adios 717 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I had an argument with my brother the other day about whether it was 'woosh' or 'whoosh'. I've just looked at that 'woosh' and it's wrong, it's like a naked 'whoosh'. Anyone liking it without the 'h' is a pervert, and I don't care what the OCP has to say about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Virgins are always welcome. And tbh all this tbh is getting annoying tbqf, imho 34306[/snapback] Yeah, all that woosh bollocks is annoying anarl. btw 34311[/snapback] Alex's ultimate comeback, whenever he's been proven wrong tbh 34312[/snapback] I hardly ever use whoosh, then again I'm hardly ever wrong. A bit like your boring, contrary, miserable as fuck self imho tbh 34315[/snapback] I'll let that go because it's Friday and I'm in a good mood tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 What happened to the virgin thread then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me. 34242[/snapback] What about Shearer's kids? They will have wealth and privalege through birth even if their father earned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 You're quite right, plenty of upper, middle and lower class people accept you for who you are. I'll never truly be upper class because in spite of my achievements they'll never quite accept me at the pony club. That was really my original point. Let's not fuck people off just because they're in any class. Have a drink with them and then decide they're a wanker. 34309[/snapback] Agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me. 34242[/snapback] What about Shearer's kids? They will have wealth and privalege through birth even if their father earned it. 36394[/snapback] Bit different I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me. 34242[/snapback] What about Shearer's kids? They will have wealth and privalege through birth even if their father earned it. 36394[/snapback] Bit different I reckon. 36399[/snapback] Explain how. If it was the son of an investment banker in Hertfordshire would your feelings towards the child be the same? I'm not presuming what you think, merely asking the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me. 34242[/snapback] What about Shearer's kids? They will have wealth and privalege through birth even if their father earned it. 36394[/snapback] Bit different I reckon. 36399[/snapback] Explain how. If it was the son of an investment banker in Hertfordshire would your feelings towards the child be the same? I'm not presuming what you think, merely asking the question. 36411[/snapback] It would still be different to the Royal family so yes, do I really need to explain the difference between having a father / mother who has earned their money and receiving money from the state on the basis of heriditary rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The fact that people just "accept" wealth and power through birthright sickens me. 34242[/snapback] What about Shearer's kids? They will have wealth and privalege through birth even if their father earned it. 36394[/snapback] Bit different I reckon. 36399[/snapback] Explain how. If it was the son of an investment banker in Hertfordshire would your feelings towards the child be the same? I'm not presuming what you think, merely asking the question. 36411[/snapback] It would still be different to the Royal family so yes, do I really need to explain the difference between having a father / mother who has earned their money and receiving money from the state on the basis of heriditary rights? 36421[/snapback] Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. Also, please drop the attitude, it's completely uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. Also, please drop the attitude, it's completely uncalled for. 36425[/snapback] What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 well its the "heir & spare" thing isn't it? But why the rest of them get a fortune is totally beyond me.................. all them cousins and half cousins etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3997 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I would line them all up against the wall and shoot the lot, live on TV. Apart from Shearers kids, like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. Also, please drop the attitude, it's completely uncalled for. 36425[/snapback] What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. 36427[/snapback] If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I would line them all up against the wall and shoot the lot, live on TV. Apart from Shearers kids, like. 36440[/snapback] I can remember they did that the Iraqi royal familly back in '58 and of course the Ceaucescu's at Christmas 1989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? 36443[/snapback] I was talking about the difference between Shearer's kids and Prince Harry, if you're not we've got our wires crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. 36425[/snapback] I agree with passing on wealth but I think you'll probably find it hard to justify the state paying out because someone's ancestor locked his nephew in the Tower once! I thought this debate had stretched far beyond just the Royals though, it seemed to have become a bit of a class issue. That's what I thought NJS was commenting on. Anyway who really cares, if you look at the money they take out of the system in real terms, does it have an impact? Maybe Rob would be able to put it in terms of extra hospital beds or something. The Dutch have a royal family too, from what I can tell from my Dutch mates it's just not an issue in the same way as the UK, although it's really a bad time to try and make that argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. 36425[/snapback] I agree with passing on wealth but I think you'll probably find it hard to justify the state paying out because someone's ancestor locked his nephew in the Tower once! I thought this debate had stretched far beyond just the Royals though, it seemed to have become a bit of a class issue. That's what I thought NJS was commenting on. Anyway who really cares, if you look at the money they take out of the system in real terms, does it have an impact? Maybe Rob would be able to put it in terms of extra hospital beds or something. The Dutch have a royal family too, from what I can tell from my Dutch mates it's just not an issue in the same way as the UK, although it's really a bad time to try and make that argument... 36450[/snapback] I agree. I think the problem is more one of perceived injustice, when in reality, the Royal family do generate income. There are far more people we don't see that are born into privileged positions. It's about envy and perhaps a lack of belief that we will ever better our own circumstances. As unfashionable as it sounds, I believe attitude is the biggest hurdle to success. There are Asians in this country. There are Black people in this country. The Asians are doing better by and large. In general terms they have complained less and worked much harder. No that's not racist. That's unfortunately just how it is at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. Also, please drop the attitude, it's completely uncalled for. 36425[/snapback] What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. 36427[/snapback] If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? 36443[/snapback] The royal family have power beyond their wealth, this is what I object to, and what makes them different to all those you listed. For instance, I don't know if you realise this, but the queen is actually head of state, she is the equivalent of our president, purely through a fluke of birth. Can you see the difference? I would abolish the monarchy immediately and let them stand on their own feet. With it, I would scrap the house of lords and all other institutions that balatently operate on hereditary privilege. This is supposed to be the 21st century ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. Also, please drop the attitude, it's completely uncalled for. 36425[/snapback] What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. 36427[/snapback] If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? 36443[/snapback] The royal family have power beyond their wealth, this is what I object to, and what makes them different to all those you listed. For instance, I don't know if you realise this, but the queen is actually head of state, she is the equivalent of our president, purely through a fluke of birth. Can you see the difference? I would abolish the monarchy immediately and let them stand on their own feet. With it, I would scrap the house of lords and all other institutions that balatently operate on hereditary privilege. This is supposed to be the 21st century ffs! 36455[/snapback] Ever heard of George W Bush? Bush/Queen, Bush/Queen etc etc. Also why do you pick and choose who you think should have inherited privilege? That's precisely why I asked about Shearer's kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. 36425[/snapback] I agree with passing on wealth but I think you'll probably find it hard to justify the state paying out because someone's ancestor locked his nephew in the Tower once! I thought this debate had stretched far beyond just the Royals though, it seemed to have become a bit of a class issue. That's what I thought NJS was commenting on. Anyway who really cares, if you look at the money they take out of the system in real terms, does it have an impact? Maybe Rob would be able to put it in terms of extra hospital beds or something. The Dutch have a royal family too, from what I can tell from my Dutch mates it's just not an issue in the same way as the UK, although it's really a bad time to try and make that argument... 36450[/snapback] I agree. I think the problem is more one of perceived injustice, when in reality, the Royal family do generate income. There are far more people we don't see that are born into privileged positions. It's about envy and perhaps a lack of belief that we will ever better our own circumstances. As unfashionable as it sounds, I believe attitude is the biggest hurdle to success. There are Asians in this country. There are Black people in this country. The Asians are doing better by and large. In general terms they have complained less and worked much harder. No that's not racist. That's unfortunately just how it is at the moment. 36453[/snapback] What a load of bollocks. It's not about envy, it's about inequality and injustice. And just to let you know, I would ban all private healthcare and education too. Well, ideally that's what I would like to do anyway. I have no objection to people having money and enjoying it, but I do object to them using it to perpetuate the class system through education or jump ahead in operation queues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. Also, please drop the attitude, it's completely uncalled for. 36425[/snapback] What attitude? I'm answering your question. The difference is Harry gets money from the Civil List because of who he is, not because of what he does. Shearer's kids won't. 36427[/snapback] If anything the Royals are at more of a disadvantage than Shearer's kids yet they will both enjoy unearned privilage. What's the difference? Paris Hilton? George W? Lord Sainsbury? Prince Harry? 36443[/snapback] The royal family have power beyond their wealth, this is what I object to, and what makes them different to all those you listed. For instance, I don't know if you realise this, but the queen is actually head of state, she is the equivalent of our president, purely through a fluke of birth. Can you see the difference? I would abolish the monarchy immediately and let them stand on their own feet. With it, I would scrap the house of lords and all other institutions that balatently operate on hereditary privilege. This is supposed to be the 21st century ffs! 36455[/snapback] Ever heard of George W Bush? Bush/Queen, Bush/Queen etc etc. Also why do you pick and choose who you think should have inherited privilege? That's precisely why I asked about Shearer's kids. 36458[/snapback] Bush was elected was he not, even if this was a bit dodgy? The American system is far from ideal, but are you honestly telling me you can't see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Somewhere along the line, someone will have earned it. It may have been centuries, but it will have been earned. 36425[/snapback] I agree with passing on wealth but I think you'll probably find it hard to justify the state paying out because someone's ancestor locked his nephew in the Tower once! I thought this debate had stretched far beyond just the Royals though, it seemed to have become a bit of a class issue. That's what I thought NJS was commenting on. Anyway who really cares, if you look at the money they take out of the system in real terms, does it have an impact? Maybe Rob would be able to put it in terms of extra hospital beds or something. The Dutch have a royal family too, from what I can tell from my Dutch mates it's just not an issue in the same way as the UK, although it's really a bad time to try and make that argument... 36450[/snapback] I agree. I think the problem is more one of perceived injustice, when in reality, the Royal family do generate income. There are far more people we don't see that are born into privileged positions. It's about envy and perhaps a lack of belief that we will ever better our own circumstances. As unfashionable as it sounds, I believe attitude is the biggest hurdle to success. There are Asians in this country. There are Black people in this country. The Asians are doing better by and large. In general terms they have complained less and worked much harder. No that's not racist. That's unfortunately just how it is at the moment. 36453[/snapback] What a load of bollocks. It's not about envy, it's about inequality and injustice. And just to let you know, I would ban all private healthcare and education too. Well, ideally that's what I would like to do anyway. I have no objection to people having money and enjoying it, but I do object to them using it to perpetuate the class system through education or jump ahead in operation queues. 36459[/snapback] How do you define inequality? As for private health care and schools, I largely agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Bush was elected was he not, even if this was a bit dodgy? The American system is far from ideal, but are you honestly telling me you can't see the difference? 36462[/snapback] Bush would never have been elected if it wasn't for his father. His brother is the governer of Florida which was a key area and his cousin is a big cheese at Fox news. If that ain't nepotism I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Renton, can't tell there's any Scottish in you! My leftist heart would love to agree with your sentiments about equality but the reality is that it's not a level playing field. Some people work alot harder than others and sometimes that benefits us all, should they not be rewarded for that? We all want to treat our kids as best we can so when a few of these better rewarded people get together and hire the best teachers what can we really do about that? Once you propagate that scenario through a few generations you're going to end up with some inequality. If anyone has a solution I'd love to hear it, it would cheer me up no end. It's jars my idealogy to realise that it's not as simple as helping people, but it's not. It's easy to rail against a perceived enemy but alot tougher to sit back and look at what all sides are doing wrong here and what we can do to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Bush was elected was he not, even if this was a bit dodgy? The American system is far from ideal, but are you honestly telling me you can't see the difference? 36462[/snapback] Bush would never have been elected if it wasn't for his father. His brother is the governer of Florida which was a key area and his cousin is a big cheese at Fox news. If that ain't nepotism I don't know what is. 36465[/snapback] But its not ingrained in the system as it is here - a lot of people here say"if we didn't have the Queen we'd have <name someone, anyone> as head of State" well why not? the rest of the world does pretty well that way I doubt it saves money on the actual HoS - look at France or the USA for example - but at least we don't pay for all their relatives for ever and ever................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now