A couple getting married in Manchester invited the Queen to their wedding.
"I put in my letter that I hoped she would have a lovely day in Manchester, all the very best on the Jubilee and if you've got any spare minutes, we're only next door."
'Hey look mummy it's the woman off a five pound note'
This is somewhat amusing, shows that the royal family are really trying to appear in touch with the common man. Given the queen lives in the country's most expensive council house it's about time.
Good on em I say, I'm not a royalist, but I think they do some good things for us britts. The appeal to tourists puts back the money into the UK economy.
Can see a few more of these publicity stunts being pulled off in this Diamond year.
Manchu wrote:I thought it was great that Prince Charles asked about the honeymoon. If I met him and he didn't say something like that, I'd be so disappointed.
Prince Phillip. (The queens husband, not son)
And yes the man's a legend. I was watching the royal wedding last year thinking who in their right mind gave that man a sword.
(Yes, I know it's the Mirror but relevant in this case!)
Wow.
I love this man!
39 A VIP at a local airport asked HRH: “What was your flight, like, Your Royal Highness? Philip: “Have you ever flown in a plane?” VIP: “Oh yes, sir, many times.” “Well,” said Philip, “it was just like that.”
feth ya!
65“People think there’s a rigid class system here, but dukes have even been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans.” 2000. HAHAHA!
Asking Cate Blanchett to fix his DVD player because she worked “in the film industry”, 2008: “There’s a cord sticking out of the back. Might you tell me where it goes?”
deejaybainbridge wrote:Prince Phillip. (The queens husband, not son)
And yes the man's a legend. I was watching the royal wedding last year thinking who in their right mind gave that man a sword.
So... as an ignorant Yank... can you give some background? Legendary for what reason??
He pretty much says whatever comes to mind regardless of who is watching, listening, photographing, or writing.
I happen to think it's epic. And he is a total nutter.
But then I would say that, I'm a staunch Royalist!
If we can afford to keep hundreds and hundreds of horrible sneaky toady fething MPs we can afford to keep a very nice, polite, dignified old lady.
Apparently the Royal Households alone take over £200 million a year for the treasury, whereas all our politicians do is take. Prince Harry served with my in Afghanistan and I met him twice, I thought he was more jovial and approachable than many of the other officers in the British army. Their critics say they "don't do a proper days work" But what do politicians kids do? Do you think Euan Blair applied for a normal job? After graduating with an unspectacular 2:1 in Ancient History from Bristol in 2005, he went interning in Washington, then left to pursue an MA at Yale with a scholarship of £50,000. He now lives in a £550,000 house that he bought before he started work.
How is it any different? I prefer the princes to your average poltician or presidents fething no good off-spring.
I see no reason why the current system is not perfectly acceptable, and despite what the haters say, the vast majority of the British public agree with me. A perfectly normal democracy the same as any other EU nation, with a constitutional monarch as the figurehead.
But this is the internet, so its full of young people and rage... so expect someone to turn up any minute now and tell you that the whole of the UK hates the Royal family..
...any... minute.......
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
Gitsplitta wrote:
deejaybainbridge wrote:Prince Phillip. (The queens husband, not son)
And yes the man's a legend. I was watching the royal wedding last year thinking who in their right mind gave that man a sword.
So... as an ignorant Yank... can you give some background? Legendary for what reason??
He pretty much says whatever comes to mind regardless of who is watching, listening, photographing, or writing.
I happen to think it's epic. And he is a total nutter.
Yeah Phil the Greek is funny as feth.... I googled a quick list, look at some of these corkers.
3. "Deaf? If you're near there, no wonder you are deaf." Said to a group of deaf children standing near a Caribbean steel drum band in 2000.
5. "You managed not to get eaten then?" To a British student who had trekked in Papua New Guinea, during an official visit in 1998.
6. "You can't have been here that long – you haven't got a pot belly." To a British tourist during a tour of Budapest in Hungary. 1993.
7. "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.
13. "British women can't cook." Winning the hearts of the Scottish Women's Institute in 1961.
19. "You ARE a woman, aren't you?" To a woman in Kenya in 1984, after accepting a gift.
20. "Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?" To a wheelchair-bound Susan Edwards, and her guide dog Natalie in 2002.
Wow. The Queen, showed up for a wedding. The Monarchy makes no decisions in policy making or controlling the Country. We don't even need them, make Australia a republic. The Queen has the time to go to weddings because she has no work to do. She is a celebrity.
mattyrm wrote:But this is the internet, so its full of young people and rage... so expect someone to turn up any minute now and tell you that the whole of the UK hates the Royal family..
...any... minute.......
I agree with you entirely... oh, and did you hear that to help prevent something like the expenses scandal happening again, the "completely impartial" oversight body (run by the husband of one of the MP's) has said that they don't have to publish further receipts... I mean come on... it's not as if they don't vote to pay themselves enough...
rockerbikie wrote:Wow. The Queen, showed up for a wedding. The Monarchy makes no decisions in policy making or controlling the Country. We don't even need them, make Australia a republic. The Queen has the time to go to weddings because she has no work to do. She is a celebrity.
rockerbikie wrote:Wow. The Queen, showed up for a wedding. The Monarchy makes no decisions in policy making or controlling the Country. We don't even need them, make Australia a republic. The Queen has the time to go to weddings because she has no work to do. She is a celebrity.
You don't pay anything towards having her as your head honcho (other than security etc for state visits, which you pay for any visiting dignitary), so what is eating your shorts?
mattyrm wrote:But this is the internet, so its full of young people and rage... so expect someone to turn up any minute now and tell you that the whole of the UK hates the Royal family..
...any... minute.......
I agree with you entirely... oh, and did you hear that to help prevent something like the expenses scandal happening again, the "completely impartial" oversight body (run by the husband of one of the MP's) has said that they don't have to publish further receipts... I mean come on... it's not as if they don't vote to pay themselves enough...
Much rather have the royals than that bunch of self serving, lying 's
Yeah thats my point, I mean.. Im not particularly a huge royalist.. Im not the kind of sad bastard that would queue to meet the queen or what have you.. but when our politicians are uniformly always horrible, and the queen has been uniformly always nice for 60 years, it seems silly to have such genuine distaste for her.
I can appreciate people being "not bothered" about the Royal family.. but full on hatred just doesn't make any sense to me, and it reeks of envy. I think the same of class warriors, I am poor, but I dont hate the rich. The people that despise them seem to do so out of jealousy.
If I was her, I would want to fething retire! I think if you really try and understand what it must be like living in their shoes, Its probably not as much fun as people think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitsplitta wrote:Having a great time going through those quotes...
Thanks guys!
How funny is that one to the Scottish driving instructor?
Actually, while many are "ghastly" to use one of his words... I find several of them very funny and endearing. At least not malicious in nature... just kind of an old guy's perspective.
rockerbikie wrote:Wow. The Queen, showed up for a wedding. The Monarchy makes no decisions in policy making or controlling the Country. We don't even need them, make Australia a republic. The Queen has the time to go to weddings because she has no work to do. She is a celebrity.
You don't pay anything towards having her as your head honcho (other than security etc for state visits, which you pay for any visiting dignitary), so what is eating your shorts?
Last visit we paid $20 000 000. Technically under the System, the Queen actually has authority over my Government, she could get a Government sacked theoretically until she gets what she desires. Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country. The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
rockerbikie wrote:Last visit we paid $20 000 000. Technically under the System, the Queen actually has authority over my Government, she could get a Government sacked theoretically until she gets what she desires. Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country. The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
I'm struggling to think of the last time that the Queen or indeed the UK exercised any power over Australia...
rockerbikie wrote:Wow. The Queen, showed up for a wedding. The Monarchy makes no decisions in policy making or controlling the Country. We don't even need them, make Australia a republic. The Queen has the time to go to weddings because she has no work to do. She is a celebrity.
You don't pay anything towards having her as your head honcho (other than security etc for state visits, which you pay for any visiting dignitary), so what is eating your shorts?
Last visit we paid $20 000 000. Technically under the System, the Queen actually has authority over my Government, she could get a Government sacked theoretically until she gets what she desires. Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country. The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
Mate.. everything you have said is just, at odds with how the world is. Its all "technically" this and "possibly" that..
At the end of the day, Australia is a perfectly healthy, normal democracy, the Queen wont "sack" your government, has no authority over your government, and this...
rockerbikie wrote:we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
Contrary to popular belief, the Queen and Royal Family work bloody hard. Yes, they are privileged and have all the trappings that go with it but let's not be fooled into thinking they give nothing back - they do an awful lot:
Pretty sure the family is value for money... Better than having a president or similar (no expensive elections and, gods forbid, better than letting an individual politician have more power), good for tourism and most importantly very experienced at what they do. The Queen has been Head of State longer than most politicians have been alive and she's been brought up to be Head of State.
She's very aware of her various realms, how people feel etc and she's in a position where she can let whoever's the elected head of government know.
Most importantly, she actually cares. She's not trying to score political points, to get re-elected. Being Head of State is her life.
rockerbikie wrote:Last visit we paid $20 000 000. Technically under the System, the Queen actually has authority over my Government, she could get a Government sacked theoretically until she gets what she desires. Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country. The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
I'm struggling to think of the last time that the Queen or indeed the UK exercised any power over Australia...
In 1975 the Governor-General dissolved the government of Gough Whitlam. It was a pretty big deal at the time.
It probably couldn't happen again, though. I think the Aussies would simply ignore it.
She might live in a 'Council House', but she still can't get them to make the damn building safe.
And I would rather Philip and his 'say what you actually think' mindset than any of the lying two-faced toady tossers we 'vote' for. At least he gives straight answers.
Know i understand why the Brits Keep the Royalty. They are their Kardashions. Ditzy fools that have not place but you keep the around because no one has the guts to tell them they arent important, and its funny to see them do stupid stuff.
I was raised mildly republican (most irish people are- it bleeds in from the history lessons in school where it's all "And then there were plantations and they TOOK ARRR LAAAAND!") so I used to be a bit snotty about the Queen.
As I've grown up, I've got a bit more respect for her, and I think that on the whole, the Royals do a good job of representing Great Britain. I mean, you may bitch about them getting money and so on, but they don't really get a choice in that any more than anyone else. And I think the Queen does a good job as a diplomat. In her last visit to Ireland she addressed the crowd as gaeilge, which was a pretty huge deal for a lot of people. There was almost a collective sigh of relief over it - it really did help dissipate some of the lingering tension. So for that alone, I think she's alright.
I remember reading somewhere that one thing Prince Philip doesn't get enough credit for is his dry sense of humour - apparently, a lot of what are reported as 'gaffes' are him playing up to his public image and just generally 'taking the piss' in true British fashion. That's pretty evident in some of the quotes, particularly the Cate Blanchett one.
Also, he saw active service in WWII. The guy's a titan. He still looks like he could kick my arse, and he's older than my nana.
rockerbikie wrote: Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country.
You do! Heartfelt congratulations! Not only that, but you get to have probably the most distinguished head of state currently alive, as well as a living, breathing reminder of your country's roots and the bond of brotherhood between our nations.
Failing that, you're well within your rights to have a referendum and become a republic should you wish. We're certainly not stopping you.
The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
Wait...which one are you again? Aren't you the fascist/nazi bloke? Would you prefer a national socialist dictatorship to the current set-up, or something? Australia is one of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world. It looks like the Westminster System and constitutional monarchy has treated you guys pretty well from where I'm sitting. Plus, you've got the weather.
7. "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.
Clearly they know their realms. Clearly. This doesn't stop them using our castles as personal villas of course, when they could be used for tourism. The hypocrites.
7. "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.
Clearly they know their realms. Clearly. This doesn't stop them using our castles as personal villas of course, when they could be used for tourism. The hypocrites.
They are not owned by the Scottish people, they are owned by the crown. That is, unless, you're opposed to the idea of ineritance, which is another conversation entirely.
And you don't drink? You still eat deep-fried pizzas though, yeah? Please don't shatter my illusions.
Manchu wrote:That explains why you don't think Philip's funny.
I don't think discriminatory comments are quite funny.
You're right of course. The archaic dry wit of a nonagenarion is serious business, no satire value whatsoever. I think you'd be very at home in the States, incidentally.
Manchu wrote:That explains why you don't think Philip's funny.
I don't think discriminatory comments are quite funny.
You're right of course. The archaic dry wit of a nonagenarion is serious business, no satire value whatsoever. I think you'd be very at home in the States, incidentally.
One-sided, discrimination-based satire isn't funny and is a problem in the UK. This isn't something like a funny comedian.
Manchu wrote:That explains why you don't think Philip's funny.
I don't think discriminatory comments are quite funny.
You're right of course. The archaic dry wit of a nonagenarion is serious business, no satire value whatsoever. I think you'd be very at home in the States, incidentally.
One-sided, discrimination-based satire isn't funny and is a problem in the UK. This isn't something like a funny comedian.
Manchu wrote:That explains why you don't think Philip's funny.
I don't think discriminatory comments are quite funny.
You're right of course. The archaic dry wit of a nonagenarion is serious business, no satire value whatsoever. I think you'd be very at home in the States, incidentally.
One-sided, discrimination-based satire isn't funny and is a problem in the UK. This isn't something like a funny comedian.
Everyone in the country makes the same jokes...
There is a difference between having a laugh with someone and out-and-out saying they are an alcoholic based on nothing but nationality.
rockerbikie wrote:Wow. The Queen, showed up for a wedding. The Monarchy makes no decisions in policy making or controlling the Country. We don't even need them, make Australia a republic. The Queen has the time to go to weddings because she has no work to do. She is a celebrity.
You don't pay anything towards having her as your head honcho (other than security etc for state visits, which you pay for any visiting dignitary), so what is eating your shorts?
Last visit we paid $20 000 000. Technically under the System, the Queen actually has authority over my Government, she could get a Government sacked theoretically until she gets what she desires. Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country. The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
Mate.. everything you have said is just, at odds with how the world is. Its all "technically" this and "possibly" that..
At the end of the day, Australia is a perfectly healthy, normal democracy, the Queen wont "sack" your government, has no authority over your government, and this...
rockerbikie wrote:we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
The Scottish Government wrote:It is more than double the consumption level in Scandinavian countries like Sweden (6.0 litres) and Norway (5.5 litres) where the relative price of alcohol is considerably higher and the sale of alcohol is more restricted.
It was also much higher than the United States (8.6 litres), Canada (7.8 litres), Australia (9.0 litres), China (5.2 litres) Japan (7.6 litres) and even Russia (10.3 litres), where alcohol-related deaths have cut the average life expectancy for men to 59.
rockerbikie wrote: Also, shouldn't Australians have rights to have our own head of State in our own Country.
You do! Heartfelt congratulations! Not only that, but you get to have probably the most distinguished head of state currently alive, as well as a living, breathing reminder of your country's roots and the bond of brotherhood between our nations.
Failing that, you're well within your rights to have a referendum and become a republic should you wish. We're certainly not stopping you.
The point is the system is flawed and we would like to move to a more stable form of government where we have our own Head of State and we don't have to be treated like colonial slaves anymore.
Wait...which one are you again? Aren't you the fascist/nazi bloke? Would you prefer a national socialist dictatorship to the current set-up, or something? Australia is one of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world. It looks like the Westminster System and constitutional monarchy has treated you guys pretty well from where I'm sitting. Plus, you've got the weather.
A monarch which can't connect to Australians. The point of having a head of state in the country is to have one which can connect to us. Even if I am a Nazi. I would prefer a republic where I can vouice my opinion with ammendments to make me safe. Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese. We also have closer ties to USA than Great Britain now.
rockerbikie wrote:
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
We might have had some problems of our own, mate...
I'm quite sure if Nazi Germany hadn't been bombing seven shades of gak out of us and planning to invade, then we'd have been straight over there.
Do remind me of the Australian cities that were leveled by the Japanese? Because I've got a list of the ones the Luftwaffe turned to bloody rubble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:So how do you rate Billy Connolly, MGS?
I like him a lot, I'm not so keen on all the weird psychoanalysis/'smells of profiteering' bit his wife's been doing with books about his deeply private history and problems though.
The Scottish Government wrote:It is more than double the consumption level in Scandinavian countries like Sweden (6.0 litres) and Norway (5.5 litres) where the relative price of alcohol is considerably higher and the sale of alcohol is more restricted.
It was also much higher than the United States (8.6 litres), Canada (7.8 litres), Australia (9.0 litres), China (5.2 litres) Japan (7.6 litres) and even Russia (10.3 litres), where alcohol-related deaths have cut the average life expectancy for men to 59.
Looks like Phil might have a point. Just sayin'.
Its about as accurate as looking at how well Scotland's higher education system is and suddenly saying its the best country within the UK for Education: Regardless what it is, it does nothing but stir up hatred.
rockerbikie wrote:
Even if I am a Nazi. I would prefer a republic where I can vouice my opinion with ammendments to make me safe.
You have that, apart from the republic part - and once again, no-one is stopping Australia from having a referendum on becoming a republic apart from the Australians.
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
My grandad served in the pacific theatre, as did many thousands of Commonwealth and Allied servicemen. Your tribute to them is to expound the very ideologies they were fighting against. From what you've said on this forum in the past, it seems like you would have welcomed the Japanese and the Germans with open arms, so I think you hardly have any room to make implications about betrayal.
We also have closer ties to USA than Great Britain now.
Both your head of state and prime minister were born in the UK, plus Australians are allowed to serve in our military. Yeah, no.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I'm quite sure if Nazi Germany hadn't been bombing seven shades of gak out of us and planning to invade, then we'd have been straight over there.
Do remind me of the Australian cities that were leveled by the Japanese? Because I've got a list of the ones the Luftwaffe turned to bloody rubble.
I don't see how saying we drink quite a lot and are quite partial to terrible food, 'stirs up hatred'?
I think it's quite funny and it's healthy to have a laugh at it.
To be fair it's ten times better than the old 'I hate the English!' 'Why?' 'Because they hate us!' nonsense that is spouted by a great many Scottish people.
Listen I'm not saying that the Scottish are a bunch of drunken, pasty, and often Ginger stereotypes. I'm just saying lay off the sauce, get a tan, drive the Gingers out and you'll be doing fine.
Mr Hyena wrote:
Its about as accurate as looking at how well Scotland's higher education system is and suddenly saying its the best country within the UK for Education: Regardless what it is, it does nothing but stir up hatred.
You could cite evidence for that claim and make a good case for it - that wouldn't necessarily stir up hatred. You have to remember that we don't hate you guys anywhere near as much as you hate us - you're forgetting the English motto, old bean: 'No-one likes us, we don't care.'
At the end of the day, what Prince Philip said was pretty unfair and discriminatory if you're of a sensitive disposition, or a cheeky 'dig' if you aren't. Most British people float around the middle point of that spectrum. Most British people also have Grandads who crack similar jokes, many of them about the English. He doesn't have the monopoly on being loveable embittered racist old codger, you're just being chippy.
All that said, it's pretty well-known throughout the UK that Scotland has difficulties with alcohol abuse - whether or not you think that's a suitable subject for comedy is entirely down to one's temperament.
rockerbikie wrote:
Even if I am a Nazi. I would prefer a republic where I can vouice my opinion with ammendments to make me safe.
You have that, apart from the republic part - and once again, no-one is stopping Australia from having a referendum on becoming a republic apart from the Australians.
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
My grandad served in the pacific theatre, as did many thousands of Commonwealth and Allied servicemen. Your tribute to them is to expound the very ideologies they were fighting against. From what you've said on this forum in the past, it seems like you would have welcomed the Japanese and the Germans with open arms, so I think you hardly have any room to make implications about betrayal.
We also have closer ties to USA than Great Britain now.
Both your head of state and prime minister were born in the UK, plus Australians are allowed to serve in our military. Yeah, no.
The Japanese not so much because Imperial Japan was unrealistic. After the Battle of Singapore, the Brittish slowly retreated. The Germans had there good parts and bad parts. I disagree with the halocaust, I very much prefered the Israel Solution that Hitler came up with. The Germans were more subtle with there expansion, they were peaceful with the taking over of many nations. The Japanses prefered to pillage. Also, not a single Brit particpated in the Kokoda Trail Compaign. The Brittish and French were still colonalists. They were little better, the French treatment of the Vietnamese were terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
We might have had some problems of our own, mate...
I'm quite sure if Nazi Germany hadn't been bombing seven shades of gak out of us and planning to invade, then we'd have been straight over there.
Do remind me of the Australian cities that were leveled by the Japanese? Because I've got a list of the ones the Luftwaffe turned to bloody rubble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:So how do you rate Billy Connolly, MGS?
I like him a lot, I'm not so keen on all the weird psychoanalysis/'smells of profiteering' bit his wife's been doing with books about his deeply private history and problems though.
Darwin and Sydney was close to be submarine shelled. If the Americans did not intervene we would be toast.
They didn't 'leave us' to fight the Japs. Be reasonable.
God did this thread ever go 'Serious Business' all of a sudden. We've got a great story about the Queen showing up to a random couple's wedding - a light-hearted story that gives you a sort of 'Awwwww!' reaction - and instead of that we've got a virulent Aussie republican screaming about Whitlam and the Japanese and an angry Scott annoyed at Prince Phillip (of all people!). Get some perspective people!
rockerbikie wrote:
Even if I am a Nazi. I would prefer a republic where I can vouice my opinion with ammendments to make me safe.
You have that, apart from the republic part - and once again, no-one is stopping Australia from having a referendum on becoming a republic apart from the Australians.
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
My grandad served in the pacific theatre, as did many thousands of Commonwealth and Allied servicemen. Your tribute to them is to expound the very ideologies they were fighting against. From what you've said on this forum in the past, it seems like you would have welcomed the Japanese and the Germans with open arms, so I think you hardly have any room to make implications about betrayal.
We also have closer ties to USA than Great Britain now.
Both your head of state and prime minister were born in the UK, plus Australians are allowed to serve in our military. Yeah, no.
The Japanese not so much because Imperial Japan was unrealistic. After the Battle of Singapore, the Brittish slowly retreated. The Germans had there good parts and bad parts. I disagree with the halocaust, I very much prefered the Israel Solution that Hitler came up with. The Germans were more subtle with there expansion, they were peaceful with the taking over of many nations. The Japanses prefered to pillage. Also, not a single Brit particpated in the Kokoda Trail Compaign. The Brittish and French were still colonalists. They were little better, the French treatment of the Vietnamese were terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
We might have had some problems of our own, mate...
I'm quite sure if Nazi Germany hadn't been bombing seven shades of gak out of us and planning to invade, then we'd have been straight over there.
Do remind me of the Australian cities that were leveled by the Japanese? Because I've got a list of the ones the Luftwaffe turned to bloody rubble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:So how do you rate Billy Connolly, MGS?
I like him a lot, I'm not so keen on all the weird psychoanalysis/'smells of profiteering' bit his wife's been doing with books about his deeply private history and problems though.
Darwin and Sydney was close to be submarine shelled. If the Americans did not intervene we would be toast.
You don't think that perhaps the industrialized slaughter of millions of people outbalances the efficient train system and the well-cut uniforms just a little?
I think you might be over-rating the effectiveness of a submarine gun just a little as well.
Oh, amd the Germans were not 'oeaceful' in their colonialism, either in WW2 or before. Ask the Herero and Nama of Namibia how they feel about 'peaceful' German colonialism.
(Might be tricky, on account of most of them being herded into death camps.)
rockerbikie wrote:
Even if I am a Nazi. I would prefer a republic where I can vouice my opinion with ammendments to make me safe.
You have that, apart from the republic part - and once again, no-one is stopping Australia from having a referendum on becoming a republic apart from the Australians.
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
My grandad served in the pacific theatre, as did many thousands of Commonwealth and Allied servicemen. Your tribute to them is to expound the very ideologies they were fighting against. From what you've said on this forum in the past, it seems like you would have welcomed the Japanese and the Germans with open arms, so I think you hardly have any room to make implications about betrayal.
We also have closer ties to USA than Great Britain now.
Both your head of state and prime minister were born in the UK, plus Australians are allowed to serve in our military. Yeah, no.
The Japanese not so much because Imperial Japan was unrealistic. After the Battle of Singapore, the Brittish slowly retreated. The Germans had there good parts and bad parts. I disagree with the halocaust, I very much prefered the Israel Solution that Hitler came up with. The Germans were more subtle with there expansion, they were peaceful with the taking over of many nations. The Japanses prefered to pillage. Also, not a single Brit particpated in the Kokoda Trail Compaign. The Brittish and French were still colonalists. They were little better, the French treatment of the Vietnamese were terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
Great Britain also left us for dust in WW2 and basically left us to defend against the Japanese.
We might have had some problems of our own, mate...
I'm quite sure if Nazi Germany hadn't been bombing seven shades of gak out of us and planning to invade, then we'd have been straight over there.
Do remind me of the Australian cities that were leveled by the Japanese? Because I've got a list of the ones the Luftwaffe turned to bloody rubble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:So how do you rate Billy Connolly, MGS?
I like him a lot, I'm not so keen on all the weird psychoanalysis/'smells of profiteering' bit his wife's been doing with books about his deeply private history and problems though.
Darwin and Sydney was close to be submarine shelled. If the Americans did not intervene we would be toast.
You don't think that perhaps the industrialized slaughter of millions of people outbalances the efficient train system and the well-cut uniforms just a little?
I think you might be over-rating the effectiveness of a submarine gun just a little as well.
Oh, amd the Germans were not 'oeaceful' in their colonialism, either in WW2 or before. Ask the Herero and Nama of Namibia how they feel about 'peaceful' German colonialism.
(Might be tricky, on account of most of them being herded into death camps.)
We are talking WW2. German occupation of Africa was destroyed. They lost a majority of colonial posessions. Have you not considered Hitler's role in the revitlisation of the German economy after the betrayal at Versailles. The Germans were not peaceful but the French took colonialism to a new level. The Germans had Black Soldiers in africa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:And now we're onto German colonialism in Africa.
How did we get here?
I'm pretty sure Hitler started it...
The German Empire started it... Most of German territory was taken from them in the Demands of Versailles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote:They didn't 'leave us' to fight the Japs. Be reasonable.
God did this thread ever go 'Serious Business' all of a sudden. We've got a great story about the Queen showing up to a random couple's wedding - a light-hearted story that gives you a sort of 'Awwwww!' reaction - and instead of that we've got a virulent Aussie republican screaming about Whitlam and the Japanese and an angry Scott annoyed at Prince Phillip (of all people!). Get some perspective people!
Please explain, how I am virulent? Also, it is a fair way to put a protest against the injustice of the past. Look how they treated us in the century. I out my opinion on the matter and people get upset. The fact is we do not need Great Britain and the facts about why we need a republic reform. Technically we are a protectorate of Great Britain.
y'know. If obama did this. The secret service would strip search the bride and send the husband to a darkly lit room with only on lamp and a galss of water.
I see no problem with having a monarchy whatsoever. And if the Governor-General keeps the prime minister and his lot in check then so much the better.
If anyone here has actually watched the parliamentary debates in Australia, it is no joke to liken much of the discussions there to kids arguing in the playground. Except the term Mr.Speaker is thrown around a lot more.
How do we get from a nice story about the Queen, to funny stories about Prince Phil to Nazi apologism?
In all seriousness, are we now in a thread that has someone saying "The Nazis had some good points, and I'd prefer them to be in charge to that nice lady from England"?!?!
I mean, I am fairly sure that the Nazis would be less likely to let you voice your opinions than Queen Liz, not more. And I am not sure that they'd be any more in touch with modern Australia than her either.
Wow. Just wow.
Anyway, I think the Queen is great. Sadly, I doubt I'll ever meet her. Though one of my pupils met Prince Charles a few weeks ago,
It's easy to account for the Prince Philip stories; he asked the couple about their honeymoon. It's not that he said anything untoward; it's that he played his role perfectly in this case. If he had only wished them good health, it would have been rather cold and quite out of keeping with his persona. This kind of story is why we rebellious colonials love your royalty so much; same with all of Philip's "gaffes."
We are talking WW2. German occupation of Africa was destroyed. They lost a majority of colonial posessions. Have you not considered Hitler's role in the revitlisation of the German economy after the betrayal at Versailles. The Germans were not peaceful but the French took colonialism to a new level. The Germans had Black Soldiers in africa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:And now we're onto German colonialism in Africa.
How did we get here?
I'm pretty sure Hitler started it...
The German Empire started it... Most of German territory was taken from them in the Demands of Versailles.
Having poorly paid Askari doing your fighting isn't a tick in the 'good' box you know, nor does it counterbalance systematically eradicated races, a popular German pastime, and it started with Vogelsang and his boss, in 1883, screwing the Bethanie Nama out of land in a manner very similar to the way European settlers the world over have always screwed the indigenous people. Hey, the Germans had Indian soldiers too, so they must have actually been OK!.
Given the choice between respecting an old man who says what he thinks and spent a hefty chunk of his career fighting Fascists, or believing that Hitler was a great guy, I know where I'm turning. Frankly its worth giving the Queen respect just for the amount of work she puts in despite being well past retirement age.
mattyrm wrote: Arbeit, you are aware that Rocker is Dakka's resident Nazi right?
Yup. (I can think of better words for it though.) Can't hurt to point out the epic levels of 'Wrong' coming from him, especially where young and impressionable people might see it.
I could be wrong but I believe in one of the "what political type are you" threads he said he was an Anarcist Nazi...in this thread agitating for republican rule in Austrailia. You'd think he would be happy with a genetically superior monarch of the Saxony-Goethe line.
As a point in his favor, at least rocket isn't the resident Nazi Atlantis guy.
Thats really nice of the Queen. I've seen some funny stuff in my time involving the queen. (Danny Bhoy and comedians meeting the queen for example theres a lot of stories right there.)
mattyrm wrote: Arbeit, you are aware that Rocker is Dakka's resident Nazi right?
I thought he used the (Rather arbitrary) term White Supremacist?
National Socalist. You have not even asked about my ecomonic policies yet you think I am a Fascist. I disagree with some things Hitler said, I believe that Males and Females are equal for example but yes I am a clearly rascist person.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I could be wrong but I believe in one of the "what political type are you" threads he said he was an Anarcist Nazi...in this thread agitating for republican rule in Austrailia. You'd think he would be happy with a genetically superior monarch of the Saxony-Goethe line.
As a point in his favor, at least rocket isn't the resident Nazi Atlantis guy.
I don't like her partially because her ancestors betrayed the gods. That's just the start of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fifty wrote:How do we get from a nice story about the Queen, to funny stories about Prince Phil to Nazi apologism?
In all seriousness, are we now in a thread that has someone saying "The Nazis had some good points, and I'd prefer them to be in charge to that nice lady from England"?!?!
I mean, I am fairly sure that the Nazis would be less likely to let you voice your opinions than Queen Liz, not more. And I am not sure that they'd be any more in touch with modern Australia than her either.
Wow. Just wow.
Anyway, I think the Queen is great. Sadly, I doubt I'll ever meet her. Though one of my pupils met Prince Charles a few weeks ago,
I never stated that. That is an assumption. I want a stable system. National Socialism or a republic would meet my demands. We are in touch with modern Australia, we just choose to deny Liberal Social policies.
What's with all the Nazis these days? I can't swing a dead cat in here without reading about how great National Socialism is, how the Waffen SS was the greatest fighting force ever, and that Nazi Atlantis... something something.
rockerbikie wrote:.......................I never stated that. That is an assumption. I want a stable system. National Socialism or a republic would meet my demands. We are in touch with modern Australia, we just choose to deny Liberal Social policies.
I'm curious, demands?
No I don't care to hear them, but I'm pretty sure most Aussies will not take kindly to your demanding anything of them certainly not if the varied sample I have met over the last 20 years is anything to go by.
I would suggest the only thing you are in touch with is yourself (while surrounded by pictures of good old Adolf perhaps?).
I'm pretty sure you are similar to the ingrates I sometimes see in East London who campaigning for the BNP, tied up in a dream world based upon films they idolise, BS history they have been spun and jealousy that immigrant that work harder than them and have the temerity to have more money/better jobs.
It's disppointing to see people still with these rather silly view points.
I'd love for Queen to show up at a wedding. It is a shame Freddie Mercury is dead though. Since that makes it unlikely, a lady with a fancy hat isn't bad either- I am a Warhammer player after all. We do like our hats.
Nazis should be left to rap battles and disposable villians that you don't have to feel bad about (shooting|exploding|sending off a cliff in a panzer|pushing into a spinning propeller). Even if there's a point to be made, the effort is like a warboss with a power claw trying to build a ship in a bottle.
Royals in general I'm neutral on. If the Brits want to spend their energy on them, its their country, more power to them. At least there's history there. Better than getting hung up on some some current political candidate with adoration|vilification.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Did he just admit to being a racist as well as a Nazi, or is it just my 'morning eyes' not working properly?
Nope, your morning eyes are working just fine. It's kind of ambiguously spelt though, I can't decide if it's a misspelling of "racist" or a misspelling of "fascist"
Johnny-Crass wrote:Would rather deal with Nazis then people who still think the south should be its own nation....
Dear 17 year old Californian guy with confederate flag on your ford truck...
Erm, Dear Georgia with the Confederate National Flag as thier state flag? People who think the South will rise again are fething idiots, people who are say Sons of the Confederacy and are proud of thier families heritage have every right to celebrate thier heritage. These people aren't inherently racist, my friend in Savannah moved across the street from an older gentlemen who totally seemed like "that guy": confederate battle flag hung from his front porch, stereotypical accent, guns everywhere. Until you realized that the dude didn't just have a token black friend ALL of his friends were black. He was the least racist dude I think I've ever met, and let me tell you seeing a white dude and 3 or 4 black dudes drinking beer and hanging out on a porch underneath a flag so often associated with white supremacy and race hate was eerie. Mostly you can take symbols like that at face value, sometimes you can't. I ran into a picture of an Indian guy at an airport where probably 50 people argued about how sick this Nazi Indian was because he was wearing a pretty simple swastika shirt. Not a single person pointed out that in his country the swastika is a symbol of faith as common if not more common than the cross.
I'm pretty sure that it's early and I have digressed
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Did he just admit to being a racist as well as a Nazi, or is it just my 'morning eyes' not working properly?
that could have been sarcasm, it certainly looks like it.
Have you ever seen the Queen lose her temper? Its rare, but it happens. I think there should be a new meme, like the JesusPunch one, but involving her Maj laying about her with her sceptre.
The other thing about the Queen is she never carries money. You better hope that there's a free bar available or shes gunna fething kick off, you can be sure of that!
Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.
Appearantly you don't know, the Queen does have resposibilities.
One of which is that she repesents the people, the first citizen if you like. We are all entitled to go to a wedding and kick back with a few depth chrages, so is she. The difference is I bet the Queen's car was nicer that the wedded couples carriage!
Oh and the Queen would run rings round HH, out drink him, beat him in an arm wrestling contest and be better at the New York New York dancing at the end of the disco - FACT!
The couple were reported to say that the Queen's visit was itself a gift. So I'm guessing they would have mentioned any actual gift had there been one. It's a little rude not to, anyway.
mattyrm wrote: Arbeit, you are aware that Rocker is Dakka's resident Nazi right?
I thought he used the (Rather arbitrary) term White Supremacist?
National Socalist. You have not even asked about my ecomonic policies yet you think I am a Fascist. I disagree with some things Hitler said, I believe that Males and Females are equal for example but yes I am a clearly rascist person.
I think you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think...
I distinctly remember you espousing certain views on people of other ethnicity and race which were less than negative.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.
You are aware that she didn't go all the way to Manchester town hall just to go the wedding, aren't you? Y'know, for the first time, I'm not sure if I want the answer to that question to be 'yes' or 'no'...
Her majesty is touring the country because it's her Jubilee year.
That brings up another point Alby, 60 years in office. I can't think of any other current world leader that's been in power anywhere near as long. Surely she's allowed an afternoon off once in a while...
I've always wondered why so many people object to the Queen being a celebrity, and little more. Heads of state, generally, are little more than celebrities and the British have, pretty much unarguably, the best one.
I don't know anyone, outside Britain, that hates the Queen. If they have an opinion at all it varies from fondness to love. That's a valuable asset.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.
You are aware that she didn't go all the way to Manchester town hall just to go the wedding, aren't you? Y'know, for the first time, I'm not sure if I want the answer to that question to be 'yes' or 'no'...
Her majesty is touring the country because it's her Jubilee year.
Im just saying. If an elected official did this, She/he would face so much scrutiny for being frivolous. She doesnt haave to worry about anything.
Elected officials usually have more time off than she does. I don't see why they'd be castigated for attending a wedding if one of their constituents invited them and they happened to be in town that weekend.
rockerbikie wrote:.......................I never stated that. That is an assumption. I want a stable system. National Socialism or a republic would meet my demands. We are in touch with modern Australia, we just choose to deny Liberal Social policies.
I'm curious, demands?
No I don't care to hear them, but I'm pretty sure most Aussies will not take kindly to your demanding anything of them certainly not if the varied sample I have met over the last 20 years is anything to go by.
I would suggest the only thing you are in touch with is yourself (while surrounded by pictures of good old Adolf perhaps?).
I'm pretty sure you are similar to the ingrates I sometimes see in East London who campaigning for the BNP, tied up in a dream world based upon films they idolise, BS history they have been spun and jealousy that immigrant that work harder than them and have the temerity to have more money/better jobs.
It's disppointing to see people still with these rather silly view points.
Just because I am not a trendy inner-city elitist does not mean I am not touch with the community. I may not agree with the community opinions but I know what is going on. Issues such as euthanasia and other important issues as stim cell research are taking a back seat to "Homosexual Marriage" because the LBGT is verbally active. I don't even campaign because it is worthless. It is pointless because everyone is ignorant is the most pure meaning of the word. All I want is a system that discourages crime and puts the community together as a whole. Is that too much to ask for? Are those demands that hard to meet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Albatross wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.
You are aware that she didn't go all the way to Manchester town hall just to go the wedding, aren't you? Y'know, for the first time, I'm not sure if I want the answer to that question to be 'yes' or 'no'...
Her majesty is touring the country because it's her Jubilee year.
Im just saying. If an elected official did this, She/he would face so much scrutiny for being frivolous. She doesnt haave to worry about anything.
You make a good point man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
purplefood wrote:
mattyrm wrote: Arbeit, you are aware that Rocker is Dakka's resident Nazi right?
I thought he used the (Rather arbitrary) term White Supremacist?
National Socalist. You have not even asked about my ecomonic policies yet you think I am a Fascist. I disagree with some things Hitler said, I believe that Males and Females are equal for example but yes I am a clearly rascist person.
I think you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think...
I distinctly remember you espousing certain views on people of other ethnicity and race which were less than negative.
I could say the same for you, you are most likely liberally misguided. The main reason I don't enjoy hanging around with a majority of Australians.
rockerbikie wrote:.......................I never stated that. That is an assumption. I want a stable system. National Socialism or a republic would meet my demands. We are in touch with modern Australia, we just choose to deny Liberal Social policies.
I'm curious, demands?
No I don't care to hear them, but I'm pretty sure most Aussies will not take kindly to your demanding anything of them certainly not if the varied sample I have met over the last 20 years is anything to go by.
I would suggest the only thing you are in touch with is yourself (while surrounded by pictures of good old Adolf perhaps?).
I'm pretty sure you are similar to the ingrates I sometimes see in East London who campaigning for the BNP, tied up in a dream world based upon films they idolise, BS history they have been spun and jealousy that immigrant that work harder than them and have the temerity to have more money/better jobs.
It's disppointing to see people still with these rather silly view points.
Just because I am not a trendy inner-city elitist does not mean I am not touch with the community. I may not agree with the community opinions but I know what is going on. Issues such as euthanasia and other important issues as stim cell research are taking a back seat to "Homosexual Marriage" because the LBGT is verbally active. I don't even campaign because it is worthless. It is pointless because everyone is ignorant is the most pure meaning of the word. All I want is a system that discourages crime and puts the community together as a whole. Is that too much to ask for? Are those demands that hard to meet?
And you suggest National Socialism could be the system to 'discourage crime and pull the community together'? The epitome of a 'Gangster' regime that pulls the 'community' together by turning elements of that community into pariahs and ultimately ash?
Elected officials usually have more time off than she does. I don't see why they'd be castigated for attending a wedding if one of their constituents invited them and they happened to be in town that weekend.
Our politicians regularly 'visit' places, whether we want them there or not. The Queen has been noted for using First Class rail carriages on regular trains, whilst our glorious Members of Parliament whine and cry about needing to use Ministerial cars at huge expense.
dogma wrote:
I don't know anyone, outside Britain, that hates the Queen. If they have an opinion at all it varies from fondness to love. That's a valuable asset.
Pretty much. I know a fair few people who disagree with the idea with royalty being the head of state, most of them supporting an Australian Republic. But I have never heard anyone here ridicule the Queen herself.
's
