We are, of course, amazed that our readers occasionally disagree with our brilliant and witty essays. In fact, sometimes quite a few readers think that The Outrage editors are wrong, misanthropic, idiotic, selfish, deluded, or all of the above.

Mother Outrage always told us that even the dull and the ignorant should have their say, so we've allowed space below for those dissenting opinions (and for shameless flattery).

Most people are not fully aware of the schrecklich deceit performed by our teutonic royals in 1917.To save their necks it was decided to change the teutonic name to an acceptable one of Windsor.At the time we were at war with Germany.It is sickening to see this dreadful woman dressed in black at the Cenotaph,who is she representing?Our children are denied the opportunity of becoming Head-of-State,a most undemocratic situation.They must instead acknowledge themselves as inferior people as subjects not citizens,and lowered by class and deference.Bowing and curtesying to a priviliged elite that are the apex of mediocrity.To use Clinton as a comparison is stupid.It is liberty and freedom personified to be able to remove a Head-of-State for any misdemeanours during his/her tenure.The Queen outrageously halted a trial that might harm one of her children.It was an outrageous act and should be condemned by every right thinking person.The disgrace is that she cannot be impeached or removed,whereas the President of USA can be removed via the democratic law of the land.She is in other words above the law.Not all parents would enjoy such power to save their own however,as it is a highly immoral act committed by her.As for tourist income the Palace of Versailles generates more income than visitors to Buckingham Palace.So it is not a question of who inhabits the monstrous archictectural extravaganza.She is exempt inheritance tax,yet our children will be punished by the implication of a tax that is unfair in comparison.The threshhold should be raised to £500,000 or removed.Why should this awful woman be treated in such a manner.She is certainly not gracious.How can she be after keeping Paul Burrell her butler standing for three hours while she interrogated him. He would not have been criticised for hitting her after her shocking rudeness and ingraciousness. Do employees have contracts which are supervised by a union,if not why not.No person needs 23 servants to look after them.Furthermore with regard to Prince Charles.Why was he not charged with assault after hurling a book at his servant.Can you imagine nil response if it had happened in a public company.The press would have had a hay day.It is not true to say that the royal homes are open to the public,they are not.Only a small part of them are,and these we have to pay to see,yet we maintain them through our taxes!After the Windsor castle fire people objected to paying for refurbishment.Why should they when our unelected head is worth billions?Finally Britain is a backward country tarnished by anachronistic tradition and old buffoonery.Just Look at the name and the actions of the Lords in the upper chamber.Why not a second chamber of elected democrats?No we need to rid us of this danger within ie.Royals and the Monarchy.Not forgetting that royal train at a cost of £872,000 for two trips in one year.How many rail users were delayed because of this nonsense?Many poor pensioners would have thoroughly enjoyed free travel as well.Royals and Monarchy are an absolute disgrace;an embbarrasment to this country both at home and internationally,just go damn you.

Most people are not fully aware of the schrecklich deceit performed by our teutonic royals in 1917.To save their necks it was decided to change the teutonic name to an acceptable one of Windsor.At the time we were at war with Germany.It is sickening to see this dreadful woman dressed in black at the Cenotaph,who is she representing?Our children are denied the opportunity of becoming Head-of-State,a most undemocratic situation.They must instead acknowledge themselves as inferior people as subjects not citizens,and lowered by class and deference.Bowing and curtesying to a priviliged elite that are the apex of mediocrity.To use Clinton as a comparison is stupid.It is liberty and freedom personified to be able to remove a Head-of-State for any misdemeanours during his/her tenure.The Queen outrageously halted a trial that might harm one of her children.It was an outrageous act and should be condemned by every right thinking person.The disgrace is that she cannot be impeached or removed,whereas the President of USA can be removed via the democratic law of the land.She is in other words above the law.Not all parents would enjoy such power to save their own however,as it is a highly immoral act committed by her.As for tourist income the Palace of Versailles generates more income than visitors to Buckingham Palace.So it is not a question of who inhabits the monstrous archictectural extravaganza.She is exempt inheritance tax,yet our children will be punished by the implication of a tax that is unfair in comparison.The threshhold should be raised to £500,000 or removed.Why should this awful woman be treated in such a manner.She is certainly not gracious.How can she be after keeping Paul Burrell her butler standing for three hours while she interrogated him. He would not have been criticised for hitting her after her shocking rudeness and ingraciousness. Do employees have contracts which are supervised by a union,if not why not.No person needs 23 servants to look after them.Furthermore with regard to Prince Charles.Why was he not charged with assault after hurling a book at his servant.Can you imagine nil response if it had happened in a public company.The press would have had a hay day.It is not true to say that the royal homes are open to the public,they are not.Only a small part of them are,and these we have to pay to see,yet we maintain them through our taxes!After the Windsor castle fire people objected to paying for refurbishment.Why should they when our unelected head is worth billions?Finally Britain is a backward country tarnished by anachronistic tradition and old buffoonery.Just Look at the name and the actions of the Lords in the upper chamber.Why not a second chamber of elected democrats?No we need to rid us of this danger within ie.Royals and the Monarchy.Not forgetting that royal train at a cost of £872,000 for two trips in one year.How many rail users were delayed because of this nonsense?Many poor pensioners would have thoroughly enjoyed free travel as well.Royals and Monarchy are an absolute disgrace;an embbarrasment to this country both at home and internationally,just go damn you.

Re: Hate Crimes legislation. Hate crime laws were written for one purpose, to get the minorities favored by them to vote for the law makers. Same with "social" programs: it's not the need for reform, but the need for reelection that drives most of it. If I get my ego soothed or my pockets lined, I have a greater need to vote for more of the same. which boils down more to public selfishness and dependence than it does on politician stupidity.

As an average white middle class Christian male, I kind of resent that under "hate crime laws" if I get clipped, it's less serious than if an average <insert gender and ethnicity here> gets whacked by the same dirtbag? Along with this, I heard somewhere recently that some of the bleeding heart pinkos in H-wood are carrying cards in their wallets now that state if they are murdered, they forgive their attacker, and don't want them to get the death-penalty. Where can I get my card that states that I have paid the government a set amount of money that will cover a jolt of electricity, or r a bullet, and I want my killer to take a dirtnap post haste?

Royals over in just England? Have you seen the Kenedys lately?

On the British Royalty, you did not mention that in return for the 25 mil paid to the queen each year, she signed over to the government the rents she used to get for the crown lands. The government comes out with about a 10:1 advantage

Does anyone in our government know the definition of discrimination? Webster's defines it as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice". Now let's take a look at the affirmative action. This "law" or idea states that "minorities" are given preferential treatment over non-minorities. Does this not, then, cause the "minorities" to be the majority? does this not imply, as well, that the majority is being discriminated against because it IS the majority? And one more thing about this, is not, by definition, reverse-discrimination the absence of discrimination? Think about it..All this makes me ask myself, "What ever happened to equal protection under the law" as stated in our constitution? Now I am not a predjudiced person. I beleive everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But should my ability to obtain this be limited because someone else uses their differences as an excuse for why they are not happy? People in this country need to take responsiblity for their own actions. So many times I hear in the news how criminals wh have commited crimes such as rape, murder, etc., blame their actions on their "rough childhood". What is this? These people need to take responsiblity for their actions and just say "I did it. I knew it was wrong. I did it anyway". But instead, they cop the "my parents beat me" defense and get sympathy and less time.

Hate Crime Laws What a bunch of crap!!!!! The "Deconstuctionists" are very busy destoying America,and worst yet,we are allowing it!

Royal ! Pah. Hang 'em high. The French had the best idea. I resent my cash being handed over to a bunch of inbred bigots. As for the argument that they bring in tourism - well Versaille in Paris still seems to pack 'em in and thats been empty for some time.

Our constitution in England (or what passes for one) still declares that if so inclined the Queen can carry out any act she see's necessary to bring order to the land. Not bad for an unelected bunch of people who stand out only by being an anachronism.

To Brian Coe: At least we can *fire* our pillocks. You just seem to breed them.

In review, all the outrages listed essentially boil down to a single concept--- favoritism and preferential treatment. Whether its CEOs greasing each other's palms and scratching each other's backs, the decrepit, inbred descendents of tyrants getting cushy treatment for life for the sake of an accident of birth, certain anointed groups getting favoritism from a corrupt legal system due solely to their color, ethnic origin, or preferred perversions, or people getting hoodwinked into subsidizing the "poor" by a sugardaddy political system, it's all favoritism. In a land supposedly dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, all of the above should be a stink in the nostrils.

I enjoy Outrage, but your comments on the British Royal family are total crap, worthy of a screwed up Republic with a pillock like Clinton at the helm. The Royal Family bring in more tourist revenue to this country than they receive from it. Why do all you dumb yanks come over here and try to prove your ancestors were Brits, could it be because you envy Britan its history and tradition. If the Queen did not have such a strong sense of duty she could sell everything off and live in luxury without the necessity of attending state functions and being nice to pillocks like Clinton. Their programme throughout the year is onerous and tiring and not to be envied. I'm a royalist and damned proud of it.

Dear Outrage,

Maybe you can tell me how I can get a handicap sticker for my car. Since I'm not handicapped I won't qualify in the usual way. But I feel I should be entitled to park close to shopping, for free at the train station, and not pay the meters downtown. Many of the people parking for free in these convientent locations walk faster than I. What's their secret?

Just kidding. I don't want a permit but see behavior that might qualify for your column.

As for the Royals I think they serve one useful purpose and that is to give human herd animals someone to look up to and glorify. Sometimes I think we need Royals in this country to keep those types from placing politicians on a pedestal. As for the phone tax I don't mind. At least my tax dollars are doing someone some good and not going to slaughter people throught the world. As for the hate crime bit, I don't think it matters at all nor will it effect the situation at all.

THE ROYALS:

Who cares. The British have always been weird.

CEO's:

Check out the salaries of some HMO CEO's if you want to know why managed care is not working.

HATE CRIMES:

Part of the liberal plot to destroy America. Marginalize all traditional values. Replace them with vague politically correct concepts of relativism and multiculturalism. Encourage minorities of all stripes to cling desparately to their differences and to blame someone else for all their troubles. (Does the word Bosnia ring a bell?)

Elect Bill Clinton. Twice. (Now that is really scary.)

All part of the same ball of wax.

(Thanks. That did make me feel better.)

HATE CRIMES??

Maybe if someone who kills you hates you it lasts longer? Teddy Kennedy is and has been trying to extend HATE CRIMES to gays and other groups that he wants Federal protection (Federal crime - Federal prosecution - Federal Time) for. Remember, all of you criminals out there, tell your victim you love them as you kill, rape, rob orr hurt anyone, the Federal govt thinks that it won't hurt them as much. Maybe the IRS should send us love notes on Aapril 15th of each year.

The monies paid the British Royal family are in lieu of royal income from very old monopolies and duties due the crown from the old "5" ports in England. When these revenues were taken from the crown by act of parliment, the same act set up payment by the govt. that got these revenues, to the royal family. The Queen has voluntarily accepted taxes on her income and stopped most of the allowances due to members of the royal family a few years ago. At 100, the Queen Mum will probably not be drawing her income for too many more years.

Several major faults in your argument against the Queen. 1. She pays extensive taxes on her income. 2. She doesn't own the art works, jewellery or the palaces. They are owned by the state. 3. The royal family earn our country billions in tourist revenue. Tourism to London increases many fold on major royal events. 4. The royal family act as ambassodor to british industry overseas helping to bring much overseas trade.

Excellent value for money I think - and I'm a republican!!!

All people should have to pay equal taxes (one affordable tax for all, rich and poor, all races) and everyone should have equal protection under the law. No Exceptions!

Re: 'Hate-Crime' laws. I think that the creation of such is probably one of the most insidious legal and society developments in the history of the U.S.

Not only do they violate the Constitution's guarantee of 'equal protection under the law', the concept of 'hate- crimes' creates in the mind (especially of impressionable youth) the idea that certain groups are of greater human value than others. Perhaps the true intent of the agitators for such laws is to create that societal idea.

Can their be a greater evil foisted on a free society dedicated to equality for all than laws passed to insure unequal treatment?

So the Royal Family costs millions - so does Clinton, and who would you rather have?

I am extremely outraged by the very idea of hate crimes. Why, in this country of equality, would anyone one type of victim be more important than another. I'm, sorry, but if someone commits a crime against ANYONE I would think it would be the same as with a crime against ANYONE ELSE. What does the USA stand for if not equality? If someone rapes my daughter or me I hope they use the full letter of the law to take care of it and try not to give a rat's butt that we may or may not be of an underprivelided class! I've already had this inequality argument lately with the census bureau. I want a box that says CITIZEN. It isn't any of anyone else's business that I have two Indian tribes and five caucasian and God only knows what else mixed within my person! So, give me a break. Be fair. NO SPECIAL TREATMENT TO ANYONE!

Uh, HELLO. The Royals of England are also community property for the masses. It is only right that they get compensated for their time, effort, and presence. The royal homes that are compensated are also open for public use. I think it only right that if I opened my house to the public to see my treasures that they help with security costs and upkeep! The job of being a Royal isn't exactly a sinecure. I wouldn't like to be one. A magnificent failure was Princess Diana. Good for the public parts, but as you saw, a meltdown with the job. But not everyone can live 'under glass'. I wouldn't embrace such a public life for all of the money in the world. Please note, neither does the entire royal family.

Outraged? Hardly. First, I'm not a Brit; second, I have no problem with "another layer of protection for minorities"; third, I don't mind a small subsidy so that rural folks can have services; and last, CEO's are, by and large, worth what they are paid (with some obvious exceptions). Couldn't you find something a wee bit more outrageous? <br><br> P.S. If Di was "a damned good princess", would you care to describe the behavior of what you would consider a "not-so-good princess?"

The so-called "hate crimes: laws do NOT include gender. There are activists lobbying to have that included. I think it should be as other minorities are mentioned in it. I find it rather odd that it was omitted in the original law. Think of the crimes committed against women such as rape and serial killings, etc. and one wonders why it was not included.

Usually, when royalty is "fired" they, literally, get the axe. The only exception I can immediately think of are the Hohenzollerns of Prussia, who, after WWI, were forced step down and went into exile. They were replaced by a more democratic government, the Weimar Republic. The Republic was eventually dominated by the National Socialist German Workers Party, better known as the Nazis. All things considered, the Royals put on a better show than our Presidency and are, slightly, less scandalous. Further, they have a tradition of public service; most of the male line of the royal family have served in the military. Compare this to our draft-dodger-in-chief. I suppose they are a little expensive for the tiny island and its population, but this is an issue for the United Kingdom and its people, not the people of the US.

What about Hilliary Clinton using taxpayer's money to run her campaign? She can use Air Force one and other Gov. services as though she is doing the work of the country. (She isn't) This gives her an enormous and unfair advantage over Lazio.

Quick bio-sketch of the 'royal' family : { Parasitic descendents of degenerats }

Leave the Royals alone, they need a little extra cash to feed the Royal Corgis'.

Great article!