
Where does all of the money come from?
User avatar #11 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
The rent from all the Crown properties. Which is the majority of Great Britain.

Also the literal billions from tourism.
User avatar #12 - revansfirst (02/15/2015) [-]
well damn. so thats how they stay revelent in these times
User avatar #13 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
The Monarch is the Head of State, and protector of the realm.

Contrary to believe England is not a democracy, its a constitutional monarchy. I don't know from where you hail but the Royal family is the core principle behind the Kingdom of Great Britain. Without them the state would cease to exist. Its like a country not having a constitution or a civil government.
User avatar #28 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought it was to the point that she was just a figure head
#71 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
That is a very common misconception. You see, the monarchy possesses an incredible amount of power, but chooses not to use most of their powers (so as not to come into conflict with parliament) and instead just live the good life. If they wished to use them, The monarchy of the United Kingdom has the following powers (among others):

They can suspend or call parliament into session
sign all statutes into law (or refuse to do so, voiding the law)
appoint and remove all ministers (including the prime minister), the queen generally appoints the person who'd have the most support in the House of Commons
Can declare war as they choose
The Monarchy is literally above the law, and so cannot be prosecuted or made the target of civil actions
The Monarch can issue royal pardons, thus exonerating any convicted person they choose
The Monarch is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and all soldiers swear their oaths not to the UK, but to Her Majesty.
Probably her most commonly used power is that of granting honours, she can give anyone peerages (lordships) or knighthoods.

So yeah, while she is not a dictator like Putin or others, and has many of the traditional monarch powers restricted by judges or parliament, she is still the most powerful person in the UK and of course is wealthy beyond imagining (her total wealth-holdings) dwarfs Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The Windsor's just are not corrupt and choose not to use their power, which is one of the reasons they are so beloved.
User avatar #73 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Holy crap that gave me a ton of respect for the queen
User avatar #117 - questionableferret (02/16/2015) [-]
Respect the Queen, sure, and the young Princes, but the generation between them have gotten up to some really awful shit that we're not allowed to know about but we totally do, child Sex-abuse being one of them.

Lizzie is a damn fine gal but her kids, her cousins and their kids and some of their grandkids, have really pushed the extent of how people in the humungous commonwealth are willing to care for them.

By enlarge we're still fine with having the Royal Family. They're part of the identity and history of the commonwealth and have turned from vicious conquerers into regal figureheads that bring people joy. There is always still that looming axe above our necks though of the powers still vested in the crown (note, that phrase comes from the idea that the British Monarchy are given the divine right to rule by God, and that right is invested not in the King, but in the crown, which isn't the actual crown, but a general bulk of power that is considered to be in the hands of whoever is the monarch at the time) but so long as those powers aren't abused there's no reason to get rid of them.

In the US there's flags and founding fathers, in the Commonwealth there's the Monarchy. This has the added bonus of our national icons not being dead or inanimate objects.
#78 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Oh yeah, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family (I'm an American but got my graduate degree in England and lived here for 8 years). To be fair though, a lot of her reigning her powers in is also done in self-interest. Obviously, if she became a despot, her family would be overthrown like they have been in the past. Still, it takes a lot of self-control to let your ministers handle everything and take a back seat.

1 more thing, since you're curious, there are important governmental powers the monarch does NOT have anymore.
-They cannot raise their own personal army (bad things have happened when they were allowed to do that)
-They cannot raise taxes
-While they can void the law by not signing it (but haven't done so since Queen Anne), they cannot create new laws because British Common Law is determined by judges.
User avatar #82 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
What has happened with their own personal armies
#89 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Well, there were the three English Civil Wars, where parliament (headed by Oliver Cromwell) fought a very bloody war against King Charles I's own army and then it expanded to engulf all of the UK and Ireland. In those three, England lost 4% of its entire population, Scotland lost 6-8%, and Ireland was hit brutally, losing 616,000 of it's 1.5 million people (41%). In 1688, William of Orange also led a bloody civil war (The Glorious Revolution) against King James II. But yeah, That's why the Irish have always despised Cromwell and why Parliament and the judges removed that particular power from the Royal Family.
User avatar #91 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
pore Ireland
User avatar #130 - pizzapastasaurous (02/16/2015) [-]
Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fairness; in pre-medieval Britain the Irish were nothing but cunts.

They actually staged mass-immigration invasions of Pictland and Wales. And for 100s of years after they raided the English Kingdoms, Wales and Pictland.

Most people view the Irish as oppressed and undeserving of their punishment. But by God they certainly gave the English cause to attack them.
#93 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Yeah, Ireland's always gotten fucked over throughout time. Must be why they love their drink.
User avatar #65 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
Here in Australia we still sign contracts and stuff under the Queen's name.

When you buy a house the contract do have a term in there that kinda specifies that you are borrowing a piece of land from the royal family indefinitely and can be taken back if the monarch wishes.
User avatar #68 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
so she could like take your house if she wanted it?
User avatar #70 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
According to all Australian contracts, not the house as we built the house, but the land, if she wishes it would belong to her.
User avatar #74 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Its good she is not evil and corrupt then
User avatar #75 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
They wouldn't want to be corrupt. We would declare independence.
User avatar #76 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
But you are your own country
User avatar #77 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
We are an independent country.
But we still have a link to UK, which is that our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II and our laws are based on British constitution and all our laws specifies absolute power to the Queen.

We could have a referendum to have that changed if it gets bad. But Australians like the royal family.
User avatar #80 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
its strange to me cuz im American ge
User avatar #83 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
The Queen is still the head of state of your neighbour; Canada
User avatar #84 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
She has so much reach. jesus
User avatar #88 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
As of current days, only Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a handful of islands are part of the commonwealth realm but it's still enormous
User avatar #5 - pizzapastasaurous (02/15/2015) [-]
*serve
#112 - Thats pretty cute bro. Have you ever had to threaten…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/15/2015 on Bummer +1
User avatar #114 - malliance (02/15/2015) [-]
Yeah plenty of times but, we're not allowed to shoot if we give sufficient warnings and they still don't remove themselves from the area we're allowed to forcefully remove them, failing that we can hold them down and have the officers around arrest them.
User avatar #129 - zomitlu (02/15/2015) [-]
So the guns are actually loaded?

I thought they were empty and you only had the bayonets
User avatar #130 - malliance (02/15/2015) [-]
Depends what the threat level is ;P
#167 - BELIEVE IT 02/14/2015 on OH MY GOD +1
#284 - Notice how in my opening statement I said " force Christi… 02/13/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism 0
#281 - Yes you're correct. That is why I only have an issue about for… 02/13/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism 0
#280 - Please don't go on a tirade about your personal feelings. I ev…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/13/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism 0
#283 - angelusprimus (02/13/2015) [-]
Yeah, I went on a tirade. Why? Because if anyone is assuming more moral authority and "godly protection" its christians.

For example a right to chose for others that their marriage is not what god wants (even though there are plenty of christian churches that will marry gays, but I know, they are not really christian, since they are different from you), christians like you used SAME arguments against gay marriage to protest interracial marriage not so long ago. You claim all morality comes from God and we all must act in what you consider moral ways. People like you keep trying very hard to regulate and legislate what they consider moral. Well fuck that.

And I'd find your links you pulled in "20 seconds" lot more credible if they have not come from sites that are so far right christian they might a well be WBC Times.

And yes, some people will push for more than what others consider normal. There are christian groups in Texas petitioning government to make it illegal to be muslim in texas. They are small fringe groups that don't really matter, and don't represent the majority.
User avatar #284 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Notice how in my opening statement I said " force Christians to marry you" not " force us Christians to marry you". Because I am not a Christian. I love how you're attempting to demonize me because I might be Christian. That says a lot about you.

And here you go:
www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=gay+couple+sues+church

Choose any God-damn link you want. There are hundreds of them.
#17 - I was also a Jehovah's witness. Dunno about your region, but i…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/12/2015 on Job 13:5 0
User avatar #18 - vanhoutte (02/13/2015) [-]
Thats exactly the same for me. Being disfellowshiped for loving someone who wasn't a jehovahs witness is fucked.
#11 - Picture 02/12/2015 on Army of the Damned +1
#10 - Picture 02/12/2015 on Army of the Damned +2
#76 - You're right about the definition of "marriage" I wa…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/12/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism +3
#197 - angelusprimus (02/13/2015) [-]
First... right wing christian websites credible sources do not make. Not to mention that they are so WRONG on so many issues in this article its hilarious.

Second, I can sue government to pass a law that makes everyone dress like a pink panther, but that doesn't mean that lawsuit has a snowflake's chance in hell. In UK it goes against the established precedent that government does not interfere in church affairs, in USA it goes under constitution.

And second, fuck your definition of "traditional marriage". Western marriage STARTED as civil and NOT church matter. Catholic church copied its marriage from Roman Law, and roman marriage was a civil matter except for patricians where blessings of Juno would be asked. But it was still a matter of civil law.

Ancient egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese had marriage. So please stop selling marriage as something that is matter of christian tradition, because its a such a bold faced lie it sickens me.

Marriage has been, for thousands of years before Christianity, a civil contract. For fucks sake, in Babylon it was even dealt with as a TRADE matter.
User avatar #280 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Please don't go on a tirade about your personal feelings. I even conceded a point which you deemed to not be "politically correct" enough for you.

And you said "Its a stupid thing constantly repeated and gays never demanded that, ever. We have a fucking freedom of religion laws that cover that. "

Yet I gave you some proof that gays do advocate to force Christians to hold weddings. Those two links were only quick ones I pulled up in 20 seconds. There were thousands of pages referencing similar or the same precedent; homosexuals, just like everyone else, like to push an agenda.

Being a special snowflake does not give you any more moral authority and "Godly protection" than anyone else.
#283 - angelusprimus (02/13/2015) [-]
Yeah, I went on a tirade. Why? Because if anyone is assuming more moral authority and "godly protection" its christians.

For example a right to chose for others that their marriage is not what god wants (even though there are plenty of christian churches that will marry gays, but I know, they are not really christian, since they are different from you), christians like you used SAME arguments against gay marriage to protest interracial marriage not so long ago. You claim all morality comes from God and we all must act in what you consider moral ways. People like you keep trying very hard to regulate and legislate what they consider moral. Well fuck that.

And I'd find your links you pulled in "20 seconds" lot more credible if they have not come from sites that are so far right christian they might a well be WBC Times.

And yes, some people will push for more than what others consider normal. There are christian groups in Texas petitioning government to make it illegal to be muslim in texas. They are small fringe groups that don't really matter, and don't represent the majority.
User avatar #284 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Notice how in my opening statement I said " force Christians to marry you" not " force us Christians to marry you". Because I am not a Christian. I love how you're attempting to demonize me because I might be Christian. That says a lot about you.

And here you go:
www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=gay+couple+sues+church

Choose any God-damn link you want. There are hundreds of them.
User avatar #113 - dopeydoo (02/12/2015) [-]
BUT you do realize that, thanks to the church's strong standpoint, in most states it's illegal for gays to get married, regardless of whether it's through the church or not. True, denying gays a religious marriage would bring some backlash to the church regardless, but it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that their stance affects legal precedence as well as religious.
User avatar #281 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Yes you're correct. That is why I only have an issue about forcing "unfavorable marriages" on religious communities.
#26 - I always stand by this. You being gay doesn't give you the rig…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/12/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism +10
#121 - Common Pepe (02/12/2015) [-]
Apparently it has to do with Civil Unions only being recognized at the state and not the national level. You can still be married by a judge.
#51 - angelusprimus (02/12/2015) [-]
You are aware that right to get married doesn't FORCE anyone to marry anyone? Right?
It only means that state has to allow same sex marriages and give them all the rights heterosexual marriages do.
Just like Orthodox jewish temples don't have to preform marriages if people are not orthodox jews, no church will have to preform same sex marriages if they don't want to.
Its a stupid thing constantly repeated and gays never demanded that, ever. We have a fucking freedom of religion laws that cover that.
User avatar #76 - pizzapastasaurous (02/12/2015) [-]
You're right about the definition of "marriage" I was incorrect. I still thought it was the traditional definition, I see it has been changed.

However, no; whenever a Church denies access to a same-sex couple the Church gets slandered and the couple sometimes takes them to court.

As shown here:
www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding
eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/

#197 - angelusprimus (02/13/2015) [-]
First... right wing christian websites credible sources do not make. Not to mention that they are so WRONG on so many issues in this article its hilarious.

Second, I can sue government to pass a law that makes everyone dress like a pink panther, but that doesn't mean that lawsuit has a snowflake's chance in hell. In UK it goes against the established precedent that government does not interfere in church affairs, in USA it goes under constitution.

And second, fuck your definition of "traditional marriage". Western marriage STARTED as civil and NOT church matter. Catholic church copied its marriage from Roman Law, and roman marriage was a civil matter except for patricians where blessings of Juno would be asked. But it was still a matter of civil law.

Ancient egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese had marriage. So please stop selling marriage as something that is matter of christian tradition, because its a such a bold faced lie it sickens me.

Marriage has been, for thousands of years before Christianity, a civil contract. For fucks sake, in Babylon it was even dealt with as a TRADE matter.
User avatar #280 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Please don't go on a tirade about your personal feelings. I even conceded a point which you deemed to not be "politically correct" enough for you.

And you said "Its a stupid thing constantly repeated and gays never demanded that, ever. We have a fucking freedom of religion laws that cover that. "

Yet I gave you some proof that gays do advocate to force Christians to hold weddings. Those two links were only quick ones I pulled up in 20 seconds. There were thousands of pages referencing similar or the same precedent; homosexuals, just like everyone else, like to push an agenda.

Being a special snowflake does not give you any more moral authority and "Godly protection" than anyone else.
#283 - angelusprimus (02/13/2015) [-]
Yeah, I went on a tirade. Why? Because if anyone is assuming more moral authority and "godly protection" its christians.

For example a right to chose for others that their marriage is not what god wants (even though there are plenty of christian churches that will marry gays, but I know, they are not really christian, since they are different from you), christians like you used SAME arguments against gay marriage to protest interracial marriage not so long ago. You claim all morality comes from God and we all must act in what you consider moral ways. People like you keep trying very hard to regulate and legislate what they consider moral. Well fuck that.

And I'd find your links you pulled in "20 seconds" lot more credible if they have not come from sites that are so far right christian they might a well be WBC Times.

And yes, some people will push for more than what others consider normal. There are christian groups in Texas petitioning government to make it illegal to be muslim in texas. They are small fringe groups that don't really matter, and don't represent the majority.
User avatar #284 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Notice how in my opening statement I said " force Christians to marry you" not " force us Christians to marry you". Because I am not a Christian. I love how you're attempting to demonize me because I might be Christian. That says a lot about you.

And here you go:
www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=gay+couple+sues+church

Choose any God-damn link you want. There are hundreds of them.
User avatar #113 - dopeydoo (02/12/2015) [-]
BUT you do realize that, thanks to the church's strong standpoint, in most states it's illegal for gays to get married, regardless of whether it's through the church or not. True, denying gays a religious marriage would bring some backlash to the church regardless, but it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that their stance affects legal precedence as well as religious.
User avatar #281 - pizzapastasaurous (02/13/2015) [-]
Yes you're correct. That is why I only have an issue about forcing "unfavorable marriages" on religious communities.
#20 - Hey, Scotland begged us to let them into the Union. 02/11/2015 on royal ass +2
#270 - Our names are pretty similar.. 02/09/2015 on We be growing 0
#1 - Anyone wanna play a full / long CK2 game? I have the…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2015 on Hail the Allfather 0
#2 - hongkonglongdong (02/10/2015) [-]
I got Charlemagne.
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#43 - desacabose ONLINE (03/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #39 - loopymoomoo (03/22/2015) [-]
dis ***** doesnt like dank webm comps
User avatar #40 to #39 - pizzapastasaurous (03/22/2015) [-]
Watchu talking about f00l?
User avatar #37 - Falkor (02/09/2015) [-]
User avatar #34 - gugek (11/22/2014) [-]
Hi! I hope you have a great night, and a fantastic day tomorrow!
User avatar #35 to #34 - pizzapastasaurous (11/22/2014) [-]
Yo, thanks dawg. You alright
User avatar #36 to #35 - gugek (11/22/2014) [-]
Thanks homie.
 Friends (0)