Good point, and they often seemed to be going out of their way to kiss some Royal arse as well. Maybe there is a point to this, i.e. loyalty and obedience doesn't always guarantee that you are going to be looked after. My theory for what it is worth; basically Bliar reluctantly brought in the Hunting with Dogs Act 2005, Brown in a last bid attempt for power reminded the electorate that they brought in legislation which restricted the barbaric practice of fox hunting. The Royal blood junkies never forgave Labour for that, after all its their right to chase an animal all day long and have a pack of hounds tear it to pieces, get’s them right in the mood for fucking one of their relatives don’t you knowFive Minutes wrote:Although I don't like them it was a bit out of order that Brown and Blair were not invited.
An insult to Labour voters?
Especially in view of the fact that Blair saved the Royals' arses after Diana's death.
william and kate
Moderator: StanInBlack
Re: william and kate
Re: william and kate
Politicians are only invited to Royal Weddings if:Five Minutes wrote:Although I don't like them it was a bit out of order that Brown and Blair were not invited.
An insult to Labour voters?
Especially in view of the fact that Blair saved the Royals' arses after Diana's death.
a.) They are the serving Prime Minister or in the current Cabinet.
b.) They are a Knight Of The Garter
c.) They are invited as a personal friend of the couple.
Blair and Brown came under 'none of the above'.
ManInBrown
Re: william and kate
I'm assuming you are right of course Rockula, nonetheless some fuss was made over the fact the Jim Callaghan and Harold Wilson were both invited to Charles and Di's wedding, I don't know which category they would have come under. Where does that leave Margaret Thatcher and John Major who were invited? Best fucking mates presumably?
- ravenlunatic
- ManinBlack
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:38
- Location: oxon
Re: william and kate
They are both Knights of the Garter and John Major was executor of Diana's will.Jake wrote:I'm assuming you are right of course Rockula, nonetheless some fuss was made over the fact the Jim Callaghan and Harold Wilson were both invited to Charles and Di's wedding, I don't know which category they would have come under. Where does that leave Margaret Thatcher and John Major who were invited? Best fucking mates presumably?
I tried to make him laugh, He didn't get the joke, and then he said I wasn't right in the head.
Re: william and kate
OK thank you for a civilised reply, apart from both liking the stranglers we are getting somewhere
Re: william and kate
You will have to define the 'majority' here JakeJake wrote:"Brainwashed masses fit for fodder"
Because a majority apparently agree with something it doesn't automatically make them/it right! I mean apparently the majority accepted Hitler, does that mean that anyone who dissented against the nazi's was a waste of space
I would say the majority didn't agree with Hitler
The day is sticky yellow!!
- Five Minutes
- Ugly
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: 20 Nov 2005, 14:21
- Location: Manchester
Re: william and kate
Not in Germany but the plebiscite in Austria for the anschluss was something like 98% approval.NMH1965 wrote:You will have to define the 'majority' here JakeJake wrote:"Brainwashed masses fit for fodder"
Because a majority apparently agree with something it doesn't automatically make them/it right! I mean apparently the majority accepted Hitler, does that mean that anyone who dissented against the nazi's was a waste of space
I would say the majority didn't agree with Hitler
Last time I came here a friend of mine just got triple-jacked over a steeplehammer and jessop jessop jessop jessop jessop
Re: william and kate
Clearly I was referring to the people who physically stood up that regime..............far outnumbered the German and Austrian population
The day is sticky yellow!!
Re: william and kate
I will have to get back to you on this and just give you a quick reply (there is something I want to watch on Channel 4 right now)........NMH1965 wrote:You will have to define the 'majority' here Jake
I would say the majority didn't agree with Hitler
Well it's difficult to know really, but Hitler's party did get a sizeable share of the vote in the 1931 (I think) elections, he didn't have a mandate to govern but found a way round it ,hmmmmm
I think it's also worth considering why a 'minority' is not important when it comes to taking their views into consideration and how do we define a minority, especially when the all powerful media go out of their way to define who is the 'majority' and who is the 'minority'
Re: william and kate
Well you watch what you need to watch on Channel 4, don't really care if you get back or notJake wrote:I will have to get back to you on this and just give you a quick reply (there is something I want to watch on Channel 4 right now)........NMH1965 wrote:You will have to define the 'majority' here Jake
I would say the majority didn't agree with Hitler
Well it's difficult to know really, but Hitler's party did get a sizeable share of the vote in the 1931 (I think) elections, he didn't have a mandate to govern but found a way round it ,hmmmmm
I think it's also worth considering why a 'minority' is not important when it comes to taking their views into consideration and how do we define a minority, especially when the all powerful media go out of their way to define who is the 'majority' and who is the 'minority'
I think the word 'minortiy'............the clue is in the word so I have no need to define it.
I think that the problem with people who like to associate themselves with minorities, assume that their views haven't been taken in to consideration as a an excuse to justify why these views haven't been adopted
Personally I make my own views on what is important in life to me, and not the medias.
The day is sticky yellow!!
Re: william and kate
They are both Knights of the Garter snigger snigger
"i'd crawl over 50 good pussies just to get to 1 fat boys asshole"
- ravenlunatic
- ManinBlack
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:38
- Location: oxon
Re: william and kate
NMH1965 wrote:Well you watch what you need to watch on Channel 4, don't really care if you get back or notJake wrote:I will have to get back to you on this and just give you a quick reply (there is something I want to watch on Channel 4 right now)........NMH1965 wrote:You will have to define the 'majority' here Jake
I would say the majority didn't agree with Hitler
Well it's difficult to know really, but Hitler's party did get a sizeable share of the vote in the 1931 (I think) elections, he didn't have a mandate to govern but found a way round it ,hmmmmm
I think it's also worth considering why a 'minority' is not important when it comes to taking their views into consideration and how do we define a minority, especially when the all powerful media go out of their way to define who is the 'majority' and who is the 'minority'
I think the word 'minortiy'............the clue is in the word so I have no need to define it.
I think that the problem with people who like to associate themselves with minorities, assume that their views haven't been taken in to consideration as a an excuse to justify why these views haven't been adopted
Personally I make my own views on what is important in life to me, and not the medias.
And here NMH 1965 provides a perfect example of one of those millions of people in this country (to whom I eluded earlier) who is not one of the so called "brainwashed masses" but a normal person making intelligent decisions and critical comment through balanced assesment of information from a number of sources and personal experience. Jake, you should try to shake off this blinkered view that anyone who isn't ranting about how awful the government and royal family is must be a Neo Nazi who's sole source of information is the pages of the Daily Mail or is too stupid to understand what goes on.
I tried to make him laugh, He didn't get the joke, and then he said I wasn't right in the head.