Is she an innocent old lady or national symbol? Pick one. Wrong to yell at an old lady. Fine to protest a national symbol.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
I think some Americans were secretly glad for having another Pearl Harbor, with the initial notion that America wouldn't look like a complete asshole for blowing up another country.
Isn't he taking the corgis? The earlier joke was that some royal guard would slaughter all the youngling dogs with a lightsaber in the event of the queen's death. Stay safe, royal pups.uziq wrote:
prince andrew was banished from public life by the queen; that he's using her funeral as an opportunity to reappear and whitewash his reputation is grieviously ill-judged by him. he is not a smart guy. british people won't fall for it.
was jesus christ a man or the Son of God? people can be both, that's how symbols work. especially ones as archaic and old, and indeed as religiously invested, as monarchical heads of state.
but i don't disagree with your point. i am not against protest. i am very against the legislation being used to shush people; it is one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation introduced by the conservatives in their decade-long tenure.
as i said with the WBC, the commonsensical thing is to let people express their dissenting views at a safe and respectful distance from the people who want space and moment to pay their respects. anti-monarchists are far from censored in british public life. most of the news coverage on TV over the last few days has broached the topic of the monarchy and republicanism many times.
even in an ideal democracy, a perfect republic, with no trace of royalism, people are going to have to behave with common decency and a modicum of respect towards one another. shouting down funerals or charging into a group and being provocative isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
but i don't disagree with your point. i am not against protest. i am very against the legislation being used to shush people; it is one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation introduced by the conservatives in their decade-long tenure.
as i said with the WBC, the commonsensical thing is to let people express their dissenting views at a safe and respectful distance from the people who want space and moment to pay their respects. anti-monarchists are far from censored in british public life. most of the news coverage on TV over the last few days has broached the topic of the monarchy and republicanism many times.
even in an ideal democracy, a perfect republic, with no trace of royalism, people are going to have to behave with common decency and a modicum of respect towards one another. shouting down funerals or charging into a group and being provocative isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Last edited by uziq (2022-09-12 17:49:50)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
It certainly gave us a national purpose until about one week into the Iraq War.
...
I got called into a guidance counselor meeting in elementary school because of the Iraq War. We had an assignment that was like "what would you do if you were president?" I said "put up statues of myself." I got pulled into a meeting because they pulled down the Saddam statue in Baghdad like a week before and "your essay reminds me of what we see in Iraq."
...
I got called into a guidance counselor meeting in elementary school because of the Iraq War. We had an assignment that was like "what would you do if you were president?" I said "put up statues of myself." I got pulled into a meeting because they pulled down the Saddam statue in Baghdad like a week before and "your essay reminds me of what we see in Iraq."
it's because the queen expressed a few years ago that she didn't want to continue breeding corgis, because she didn't want to predecease any young dogs. which led to the joke that all the corgis were going to be euthanised when she died.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't he taking the corgis? The earlier joke was that some royal guard would slaughter all the youngling dogs with a lightsaber. Stay safe, royal pups.uziq wrote:
prince andrew was banished from public life by the queen; that he's using her funeral as an opportunity to reappear and whitewash his reputation is grieviously ill-judged by him. he is not a smart guy. british people won't fall for it.
a better joke is that andrew is taking care of the corgis because he's an experienced groomer.
of course they're only doing it to try and launder his reputation. but that guy is out in the wilderness forever. he can't attend any of the public events in the next few days in a royal capacity, with any of the uniforms or military accolades. it's all gone. so i question the wisdom of showing up to shout at him. he isn't a 'symbol' of the nation anymore. he's handsy andy.
oooooof
But yeah, that was kind of the joke, just not as bluntly put lmao.
But yeah, that was kind of the joke, just not as bluntly put lmao.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
I would like the queen much more if she did in fact order her dogs to be euthanized on her way out.
A matador could finish them off with artful stabs to the spine.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
Uzique would skewer a dog if his national grandma told him to.
i vote left-wing in real life and have never attended a jubilee or pro-royal event.
but on 'hot topics' i frequently find myself as exhausted and bored with the 'right' opinion as the 'wrong' one. it's all just so played out. neither royalists nor republicans are making any particularly insightful points, and in the social media echo-dome, all that happens in these national- or international-scale events is that everyone shouts and creates a din of total fucking boring unoriginal takes. it's performative righteousness, or defensiveness, or whatever. it's all just so tedious.
likening the UK to the DPRK because people queue up at a funeral cortege and cry is just all sorts of dumb. people in the states cry at national leaders funerals, too. the majority are probably at home wondering about how to improve their peach cobbler recipe. it's the exact same in the UK.
but on 'hot topics' i frequently find myself as exhausted and bored with the 'right' opinion as the 'wrong' one. it's all just so played out. neither royalists nor republicans are making any particularly insightful points, and in the social media echo-dome, all that happens in these national- or international-scale events is that everyone shouts and creates a din of total fucking boring unoriginal takes. it's performative righteousness, or defensiveness, or whatever. it's all just so tedious.
likening the UK to the DPRK because people queue up at a funeral cortege and cry is just all sorts of dumb. people in the states cry at national leaders funerals, too. the majority are probably at home wondering about how to improve their peach cobbler recipe. it's the exact same in the UK.
The people wondering how to improve their peach cobbler recipe right now are probably trying to budget for peaches.
apparently was an aussie guy lmao.uziq wrote:
just to clarify, the protestor in edinburgh went to the funeral to shout at prince andrew about his epstein controversy.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think people can afford to let up on someone at their dead relative's funeral. If Trump died of an anger stroke tomorrow, I wouldn't hop on a plane to go jeer at his Mar-a-Lago burial within earshot of Barron. Tacky.
yeh we got hte same bullshit in our books in aus for ages. 'offensive language' and 'offensive conduct' is a fineable offence where people have been arrested.uziq wrote:
the johnson govt, under priti patel's home office, rushed through a new public order legislation that cynically tried to make protest much harder.
ironically this was targeted broadly at stemming the tide of road/train disrupting strikes by xtinction rebellion (XR) or as part of the culture wars rhetoric against BLM 'rioters' and statue destroyers. standard conservatives playbook. it was intended to shore up their own base and to make their own decisions less accountable, by phrasing deliberately vague legislation that declared it a public order offence to cause 'irritation' or 'agitation' or something similarly bloody vague. the bar is very low now to be moved along or given a police caution. but this was never designed to protect the bloody monarchy or make criticism of the queen/king illegal. i doubt it ever occurred to the venal BoJo cabinet, tbh, who were wholly concerned with their own executive power.
but, yes, showing up to a funeral cortege with hundreds of people paying their respects in attendance and shouting things is probably going to qualify as intentionally causing 'agitation' or whatever under the same legislation. i have a much bigger problem with the legislation than i do with someone being disrespectful at a funeral.
Cops arrest old asian man in basically the white collar centre of sydney for a sign that had 'horny cunt' on it as it was offensive. public tells cops how is it offensive. cop calls them all SJWs. lel.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
Asians aren't indigenous to Australia. Immigrates to a country to be obnoxious. This encourages Dilbert.
...
Freedom of speech covers obnoxious speech, yes. That said, I think instances like this do more harm than good for the free speech cause. If it is obnoxious speech that gets defended over and over again, people will start to question the concept more. Meanwhile the establishment still works to silence legitimate political speech.
...
Freedom of speech covers obnoxious speech, yes. That said, I think instances like this do more harm than good for the free speech cause. If it is obnoxious speech that gets defended over and over again, people will start to question the concept more. Meanwhile the establishment still works to silence legitimate political speech.
i just think it's ironic that people are using this extremely dodgy legislation to 'make' a point about the royals. as if we are living in an authoritarian hell-hole where insulting the monarchy or expressing republican views is somehow 'not allowed'. that's just such a nonsense. you can shout 'fuck the queen!' in the street without being arrested; naughty language isn't illegal here, per se. if you use profanities in order to intimidate someone then, yeah, that's something else – an offences against the person.
the majority of the people voted for the tory govt that delivered this soft-authoritarian piece of public order legislation. who protested most loudly against it when it was being fast-tracked through parliament? lmao. left-wing crusties in cities like bristol, who rioted, and the house of lords, the nobles and aristos who kept wanting to restrain its scope. you can hardly make out that arresting someone at a royal funeral is an instance of royalist groupthink.
the simple fact is that the majority of conservative voters were strangely amenable to a piece of legislation that was intended to harshly crackdown on eco-warriors interrupting their commutes into The City, or to stifle BLM or other socially progressive causes espoused by loud and rancorous youths. if there's any sort of backdoor absolutism creeping into british public life, it's the sort that's decided at the ballot box by gammons, not the bloody royal family.
the majority of the people voted for the tory govt that delivered this soft-authoritarian piece of public order legislation. who protested most loudly against it when it was being fast-tracked through parliament? lmao. left-wing crusties in cities like bristol, who rioted, and the house of lords, the nobles and aristos who kept wanting to restrain its scope. you can hardly make out that arresting someone at a royal funeral is an instance of royalist groupthink.
the simple fact is that the majority of conservative voters were strangely amenable to a piece of legislation that was intended to harshly crackdown on eco-warriors interrupting their commutes into The City, or to stifle BLM or other socially progressive causes espoused by loud and rancorous youths. if there's any sort of backdoor absolutism creeping into british public life, it's the sort that's decided at the ballot box by gammons, not the bloody royal family.
chinese australians have been there for almost as long as white european settlers. they helped to build the place. they formed a large part of the indentured labour used for infrastructure, as well as partook in the gold rush. probably sounds familiar to anyone on the west coast of the states.Asians aren't indigenous to Australia. Immigrates to a country to be obnoxious. This encourages Dilbert.
i know you're being facetious but the white settlers really did think for the longest time that they were entitled to the place wholly for themselves. historical abuse.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
It is really strange that the coffin is going on a tour of the U.K. CNN has a picture of soldiers loading it onto a plane. What an indignity.
you make some seriously puerile takes. heads of state have always been on display on their death.
'a tour of the UK'. she died at her ancestral estate in rural scotland. she was moved to the nearest major city with an airport, and the capital of the kingdom where she died. now she is being moved to her permanent place of rest in london. some 'tour'.
spoiler: the queen's actual body probably isn't in the coffin that people are queuing up for 12 hours a day to see. make u think.
oh! the indignity of ceremonially returning this person to their desired place of rest!
could be worse: if we didn't have the balls to leave behind the corruption of the papacy, it could be an open coffin catholic affair. or we could be a secular anti-monarchical state showing our 'dear leaders' preserved like a wax dummy for months and years of 'mandatory' mourning, à la lenin and stalin. wowsers!
you think you're 'triggering the royalists' (wherever they are) but really you're just revealing that this queenie thing has somehow made intelligent thought difficult for you. don't you have two history degrees? and you're finding it weird now that a monarch is lying in state in their kingdoms? lol. ok dweeb.
'a tour of the UK'. she died at her ancestral estate in rural scotland. she was moved to the nearest major city with an airport, and the capital of the kingdom where she died. now she is being moved to her permanent place of rest in london. some 'tour'.
spoiler: the queen's actual body probably isn't in the coffin that people are queuing up for 12 hours a day to see. make u think.
oh! the indignity of ceremonially returning this person to their desired place of rest!
could be worse: if we didn't have the balls to leave behind the corruption of the papacy, it could be an open coffin catholic affair. or we could be a secular anti-monarchical state showing our 'dear leaders' preserved like a wax dummy for months and years of 'mandatory' mourning, à la lenin and stalin. wowsers!
you think you're 'triggering the royalists' (wherever they are) but really you're just revealing that this queenie thing has somehow made intelligent thought difficult for you. don't you have two history degrees? and you're finding it weird now that a monarch is lying in state in their kingdoms? lol. ok dweeb.
Last edited by uziq (2022-09-13 10:24:35)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
How about respecting the dead and not making her a parade prop?
lmao
you better address your own national customs about this sort of thing before you criticise anyone else.
you better address your own national customs about this sort of thing before you criticise anyone else.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
Uzique supports this. I bet he doesn't think this is the right time to talk about this since people are still mourning (mandatorily).King Charles Inherits Untold Riches, and Passes Off His Own Empire
...
As prince, Charles used tax breaks, offshore accounts and canny real estate investments to turn a sleepy estate into a billion-dollar business.
him and every other person in the world’s rich use those methods.
do you think abolishing monarchy is going to fix the ills of capitalism?
“tax breaks and canny real estate developments”. isn’t this donald trump’s entire life’s work? who also inherited untold riches?
once again i remind you that marx and engels took their aim at capitalists not irrelevant feudal orders.
i’ve spoken at interminable length about ending tax havens and offshore banking. about tax capture from the very rich.
do you think abolishing monarchy is going to fix the ills of capitalism?
“tax breaks and canny real estate developments”. isn’t this donald trump’s entire life’s work? who also inherited untold riches?
once again i remind you that marx and engels took their aim at capitalists not irrelevant feudal orders.
i’ve spoken at interminable length about ending tax havens and offshore banking. about tax capture from the very rich.
Last edited by uziq (2022-09-13 13:17:53)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
So you support his right to not pay taxes because he is the son of your national mommy.
he does pay taxes on his estate, but he uses tax breaks and opaque offshore banking arrangements like every other super-rich person who runs a large business.
the article is about the duchy of cornwall, which has lots of produce, dairy and seafood and so on, which he has packaged up into a nice little organic brand, to suit his interests in sustainable development and eco-friendly agriculture and organic foods and all that, as well as your more expected land and real-estate developments. he built a 'brand' that is doing very well.
there are a LOT of criticisms to be made of the monarchy but your arguments are really inane and just silly. 'why are you driving her to her place of rest like a prop?', 'look, your new king spent his years as a prince building a profitable business and using tax breaks'. that's what any fucking rich person does. yes, i do want to close tax loopholes and end offshore banking. i've posted literally dozens of posts on this topic very recently in d&st.
the article is about the duchy of cornwall, which has lots of produce, dairy and seafood and so on, which he has packaged up into a nice little organic brand, to suit his interests in sustainable development and eco-friendly agriculture and organic foods and all that, as well as your more expected land and real-estate developments. he built a 'brand' that is doing very well.
of course he is immensely privileged. but you'd be applauding this shit as a success story in the USA, particularly so if you were a republican.There will be queries over whether William, the new Duke, will follow his father’s lead on tax paid on his duchy income.
Charles voluntarily paid the top rate of income tax – 45% – on the duchy’s earnings after the deduction of official expenditure, known as its “surplus”, which totalled £23m in the last financial year.
The duchy is not considered a company, meaning Charles was not liable for paying corporation tax, and in addition he was not considered liable for capital gains tax.
there are a LOT of criticisms to be made of the monarchy but your arguments are really inane and just silly. 'why are you driving her to her place of rest like a prop?', 'look, your new king spent his years as a prince building a profitable business and using tax breaks'. that's what any fucking rich person does. yes, i do want to close tax loopholes and end offshore banking. i've posted literally dozens of posts on this topic very recently in d&st.
Last edited by uziq (2022-09-13 14:05:47)