(June 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: No, it's not. Does the maintenance of the national mall and all the fixed memorials and monuments around it really pay for itself? If not, then why is the comparison not apt? I understand the annuall invest in Royals is actually relatively modest, and won't be able to pay for even a single day's American presence in Afghanistan.
I'd like to see where the fucking overhead of a Royal family somehow negates the costs of their cultural artifacts, like Buckingham Palace.
Really.
And metric by US war cost is fucking ridiculous -- The James Webb Space Telescope costs 8$billion and another Nimitz-class vessel costs 6$billion. Were we to argue relative costs, having another redundant cruiser is more preferable.
(June 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that an argument has to be sound to be useful.
I know. What a fool I am.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
