I just watched A King's Speech
Dysgraphia
Locked
and cried like a sissy.
I thought King George VI was going to shrug off Lionel after he overcame his speech impediment, but they were friends for their rest of their lifes.
Beautiful film.
I thought King George VI was going to shrug off Lionel after he overcame his speech impediment, but they were friends for their rest of their lifes.
Beautiful film.
Comments
They have fucked up families just like everyone else.
:thumbsup:
May get it this weekend.
I'm not surprised that a person with an Ayn Rand quote would be so quick to praise the royal family. Monarchy is one of the worst systems to ever exist. these people use their family name to get through life even though they have done nothing. Down with the royal family! Down with the monarchy:mad:
To anyone who hasn't watched it, WATCH IT. It was marvelous.
He was superb I never really paid too much attention to him before this.
Do you feel like he deserved the Oscar for this role rather than Chirstian Bale who won for The Fighter?
Christian Bale is a homo. He does a good job in his acting but the guy is a douche.
Wut...he lost to that faggot? :facepalm:
Hey DS FUCK OFF!! and take your bullshit into another thread mk.
yup, understandable just wondered what ya thought
^This is probably one of the few political points we will ever agree on.
They royalty in england right now is pointless and england is silly for supporting them. They are nothing more than a figurehead in the country. Just a symbol...no power at all.
Well they do interbreed a lot..
Thanks
ORLY?
Money talks and bullshit walks. The royal family pretty much owns London. That is just the tip of the iceberg. I mean who needs political power when you own the politicians.
i own your mum
You are such a troll. At first I thought you were deluded, but no, you is trollin.
You aren't English, are you?
If you are you're probably a Guardian reader.
Think what you want.
No
and
No
I thought not, as demonstrated by your... knowledge... of English politics.
Well, colonials...
On a serious note, I have alot of respect for what the Royal family do. As it stands, they generally have only the best interests of the population as a whole in mind. Look at way Prince Charles uses his influence on farming and architecture - he is only doing it for the best reasons and in hope of the best results. Same with his boys - although they had a deluded slut for a mother they seem to have grown up pretty well.
How many lulz would have been lost of we did not have the Duke of Edinburgh? How many gays would have thought they could not live life as a lie had it not been for Edward? Backhand deals? Andrew is your man.
Having said that, idiots like prince and princess Michael of Kent are a bit pointless, but they are very minor (although Miachael is chief of the Masons - he is a level 33 I think).
The thing is with a monarchy as Britains is, they have little real power but still a lot of influence. For them to be relvent for the population, they have to serve the population, which they generally do.
Now, presidents generally serve themselves and follow their own best interests.
I like our system.
Hold tight to your illusions.
:facepalm: I don't give a rats ass if the royals stopped world hunger and cured cancer the fact is they did NOTHING to deserve what they have. You think they deserve all that money and the palace just because their ancestors oppressed people and had power? It's such a fucking worthless system.....
Well, I guessed TDR wasn't English and now I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're probably a socialist.
Yes... no?
That's correct.
So, the opponents of the Queen include a guy who has no direct exposure to London (which the Queen apparently 'owns'. lol. He might like to clarify that.) or English politics and... a socialist who seems to think rich people should 'deserve' their wealth.
Well TDR is obviously clueless and has to resort to sweeping statements he can't possibly back up, whilst socialism is crock of shit that always ends up looking like capitalism when someone attempts it* because capitialism works a lot better.
Not of to a flying start really, are you?
*'Champagne socialists' is the term, I believe.
Ho ho ho, you are a tard. Their ancestors were in charge of people who won a war. The people that won the war accepted the leaders to have a supreme right to lead and fought on their behalf.
So, apart from organising and providing equiptment for those people and proposing tactics for the army, what other nothing can you you provide?
Well, you might come along and say what right do the decendents of those have to be kings and queens?
If that is you opinion, it will only become valid when your grandparents and parents die and you reject all of the things they wish to pass on to you - and when you die, you must give everything you own to the masses, rather than your kith, kin or kind.
So, until you are dead, your opinion means dick all.
I imagine the man on the top deck of the clapham omnibus would not do a very good job at being a monarch. Queen Elizabeth does fine.
I also think my opinion is a lot more valid than yours on this being as:
1. Your country has not had a monarch for a long old time.
2. Mine has.
3. I am personally aquainted with quite a few members of the UK aristocracy and Royal family (we share hobbies and meet and persue those hobbies together several times a year).
4. Same as number three, but with other countries who still have monarchs.
So yeah, base your opinion on having personal experience of nothing (Do you even have a real job or career?) while I will base mine on real life experience.
Good luck in feeling even more like a failure.
So because you know the aristocracy and since my country isn't a monarchy that means Monarchy is a good system? Real compelling argument right there:rolleyes: I'm also curious what my employment situation has to do with Monarchy being good?
I see where you are coming from. I guess I meant direct/decision making power.
Much like oil companies in the US have no power...but they do.
I never said that. However, your opinion can never be subjective. Also, your employment status impacts on your politcal opinion.
The best government, in terms of high efficiency and low corruptions, have always been made up by tiny elites. Contrary to what "Individualists" teach these days, people prefer being part of something with a clear and logical center, over any impossible to define abstract concepts such as "freedom". Basically, dictatorship of any kind is always prefered and always works better. The individual even enjoyed far more liberty in Europe under the monarchs than in America, today (which is supposedly "free". If you doubt this I suggest becoming familiar with Edmund Burke, Thomas Carlyle, Herbert Spencer, and the work of Otto von Habsburg, The Social Order of Tomorrow. Fascism is all well and good, but it takes a great secularist leader with charisma and leadership skills and love for the nation like Saddam, Mussolini, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il and in some ways, more mildy, Hugo Chavez.
This is why Monarchy was the first and longest form of hierarchy throughout the civilized world. "Democracies" have been corrupt and inefficient failures since their conception because a mere employee of the state is easy to buy. A Monarch, who is so wealthy he has no interest in it is much, much harder to buy. It's different from a politician who uses politics to advance ulterior interests always at the expense of the people. These politicians aren't groomed from birth to become the best scholars of the nation?
I do not fully agree with monarchy, obviously, since I'm a fascist. I believe monarchs are part of the caste system just like everyone else, but not the highest. A mighty dictating caste should be established to oversea the monarchy (or elite leaders if we're talking about the 21st century).