bigmick wrote:To generalise and lump the current Queen or indeed any of her gunfire shy military sons
prince andrew/ falklands

bigmick wrote:To generalise and lump the current Queen or indeed any of her gunfire shy military sons
Good Bob wrote:What do they do? Born millionaire's with no personality, sense of perspective or life experience.
They all need to be shot.
Famous for what? They get all the money and freedom in the country for what?
Imagine you meet the queen, you say "Hiya Liz hows it going?" You'd probably get hung, drawn an quartered for that. Its all bollox, they think they're above everyone. They aren't, they're human beings that have massive privilages for no reason, not because they earnt it.
Can you imagine one of themliving on a council estate. Bloody arrogant snobs the lot of them.
Scum of the earth.
neanderthal knuckle dragging idiot
peewee wrote:Good Bob wrote:What do they do? Born millionaire's with no personality, sense of perspective or life experience.
They all need to be shot.
Famous for what? They get all the money and freedom in the country for what?
Imagine you meet the queen, you say "Hiya Liz hows it going?" You'd probably get hung, drawn an quartered for that. Its all bollox, they think they're above everyone. They aren't, they're human beings that have massive privilages for no reason, not because they earnt it.
Can you imagine one of themliving on a council estate. Bloody arrogant snobs the lot of them.
Scum of the earth.
is that your wel thought out reply?![]()
yes they get money from the public purse which comes from taxes, but they also work for that money by fulfilling public engagements, sometimes over 500 a year. they also have paid jobs, mainly military (except for edward with his production company). i dont envisge ever seeing them living on a council estate mate as they are all well educated. last week prince andrew was in thaliand for the thai kings celebrations and he was on the news every day, as well as the celebrations he was involved in promoting british business in thailand which will ultimatley bring money into the country. i am sure you are not aware how much money the royals do bring in with tourism but i assume that you dont care about that as you thing it doesnt affect you.
maybe you should turn your attentions to the other people who get a slice of our taxes, the dole spongers who fulifil no public engagements and do no good for the country whatsoever. you will find plenty of them living on council estates, and not surviving very well
peewee wrote:i dont envisge ever seeing them living on a council estate mate as they are all well educated.
bigmick wrote:I'm not actually certain that an attack on the Queen represents an attack on Britain as a whole. I've re-read Boodiddy's post and while I can't say I agree with all of it, I don't find myself massively offended either.
He refers to Fergie being a "whisky nose Jock barstard" which with the exception of the deliberately misspelled reference to his parentage is fair enough IMHO. His analysis of the events of the final is just just about spot on aswell, there has not been a team more fortunate to prevail in the European Cup final.
He's presumeably correct and thankfully we can take it as a given about the Queen's nether regions given her age and though I don't agree with the sentiment about the usage of the union jack, it doesn 't bother me unduly that that is his view.
He calls the royals "murdering barstards" and although I disagree with the conspiracy theories about Dianna's death and would make the point that it's a while since there has been any "murdering", there are history books packed full of atrocities throughout the years which have been carried out in the name of the crown. To generalise and lump the current Queen or indeed any of her gunfire shy military sons in with the "murdering Barstards" is stretching the point somewhat but once again, try as I might I just can't get offended.
He finishes his post off with the traditional "huns" retort. I guess he is referring to the fact that the royal family had to change their name from Battenburg to Windsor before the First World War as it was felt by the powers that be that the silly working class people might just get the hump about their teenage sons being mown down in their thousands in some strategically inconsequential French field in the name of a family which was actually from the same place as the people they were fighting against.
You know what? I'm no royalist either but even if I was I wouldn't find this stuff offensive. Maybe we shouldn't take each other too seriously, this is not Question Time on a thursday night it's supposed to be a football forum. Nobody dislikes racism more than me but we shouldn't go hunting for it where it doesn't exist, it just gets boring.
FWIW and as a footnote, I don't think that Steven Gerrard as a 26 year old extremely well paid footballer deserves any recognition in terms of honours at this stage of his career. In time, probably but not now. I'm even more certain that he doesn't give a sh!te either way and frankly neither do I.
RUSHIE#9 wrote:And for tomorrow's topic of the day - WASTED BILLIONS ON NHS IT SYSTEM. If it's gonna start gettin into political shite on here i'll see ya in August when footie season starts again.
kazza wrote:Mick mate, sometimes more is less.
bigmick wrote:peewee wrote:i dont envisge ever seeing them living on a council estate mate as they are all well educated.
Hmmmm. Sometimes Peewee mate it's best to leave well alone and put the spade down. It's not compulsary that you keep digging. Being from a council estate myself, well suffice to say that I don't agree with this particular generalisation. All generalisations are generally wrong in my experience and this one is no different.
As to your reference to Prince Andrew visa vis the Falklands as an example of a royal seeing active service, then I can only smile. It's long been my stock answer to the question "what would do if there was conscription again?" to simply reply that as long as I've got a member of the royal family stood next to me I'll get in any tank, stand in any trench, sail on any ship or ride on any helicopter and fight for my country against any fecker you like. Alas, I think that renders me completely safe in any conflict you care to name. Prince Andrew will have been closer than I was in Yorkshire to the sound of gunfire, but only marginally so I would venture.
As a final point I think your views on the monarchy being a better example of a head of state than a Presidency are broadly correct. It is the connundrum of what you replace it with that has kept and will continue to keep the present royal family going for the forseeable.
RUSHIE#9 wrote:And for tomorrow's topic of the day - WASTED BILLIONS ON NHS IT SYSTEM. If it's gonna start gettin into political shite on here i'll see ya in August when footie season starts again.
peewee wrote:also i think flying a sea king from hms invicnible while argentinian fighters are attacking ships, planes and helicopters, also hovering over those attacked ships to rescue men, also rescue men for the mainland should not be trivialised. he was given no special treatement or maybe his helicopter had a special shield like on star treck to make him safe. (sarcasm)
ok and to clear it up, i am not royalist. but i do believe the royals do more good for the country than bad
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 84 guests