On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>
>>>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>
>>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>
>>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>
>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>
>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>hold the new plebiscite?

Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?

On 4/7/2016 6:07 PM, wrote:
> Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?


STFU- WHORE!

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and
>>>>>>>>>>she
>>>>>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>
>>>>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>
>>>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>
>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>>Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>
> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
> Or I think I heard the PM say that.

Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/8/2016 2:28 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Bruce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the
>>>>>>>>>>> Queen and she
>>>>>>>>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>> would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>> Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>>
>>>> But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>> hold the new plebiscite?
>>>
>>> Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>>
>> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
>> Or I think I heard the PM say that.
>
> Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.
>

Oh...that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid..._United_States

Since 2001, the president has earned a $400,000 annual salary, along
with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel
account, and $19,000 for entertainment.[79][80] The most recent raise in
salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and
went into effect in 2001.


Your royals cost HOW much?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/theroyalhous.../overview.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_7651702.html

Twitter has been sent into a monarchy-bashing frenzy, following reports
that the Queen may have to move out of Buckingham Palace for improvement
work that's set to cost the taxpayer around £150 million.

But with 13 million people living in poverty, 913,000 people using food
banks last year and anti-austerity marches so big that even Russell
Brand is getting involved, is ploughing £150 million into the Queen's
estate a smart move?

Well - let's look at the stats.

The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately
£35.7 million.

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:28:33 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>>>
>>>>Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>>>
>>> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
>>> Or I think I heard the PM say that.
>>
>>Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.
>
> Is a president worse than a PM? Take the German system. Angela Merkel,
> is their PM, not their president. PM's can mess up too.
>

I think so.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 11:32:30 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:28:33 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>>>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
>>>>> Or I think I heard the PM say that.
>>>>
>>>>Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.
>>>
>>> Is a president worse than a PM? Take the German system. Angela Merkel,
>>> is their PM, not their president. PM's can mess up too.
>>>
>>I think so.
>
> I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
> Angela

Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Bruce" wrote:
> > I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
> > Angela
>
> Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
> immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!

Listen to you talking all bad about Julie's daughter.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

JK ;-D

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Bruce" wrote:
>> > I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
>> > Angela
>>
>> Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
>> immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!
>
> Listen to you talking all bad about Julie's daughter.
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> JK ;-D

;p

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/8/2016 5:00 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>>>> Is a president worse than a PM? Take the German system. Angela Merkel,
>>>> is their PM, not their president. PM's can mess up too.
>>>>
>>> I think so.
>>
>> I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
>> Angela
>
> Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
> immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!
>
+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:00:48 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 11:32:30 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:28:33 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a president worse than a PM? Take the German system. Angela Merkel,
>>>>> is their PM, not their president. PM's can mess up too.
>>>>>
>>>>I think so.
>>>
>>> I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
>>> Angela
>>
>>Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
>>immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!
>
> That's more like it!
>

I told you not to get me started!!! You know I don't like talking politics
here much


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/