Prince Harry
Posted by: Martin D on 13 January 2005
Moron. Very offensive.
Enough said
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mushroom:
Your proposition seem to be following a worrying trend of typically islamophobic populist rhetoric that seeks to link the:
(i) support of any muslim group or arab state
(ii) criticism of the Israeli state
as anti-semetic.
I agree with Mr Mushrooms Points entirely, and feel that certain people just continually take advantage of absolutelyx any opprtunism to get Israel back in the News where it feels it permanently belongs for some God Foresaken reason, a staement you will no doubt find plenty of mileage in, and take totally out of context 'Once Again / Genarally' for the same old self serving reason, and fuck anybody elses opinions, innit.
Cheers, Fritz Von Bloody opportunism makes me sick sometimes³ 
...
Secondly, consider asking your self, why questioning Howard's Policy on Palestine and Muslims would be against jews (which is what you mean when you mistakenly use the term 'Semite'). You link support for Muslims, Palestine and Arabs with being anti -jewish.
...
Firstly, I categorically do not link the support of any Muslim Group or Arab State, or criticism of Israel with anti-semitism (except where such groups have themselves got expressedly anti-Jewish philosophies).
Secondly, I'm not Islamophobic, although I am concerned about the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism.
Thirdly, although you're correct when you say that 'Semitic' peoples include both the Arabs and the Jews, the term 'anti-semite' has been used _exclusively_ to mean prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The term itself was was coined by a German writer called Wilhelm Marr and used in a book published by him in 1879. Marr coined the phrase 'anti-semite' purely to give some respectability to 'Judenhass' or 'Jew hatred'.
Finally, what on earth are you talking about? I was referring to remarks made by the Labour Minister, Mike O'Brien, in an article he wrote for 'Muslim Weekly'. Despite his attempts to deny it, the remarks have been widely considered to be anti-semitic (Michael Howard being, in case you didn't know, Jewish).
Should you decide to respond to this post, please end your response with some indication of your real name (your first name will do). I refuse to enter into serious discussion with someone who calls himself 'Mr. Mushroom'.
Steve Margolis
[This message was edited by 7V on Thu 13 January 2005 at 20:44.]
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I agree with Mr Mushrooms Points entirely, and feel that certain people just continually take advantage of absolutelyx any opprtunism to get Israel back in the News where it feels it permanently belongs for some God Foresaken reason, a staement you will no doubt find plenty of mileage in, and take totally out of context 'Once Again / Genarally' for the same old self serving reason, and fuck anybody elses opinions, innit.
Cheers, Fritz Von Bloody opportunism makes me sick sometimes³
Absolute bollocks, Fritz, and not for the first time.
Your ignorance of me and my likes and dislikes is immense. I would be far, far happier if Israel was not in the news. For one thing it would mean that there probably wouldn't be an endless succession of suicide bombings, troop retaliations, violence, murder, etc., etc.
Also, I am much happier batting posts discussing issues such as those raised in the 'Jerry Springer' thread. I could do that all day (if I didn't have to work too). I rarely participate in any thread about Israel or anti-semitism without a visceral feeling of sickness in my stomach about the sentiment that I might sometimes uncover and the sheer ignorance of some of the proponents.
An example of such ignorance is your statements above (which I managed to dig out from their hiding place in a collection of other posts that you couldn't be bothered to unravel). At least as far as I can judge they're ignorant; they are practically incomprehensible.
Perhaps you can be bothered to explain what you mean by "a staement you will no doubt find plenty of mileage in, and take totally out of context 'Once Again / Genarally' for the same old self serving reason, and fuck anybody elses opinions, innit".
Also, explain exactly which "points of Mr. Mushroom's you agree with entirely". I could barely comprehend his post. Perhaps the two of you share a common language.
And please have the courtesey to use English for your explanations so that the rest of us can understand WTF you're talking about.
Steve M
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Aric
Why, exactly, do you all still fund this antiquated idea of "royalty?"
I'm curious because many of you complain bitterly about it, yet the taxes are still there. How often is there a vote? Who votes?
Aric
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Robbie
In Holland we have a kingdom. Our prince, who recently died (Prince Bernard von lippe Biesterfeld), has had several affaires and as to now has two daughters outside his own (3).
When you're royal you lose grip on reality it seems.
Rob.
ps If I would do the same to my wife or kids I should be locked up or shot to dead by Mick Parry.
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Also, explain exactly which "points of Mr. Mushroom's you agree with entirely". I could barely comprehend his post. Perhaps the two of you share a common language.
Yes, I must admit I struggled with that one. Too many of those mushrooms, I venture to suppose!
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by long-time-dead
Without the royalty, we wouldn't have exported the criminals and impoverished across the Atlantic.
...... and some of them became the Bush family........
Signature - surely it's just a Naim ?
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Robbie
Mushrooms,
You can find them in the fields in autumn...
Rob.
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by NaimDropper
Harry is big news in the US too.
I'm trying to think if I'd trade the Bush family for the royals...
David
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Lomo
It is a shame that Harry cannot do the things considered normal by people of his age or for that matter of any of his ages in the future. Of course if an ordinary citizen was to have any aspirations for something like politics and the press got hold of a photo like this it would be curtains for him. So at least Harry can make his apologies and get on with it. Whatever he does he'll never win and can look forward to a life- time of dodging the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Posted on: 13 January 2005 by Nime
Hasn't anyone twigged that the Harry story is simply the "Escape from Tsunami" sequel?
It merely highlights the complete farce that is tabloid news. If it's not reporting trivia it is manufacturing trivia.
This subject matter is aimed at the type who wouldn't miss en episode of "Eastenders" or "Coronation Street". (Or its local equivelant)
It is the daily fodder for those who have no real lives of their own.
Be grateful your lives are not on the same level as the countless millions who's are. Imagine one's life's ambitions being a visit to Las Vegas and/or Disneyworld? It used to be Butlins but I can't remember if these shell-suit cloning farms still exist.
I really can't see what all the fuss is about. If there were no royals you'd have to invent them. Pop idols and sportspersons now fulfill much the same function and often relegate the royals to a subsidiary roll. Which is bad news for the royals when you can get somebody else to pay for the walk-on entertainers.
You have just been manipulated. Deal with it.
Nime
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by Lomo:
Whatever he does he'll never win and can look forward to a life- time of dodging the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
He could make his life a damn site easier if he engaged his brain every now and then.
>Will add something funny when I think of it.<
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
Absolute bollocks, Fritz, and not for the first time.
Steve M
Steve,
Its absolutely pointless tryign to engage Fritzy in a debate. He will either ignore you completely or write something totally incomprehensible as proof of his greater intelligence.
>Will add something funny when I think of it.<
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
I think people need to get a sense of proportion. No harm is done to anyone by the wearing of a uniform.
Same goes for religion. There should be no law(in this country)preventing the lampooning of religion or its adherents.
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
There should be no law(in this country)preventing the lampooning of religion or its adherents.
here here...get rid of Blasphemy laws
Laurie S
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
quote:
There should be no law(in this country)preventing the lampooning of religion or its adherents.
here here...get rid of Blasphemy laws
Laurie S
And the anti-racism ones?
>Will add something funny when I think of it.<
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Rockingdoc
All that matters to me is whether I am paying him to act like a tosser. Does he get paid directly by the state, or does he simply leech funds from his father's abuse of our money?
Twenty year-olds are supposed to play the fool, but not when they are being paid, or else they get the sack.
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
Rasher,
I think you're being too forgiving here. Either that or ultra-sarcastic or forgot the smiley.
He's an over privileged twat living an extremely luxurious lifestyle at our expense. What was he thinking about, particlarly so close to the Auschwitz commemoration? Probably very little if he's a typical royal.
Me? Forgiving?
I am ever so slightly aware that I will call him ga-ga because he is inbred, but consider him to be a Hewitt when I choose to.
Ahem...
I would like them the behave and work as normal people, and then I could respect that. Maybe Harry will turn out to be the most normal of all? There is always hope.
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Shayman
Harry aside....Is it just me or is the thought of a load of upper class public school kids organising a 'Colonials and Natives'-themed fancy dress party a bit offensive in itself. You can only imagine the sorts of comments and conversations that went on generally. I dread to think what the other guests wore.
Jonathan
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Chris Metcalfe
'I think people need to get a sense of proportion. No harm is done to anyone by the wearing of a uniform.'
Nigel - come on!!
If I wear a silly costume to a fancy dress party (OK, I used to go as Groucho Marx - well we didn't have much money in those days) it means something - in my case that I quite liked the Marx Brothers. In Harry's case there must be some level of post-ironic something or other going on under that thick ruling-class pate. And totally ill-thought-out too. William at least appears to have more intelligence.
I suppose in the end it does come down to the role of the monarchy, and this isn't what they need right now; and I don't care how much 'we' pay them, as long as the job is done properly.
I'll give them 20 years.
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by reductionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
quote:
There should be no law(in this country)preventing the lampooning of religion or its adherents.
here here...get rid of Blasphemy laws
Laurie S
And the anti-racism ones?
>Will add something funny when I think of it.<
The racism laws are getting a bit silly, although racism isn't something I particularly approve of. Any legislation pertaining blasphemy is farcical and ridiculous and should be scrapped without further delay, along with that twaddle about religious hatred or whatever it is the powers that be are floating at the moment.
Earwicker
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Metcalfe:
William at least appears to have more intelligence.
If he has a trace of royal blood in him I'll eat my hat.
If we're going to give him money I demand he's DNA tested!
Stephen
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Rasher
I was watching the Tenacious D video Greatest Song In The World, which is comedy of course, and has Dave Grohl dressed as the devil. My buddy, who is very strict Roman Catholic walked out and said it was offensive and he wouldn't watch it. My jaw dropped, but I guess we either have to think ahead and anticipate causing offense, or we ignore it all together and let people be offended.
I don't know the answer.
Is it possible to tread so carefully so as not to offend anyone ?
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
I was watching the Tenacious D video Greatest Song In The World, which is comedy of course, and has Dave Grohl dressed as the devil. My buddy, who is very strict Roman Catholic walked out and said it was offensive and he wouldn't watch it.
There's an easy difference here. The Nazis actually existed and killed millions of people. The devil is a made-up thing and has harmed no-one (though harm may have been done in the name of the devil I guess, but it also has in the name of god).
Stephen
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by 7V
So instead of a monarchy we could have an elected PM (say Brown) and an elected President (say Blair). Yup, that would work.
At least the royals are:
- born rich - so they never have to strive for money
- born in a position of power - so they never have to strive for power
- there for life - so they never have to strive for a decent sound-bite
Just a thought.
Steve M
Posted on: 14 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
There should be no law(in this country)preventing the lampooning of religion or its adherents.
Absolutely. Er, I'll lampoon Buddhism, you lampoon Islam.
Steve M
