Sign in to follow this  
Vort

Three rules for British royals. It's not hard, really.

Recommended Posts

...but if you do don't worry: there'll be another royal scandal on the front pages in a week or so, and then your faux pas will be forgotten. (Notice how the Andrew/Epstein thing is "so last year"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

...but if you do don't worry: there'll be another royal scandal on the front pages in a week or so, and then your faux pas will be forgotten. (Notice how the Andrew/Epstein thing is "so last year"?)

It is?

Not in this side of the pond it ain't.  

I guess you got Sacoolas and we got Andrew percolating in our consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

(Notice how the Andrew/Epstein thing is "so last year"?

We can only handle so many breaking news stories at once. How can we remember pedophile island when Trump is starting WW3, Trump caused Iran to shoot down an airline jet, and Trump is about to be impeached???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is?

Not in this side of the pond it ain't.  

I guess you got Sacoolas and we got Andrew percolating in our consciousness.

Sacoolas is old news too - and in any case there's nothing "royal" about that. The "front page news" for the last week has been about Harry and Meghan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fether said:

We can only handle so many breaking news stories at once.

That was rather my point. Here though, the Tabloids have almost forgotten about Trump's middle-eastern Trumping, in favour of Miss Meghan "I-want-it-my-way-so-stick-that-in your-pipe-and-smoke-it-Your-Queenness" Markle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Tabloids have almost forgotten about Trump's middle-eastern Trumping,

I like it.  I mean, I liked this bit of Trumping.  Especially breaking the news with a victory tweet.

image.png.423dedc0f89139097a4eaa382b8f294f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Sacoolas is old news too - and in any case there's nothing "royal" about that. The "front page news" for the last week has been about Harry and Meghan.

That's just really it, isn't it?  The MSM is driving the news pushing perceptions.  The unwashed masses though, don't listen much to them anymore.  The interwebs are still percolating on Epstein Didn't Kill Himself and Andrew and Bill were his friends so much so that NBC got more view on their Ricky Gervais Golden Globe monologue youtube video than watched the Golden Globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fether said:

We can only handle so many breaking news stories at once. How can we remember pedophile island when Trump is starting WW3, Trump caused Iran to shoot down an airline jet, and Trump is about to be impeached???

That's so 5 minutes ago.  It's about Meghan now refusing to move to California until Trump is ejected from the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheering for Royals is worse that cheering for a really crappy sports team.  You will spend most of your life disappointed!!!!

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

That's why democracies are better. You get to elect whoever you want to disappoint you.

Sorry to be a pedant, but the UK is a democracy as well as a monarchy. We have elected politicians too, and they are quite as capable of disappointing as the US ones are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

challenge_accepted.jpg

In this area, we Americans will certainly put up a good fight. But after watching European and especially UK politics for decades, I think this just may be a battle we cannot win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mordorbund said:

That's why democracies are better. You get to elect whoever you want to disappoint you.

One would think that the more someone is compensated - the less they would disappoint or at least they ought to make a profound effort not to disappoint.  But it does seem (with very few and rare exception) that the more someone is compensated - the greater they disappoint - and the less they seem to care about how badly they disappoint.  I ponder if we would not be much better off if the pay and benefits of politicians was no more than our military.  

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Traveler said:

I ponder if we would not be much better off if the pay and benefits of politicians was no more than our military.  

A great idea in theory, but I fear that it would only encourage more corruption and corporate money influencing politics. If the taxpayers won't pay politicians, they'll find someone who will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 12:11 PM, Traveler said:

One would think that the more someone is compensated - the less they would disappoint or at least they ought to make a profound effort not to disappoint.  But it does seem (with very few and rare exception) that the more someone is compensated - the greater they disappoint - and the less they seem to care about how badly they disappoint.  I ponder if we would not be much better off if the pay and benefits of politicians was no more than our military.  

 

The Traveler

Newsflash:  Politicians don't make their money from their salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Newsflash:  Politicians don't make their money from their salary.

Which is why I used the word - compensate. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Which is why I used the word - compensate. 

 

The Traveler

Which does not make a difference.  Politicians don't make their money from compensation.  You think Bernie Sanders gained 6 mansions through his compensation as a Senator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Which does not make a difference.  Politicians don't make their money from compensation.  You think Bernie Sanders gained 6 mansions through his compensation as a Senator?

Yes - if he was not a Senator he would not have been so compensated.  Do you think this 6 mansions are a compensation for his intellect or non governmental experiences? 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an area I know very little about.  I've heard some stories that Prince Harry and Megan are having some sort of qualm with the rest of the royals and thus are stepping back, but I have no idea what it is over or why.

This thread has not really illuminated me on the reasons either.  Anyone care to explain what exactly is going on with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 2:32 PM, Traveler said:

Yes - if he was not a Senator he would not have been so compensated.  Do you think this 6 mansions are a compensation for his intellect or non governmental experiences? 

 

The Traveler

So you're saying that Bernie Sanders was PAID all this money that allowed him to buy 6 mansions because he was a Senator?  That's what you think? 

Maybe it's my poor English but compensation and graft, to my knowledge of the English language, are not interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you're saying that Bernie Sanders was PAID all this money that allowed him to buy 6 mansions because he was a Senator?  That's what you think? 

Maybe it's my poor English but compensation and graft, to my knowledge of the English language, are not interchangeable.

It looks to me like Traveler is using "compensation" to mean more than just "salary". As in, any money Sanders brings in either directly or tangentially because he is a senator and infuence-peddler is "compensation" for being a senator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vort said:

It looks to me like Traveler is using "compensation" to mean more than just "salary". As in, any money Sanders brings in either directly or tangentially because he is a senator and infuence-peddler is "compensation" for being a senator.

So graft is compensation... that makes absolutely no sense.  It's like saying, I stole $100 from my mother's purse = I got compensated $100 for being my mother's daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this