JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Results 1 to 45 of 45
  1. #1
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    The cost of former presidents

    Guess before reading -- how much do you think it costs to support former US presidents? for a bonus, which living former president is costing taxpayers the most?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tyle-2014.html

    I'm not telling up front; I'll just say that the figures surprised me, though who's costing us the most didn't, really.


    edit: this doesn't include the cost of Secret Service coverage; that's a figure they don't give out so freely -- I guess the amount might tip someone off as to how much security each one has.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; June 24th, 2014 at 09:22 PM.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  2. #2
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,592

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Not surprised.

  3. #3
    Slut Special K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    U.K.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    276

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Well at least you have a combined Head of State / Head of Government (i.e. the President), in the United Kingdom we have to financially support all of our former Prime Ministers, and we have an extensive monarchy to keep as well. Furthermore, in the event that Queen Elizabeth II were to abdicate for whatever reason, the taxpayer would still be responsible for keeping her, as a former monarch of the United Kingdom.

    And whilst I support the monarchy, I do think that the extent of it, and the financial burden that it places on taxpayers is too great, perhaps they could scale it down to include the reigning monarch, his/her consort and his/her immediate offspring, and the remaining 'minor' royals can fend for themselves. I consider that to be a more than reasonable comprise, although staunch royalists would perhaps disagree.

  4. #4
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,657
    Blog Entries
    16

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    i would say the whole idea of a monarchy is way outdated and couldnt imagine the brits tolerating it, but there are far worse players in control of the American congress.


  5. #5
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,725
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Special K View Post
    in the United Kingdom we have an extensive monarchy to keep as well.
    The Royal family generates close to 500 million (about US$849 million) every year for British tourism. (The Telegraph; 2011)

  6. #6
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by evanrick View Post
    i would say the whole idea of a monarchy is way outdated and couldnt imagine the brits tolerating it, but there are far worse players in control of the American congress.
    Some people think democracy is outdated.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  7. #7
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,592

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    The Royal family generates close to 500 million (about US$849 million) every year for British tourism. (The Telegraph; 2011)
    Too many people forget this.

    Britain's monarchy is a money machine.

  8. #8
    Slut Special K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    U.K.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    276

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    The Royal family generates close to 500 million (about US$849 million) every year for British tourism. (The Telegraph; 2011)
    I did clearly state in my post that I support the monarchy, and there is no denying that it is a very important asset for British tourism. But taxpayers are still liable for contributing towards the upkeep of the Royal Family, in addition to our former living Prime Ministers, so in effect, it is a double burden. After all, that was what the OP's post was about.
    Last edited by Special K; June 26th, 2014 at 06:18 AM.

  9. #9
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    Too many people forget this.

    Britain's monarchy is a money machine.
    How much of a monarchy would it take to balance the US budget?


    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  10. #10

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    I found Hillary Clinton's comment that they were dead broke after leaving the White House amusing. I suspect that she was technically correct, because they probably had a huge debt for legal fees. However, considering what we now know what was their future earning potential, that's the state of being "dead broke" I could live with.

  11. #11
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    24,238

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    If the government estimates a cost that is acceptable to live for citizens, then we should pay them that amount. Still give them security, but just above a poverty level is considered not in poverty. Why we need to pay for staff and offices I have not the faintest.
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  12. #12
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    If the government estimates a cost that is acceptable to live for citizens, then we should pay them that amount. Still give them security, but just above a poverty level is considered not in poverty. Why we need to pay for staff and offices I have not the faintest.
    The median national income would be a good starting point.

    Or maybe the average.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  13. #13
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,731
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Special K View Post
    Well at least you have a combined Head of State / Head of Government (i.e. the President), in the United Kingdom we have to financially support all of our former Prime Ministers, and we have an extensive monarchy to keep as well. Furthermore, in the event that Queen Elizabeth II were to abdicate for whatever reason, the taxpayer would still be responsible for keeping her, as a former monarch of the United Kingdom.

    And whilst I support the monarchy, I do think that the extent of it, and the financial burden that it places on taxpayers is too great, perhaps they could scale it down to include the reigning monarch, his/her consort and his/her immediate offspring, and the remaining 'minor' royals can fend for themselves. I consider that to be a more than reasonable comprise, although staunch royalists would perhaps disagree.
    You'd still have all of those costs even if the Royal Family was abolished. Buckingham Palace will not be demolished so a Tesco can be put there instead. Even if the Commonwealth was dissolved and we all had presidents, all of the costs would continue, in the UK, in Canada, in Australia, in NZ, in Jamaica.

    The Queen basically lives in one corner of a national museum, which would cost the same in upkeep whether she runs the place or whether Cherie Blair came back as President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    And one queen with 16 governors general is definitely cheaper than 16 presidents.
    Last edited by bankside; August 9th, 2014 at 04:26 PM.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  14. #14
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    Too many people forget this.

    Britain's monarchy is a money machine.
    Yeah, but it would still be a money machine without them - it's the nice buildings and history that get people going, not some little old lady! Ask the French if no one visits their historical sights now!
    Last edited by JohnnyAnger; August 9th, 2014 at 04:36 PM.

  15. #15
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    The Queen basically lives in one corner of a national museum, which would cost the same in upkeep whether she runs the place or whether Cherie Blair came back as President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    Except we pay for silly things like when she wants her bedroom re-done etc. Also they get government help to heat all their palaces and houses all year round whether they go there or not, and whether we are allowed their or not. Throw in the fact they don't pay any tax and it's a mess. Give us the buildings, let us in, and charge us a cost - no need for the blue blood lot, they can go do work like the rest of us (and not pretend army jobs!).

  16. #16
    Reunited
    medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edinburgh Scotland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    7,727
    Blog Entries
    12

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    ^To be fair, Prince Andrew saw active duty in the Falklands, Prince Harry has seen active duty in Afghanistan, Prince William is now training as a search and rescue helicopter pilot, a very dangerous job.
    The Queen does now pay tax, after the shit hit the fan a few years ago. HM is well known for being frugal, on the rare occasion when you see her pictured in her private quarters, they are quite shabby compared to the public areas of the palace.

    Much of her touted wealth is actually held in trust for the nation, she cannot sell it off.

    Also many of the Royal palaces are indeed open to the public, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

  17. #17
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    ^To be fair, Prince Andrew saw active duty in the Falklands
    There has been serious questions about how much action he was involved in - with reports that his main job was flying away in a helicopter if his boat was under threat of attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    HM is well known for being frugal, on the rare occasion when you see her pictured in her private quarters, they are quite shabby compared to the public areas of the palace.
    Aye, things like William and Kate's 1.5 million kitchen they had done!

    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    Also many of the Royal palaces are indeed open to the public, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.
    Windsor's open a fair amount, but Buckingham Palace is rarely open to the public - with most people just looking at it from the outside.


    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    Much of her touted wealth is actually held in trust for the nation, she cannot sell it off.
    Maybe some of her children should though

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8190493.html
    Last edited by JohnnyAnger; August 10th, 2014 at 06:57 AM.

  18. #18

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by evanrick View Post
    i would say the whole idea of a monarchy is way outdated and couldnt imagine the brits tolerating it, but there are far worse players in control of the American congress.
    "Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

    The British government is the single most successful in human history. It enabled the people of a tiny piece land to lead the world into democracy, free enterprise, and the industrial revolution. Most of the countries of the world have governments patterned in some respects on the British government. It has been a leader in science, medicine and technology and few if any countries can equal its list of Nobel prize winners. Along the way, it established the largest Empire and taught self government to innumerable countries. If it ended the monarchy, it would need and elected replacement in order to preserve its Parliamentary system, i. e. a chief of state separate from the prime minister.
    Its constitution is but little changed since 1688, while others have experienced years of turmoil and revolution. It has been able to export that democratic stability to other countries: US, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand etc.
    Last edited by Benvolio; August 10th, 2014 at 05:10 PM.

  19. #19
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    598

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    I think it's worth noting that most of the royal family couldn't possibly hold a job. All the inbreeding has led to some...cough...serious deficiencies. Furthermore none of them have ever felt the necessity of work, it would be a completely foreign concept.

    Personally I see nothing wrong with their current arrangement.

    Even though she has no power, the British government has been a model of success. That and the royal family is a huge money maker for Britain. All the publicity, homes, collections, sites generate serious revenue.
    Last edited by mightbe; August 10th, 2014 at 05:32 PM.

  20. #20
    Reunited
    medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edinburgh Scotland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    7,727
    Blog Entries
    12

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Johnny, during the Falklands, Prince Andrews helicopter was one of the first on the scene after the attacks on The Sheffield airlifting serious casualties to safety.
    I have mixed emotions about such a large brood and the expense this causes, but i have no doubt about the sense of duty many of the "closer" Royals do hold.

    mightbe, do not be mistaken The Queen does indeed hold powers, though seldom used, one of these is the power to dissolution The House of Commons, to grant a Royal Pardon to name a few.

  21. #21
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger View Post
    Except we pay for silly things like when she wants her bedroom re-done etc. Also they get government help to heat all their palaces and houses all year round whether they go there or not, and whether we are allowed their or not. Throw in the fact they don't pay any tax and it's a mess. Give us the buildings, let us in, and charge us a cost - no need for the blue blood lot, they can go do work like the rest of us (and not pretend army jobs!).
    Since when have those jobs been "pretend"?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  22. #22
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    "Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

    The British government is the single most successful in human history. It enabled the people of a tiny piece land to lead the world into democracy, free enterprise, and the industrial revolution. Most of the countries of the world have governments patterned in some respects on the British government. It has been a leader in science, medicine and technology and few if any countries can equal its list of Nobel prize winners. Along the way, it established the largest Empire and taught self government to innumerable countries. If it ended the monarchy, it would need and elected replacement in order to preserve its Parliamentary system, i. e. a chief of state separate from the prime minister.
    Its constitution is but little changed since 1688, while others have experienced years of turmoil and revolution. It has been able to export that democratic stability to other countries: US, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand etc.
    It "export[ed] ... democratic stability" to the U.S. by taking steps to destroy it, though.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  23. #23
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by mightbe View Post
    I think it's worth noting that most of the royal family couldn't possibly hold a job.
    Is this supposed to be a joke? I'd say you have to be seriously unaware of their lives and activities to make such a claim.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  24. #24
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,731
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    It "export[ed] ... democratic stability" to the U.S. by taking steps to destroy it, though.
    Not really. Unity was seen as a prerequisite for stability, democratic or otherwise.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  25. #25
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    598

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Is this supposed to be a joke? I'd say you have to be seriously unaware of their lives and activities to make such a claim.
    Sorry, that was worded sloppily. I'm not talking about the more distant royals--many of whom have furthered their educations, married out of the family, and gotten what most people would consider normal jobs (doctors, teachers, researchers and architects among them)--they have remarkably normal lives for their connections. But among the most central figures, I don't think they've been taught or acquired the necessary skills to endure life beyond royalty. Yes, they can keep to a hectic schedule and give numerous speeches and be patrons to societies and attend high-profile events and take part in official engagements. It's a job, and a what I imagine can be a very strenuous one, but it's not what most people would consider normal.

    Those most-central members simply weren't prepared for life outside the auspices of royal life. Among the younger crowd (two generations below the Queen) that doesn't apply quite so strongly. William and Harry especially were introduced to everyday life, and bless Diana for it. She might not've been that important in the grand scheme of things but hopefully she's brought a fresh edge to the Royal Family. Remember, it wasn't until Elizabeth II's kids that they went off to school, and even then there was a significant bubble around them. Contrast that with Harry. The charisma of the whole family is tied up in him, and I think this is largely because of his background. He wasn't really prepared to accede to the throne and he had greater freedom to interact with the public than earlier generations.

    Consider this: Charles (as an example), who has a degree of some kind from Cambridge (2:2, and his requirements may or may not have been "loosened", but we can assume average intelligence or greater), taking a "normal" job, nothing inconspicuous, that he has applied for and has been given the job on merit, a salary in the middle 50% of salaries, a fairly standard work week, and must live on that salary in an home that he's purchased and pay taxes like any regular citizen. Do you think he could do it? I confess, I doubt it.

    First, those closest to the monarch don't need much experience with practical matters. Budgeting, saving, investing, mortgaging, planning, shopping..etc.--life skills--aren't a part of his life. Please remember, he has an exceptional (in every sense of the word) life. Skills for being an effective royal are quite different than the skills required of most private citizens. His life is markedly different from what is usually considered "normal". It's not his fault. He just happens to be the heir apparent. His duties constitute a job, but it's not a job awarded on qualification (though the number of engagements is somewhat dependent on ability). His duties are contingent on just one factor; he's the eldest son of the Queen. He's never going to be placed in the same situations as normal people, so he didn't need any preparation for it. It won't be his life so why bother?

    In truth, he probably didn't "need" to further his education; it has not significantly impacted his life beyond university. However, he did go. I can't say why he felt it was important, that's very personal, but he did. My guess is that it falls somewhere between "I could" and "I wanted to".

    Most people don't have that luxury--most people see it as a practical or semi-practical decision. His personal life might have been influenced, but his professional life certainly wasn't. His current job consists of being a PR agent to the Queen. He may chair societies and organizations, promote the Queen's image, appear as a representative to the Queen, create public interest in matters he deems important, attend/host illustrious gatherings of dignitaries to promote the interests of Britain, and fill the tabloids because the monarchy is of great public interest. That's not exactly a "normal" job. His livelihood isn't dependent on it; there's not the same necessity with it.

    Yes, he may perform many functions, some of them important, others purely ceremonial, but he does not lead a "normal" life, and I think that any attempt at one will end in failure. He's in his mid-60s. Change is hard enough when you're young. He's always lived in a very special world where he doesn't have to experience most societal aches.

    As the family members become more distant and younger I think this dissipates (especially once outside of the main cluster). The extended family has generally integrated with society, and many have gone on to higher education to pursue careers. '

    With the British Royal Family (and also the Scandinavian royal families) I also think it's somewhat telling that very few go on to university or careers outside the military (which usually don't last longer than 10 years). There's been significant inbreeding and its effects cannot help but be noticed. Even though some marrying-out has been happening since the early 20th century, that kind of damage takes a long time to correct. Very slowly the family has been turning out smarter and more driven people.

    Contrastingly, look at the Japanese Royal Family. Filled to the brim with very motivated and intelligent people.
    Last edited by mightbe; August 11th, 2014 at 12:31 AM.

  26. #26
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Since when have those jobs been "pretend"?
    I did not mean jobs in the army, more the jobs they give royals in the army.

  27. #27

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    My impression is that Alexandra the wife of Edward VII, brought into the line three generations of mediocre intelligence: George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. Prince Phillip, however, has raised the level of intelligence for recent generations. I see no reason to believe Charles could not handle a normal job. I admit all this is only an impression which would be hard to prove.

  28. #28
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    My impression is that Alexandra the wife of Edward VII, brought into the line three generations of mediocre intelligence: George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. Prince Phillip, however, has raised the level of intelligence for recent generations. I see no reason to believe Charles could not handle a normal job. I admit all this is only an impression which would be hard to prove.
    Some of them are not stupid at all and I am sure Charles could do a normal enough job - saying that with all the tutoring he got, he got terrible A level results and kept someone with much better results out of Cambridge. There was a lot of resentment within Cambridge that they had to take him on in fact - they would have rather someone with 4 A's and good entry exam results to a prince with two A-levels (at B and C), results that would never ever get you close to a place.

  29. #29
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger View Post
    I did not mean jobs in the army, more the jobs they give royals in the army.
    From the record, they got the same sorts of jobs anyone else did. Certainly there's evidence that their units were more likely to be assigned safer duties, but there's nothing indicating they got away with any slacking of their duties. Prince Harry saw combat, and had to carry out his duties like anyone else.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  30. #30
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    From the record, they got the same sorts of jobs anyone else did. Certainly there's evidence that their units were more likely to be assigned safer duties, but there's nothing indicating they got away with any slacking of their duties. Prince Harry saw combat, and had to carry out his duties like anyone else.
    Sure, but his rank has been inflated hirer than it should be. His place at Sandhurst was just given to him due to his name, rather than the standard entry requirements (although its not a requirement, it is pretty impossible to get in without a degree, let alone his piss poor a level results). I would like to see serve as a private...
    Last edited by JohnnyAnger; August 13th, 2014 at 05:19 AM.

  31. #31

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Remember that the members of the royal family are limited it what they can do commercially. They would be universally criticized if they became real estate salesmen, or even business executives, lawyers, or product spokesmen. Historically they can and are expected to serve in the military. So long as the nation decides to continue the monarchy with this family, they are entitled to some preferences to compensate for the limitations on their commercial activities. They cannot be told that they must serve or that they can only be in the military and then be told that they must compete to be in the military as other people.

  32. #32
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger View Post
    Sure, but his rank has been inflated hirer than it should be. His place at Sandhurst was just given to him due to his name, rather than the standard entry requirements (although its not a requirement, it is pretty impossible to get in without a degree, let alone his piss poor a level results). I would like to see serve as a private...
    I'd like to see royals start at the bottom as well. But there are lots of others who start as officers.

    Come to think of it, maybe that should stop, too.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  33. #33
    JUB Addict JohnnyAnger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,685
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Remember that the members of the royal family are limited it what they can do commercially. They would be universally criticized if they became real estate salesmen, or even business executives, lawyers, or product spokesmen. Historically they can and are expected to serve in the military. So long as the nation decides to continue the monarchy with this family, they are entitled to some preferences to compensate for the limitations on their commercial activities. They cannot be told that they must serve or that they can only be in the military and then be told that they must compete to be in the military as other people.
    Well Prince Andrew's last "job" was just travelling around the world acting as a sales men for British products to dubious people and regimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I'd like to see royals start at the bottom as well. But there are lots of others who start as officers.

    Come to think of it, maybe that should stop, too.
    They should probably all do a mandatory year at the bottom to get some amount of idea - I don't dislike people of high intelligence being promoted quickly, but if they do so without working at the bottom first it makes for a massive disconnection between the officers and grunts.

  34. #34
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,437

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Guess before reading -- how much do you think it costs to support former US presidents? for a bonus, which living former president is costing taxpayers the most?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tyle-2014.html

    I'm not telling up front; I'll just say that the figures surprised me, though who's costing us the most didn't, really.


    edit: this doesn't include the cost of Secret Service coverage; that's a figure they don't give out so freely -- I guess the amount might tip someone off as to how much security each one has.
    Under a million? That is cheap.
    I expect more ... say a few millions.


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  35. #35

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger View Post
    Well Prince Andrew's last "job" was just travelling around the world acting as a sales men for British products to dubious people and regimes.



    .
    Prince Andrew was promoting British products in general rather than a particular company.

  36. #36
    Reunited
    medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edinburgh Scotland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    7,727
    Blog Entries
    12

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyAnger View Post
    Sure, but his rank has been inflated hirer than it should be. His place at Sandhurst was just given to him due to his name, rather than the standard entry requirements (although its not a requirement, it is pretty impossible to get in without a degree, let alone his piss poor a level results). I would like to see serve as a private...
    Yet he served with distinguishing ability as a forward artillery plotter, before going on to train as an attack helicopter pilot, not bad for someone with "piss poor" educational results.

  37. #37
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    598

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    Yet he served with distinguishing ability as a forward artillery plotter, before going on to train as an attack helicopter pilot, not bad for someone with "piss poor" educational results.
    Later successes that can be attributed to his time at Sandhurst do not negate the fact that he was not admitted under the normal circumstances. He was admitted because of his name, not because of standard criteria.

    That he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more.

  38. #38
    Reunited
    medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edinburgh Scotland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    7,727
    Blog Entries
    12

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Did i cry foul when he was admitted to Sandhurst, i quite rightly pointed out, as have you his skill not only as an officer, but his achievements when qualifying as an attack Apache combat pilot, as well as his decorations for participating in active duty.

    That you post, "he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more" totally negates the hours of training it has taking him
    to achieve his wings, you do not get them because of the surname or family you are born into, no matter who they may be.

  39. #39

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by mightbe View Post
    Later successes that can be attributed to his time at Sandhurst do not negate the fact that he was not admitted under the normal circumstances. He was admitted because of his name, not because of standard criteria.

    That he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more.
    No matter what he does, people will say it was because of his connections and it will be in large part true. If he became a used car sale man, people would flock to buy from him. It is for that reason that he is expected not to engage in commercial activities. If he renounced his title it would still be true that his family connections would open opportunities not available to others. It is unfair to tell the boys, the only thing you can do is the military and you must start at the bottom and compete on merit. They would wisely choose to be indolent.
    The nation has made the decision to continue the monarchy, and thus to afford the family a privileged position. You may disagree, but it is the nation's choice.
    As for the boys, they, like the rest of us, were born into a world they did not make, did not ask for and which they have little ability to change.
    Last edited by Benvolio; August 15th, 2014 at 07:08 AM.

  40. #40
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    598

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post

    That you post, "he's done well indicates skill in that particular area, nothing more" totally negates the hours of training it has taking him
    to achieve his wings, you do not get them because of the surname or family you are born into, no matter who they may be.
    You may have confused talent with skill. I said skill. Skill is something that is developed. Piloting is a skill; while one can be "a talented pilot", that's not the saying the same thing as "the pilot needed no training".

    I'm pointing out that whatever he's done with the military has no connection with his admission. "Nothing more" refers to his "exceptional" admission. They're separate statements.

  41. #41
    Reunited
    medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edinburgh Scotland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    7,727
    Blog Entries
    12

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    ^Lets just agree to disagree and get back on topic....

  42. #42
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Maybe we should make all former presidents live together. It would make security cheaper, right?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  43. #43
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,502

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Some countries take their presidents out and shoot them. Just saying.

  44. #44

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Maybe we should make all former presidents live together. It would make security cheaper, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    Some countries take their presidents out and shoot them. Just saying.
    Kulindahr's idea is better because this America, and it would make for a better reality TV show. Kuli wins, and cm gets voted off the island.
    Don't do scat, kids. It means you're a Republican.

  45. #45
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,001
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: The cost of former presidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitamin View Post
    Kulindahr's idea is better because this America, and it would make for a better reality TV show. Kuli wins, and cm gets voted off the island.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.