I thought we already beat this topic to death.

This is more of a critique of how the tabloid media operates than any political or military debate. The Prince would rather risk getting shot at than be hounded by paparazzi.

I honestly don't know what's worse; the Neanderthals taking the pictures or the people that read the magazines and newspapers which publish that tripe.

Elvis_Bogart: How about John McCain's son?

Well, there's one.

I was shocked to learn McCain's son wasn't black.

I know one that will be doing her part...

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the connection between a British Prince (who's going to get all the pussy in England with a wink) and our quazi republican "Ken Doll".

/sorry

GaryPDX: I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the connection between a British Prince (who's going to get all the pussy in England with a wink) and our quazi republican "Ken Doll".

/sorry

Both of them have outies.

Dancin_In_Anson: I know one that will be doing her part...

Care to elaborate? I see:

1) Chelsea Clinton circa 1998
2) A dude
3) Flesh at an awkward angle

No tabloid reporters were injuring during this thread -- so far.

nicedream: Care to elaborate?

Yeah.

Hillary is running for President.

Romney is not.

Hillary vote to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Romney did not.

I used that particular image because off the caption.

Gotta give the Windor kid his credit. I've always like Harry - seems like a normal guy. Wish he would be King over William.

Dancin_In_Anson: nicedream: Care to elaborate?

Yeah.

Hillary is running for President.

Romney is not.

Hillary vote to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Romney did not.

I used that particular image because off the caption.

Romney said his sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq.
Link (new window)

Clinton did not.

Since Romney is not running, should his sons now serve in Iraq? That's all the headline was saying.

DamnYankees: Gotta give the Windor kid his credit. I've always like Harry - seems like a normal guy. Wish he would be King over William.

I like him..I envy him. He's a young crazy redhead and he's not afraid. I have a feeling this kid is going to far out shine his father AND his big brother.

Go get'em Harry.

DamnYankees: I've always like Harry - seems like a normal guy.

Thats because he is

Glasgowsfinest: DamnYankees: I've always like Harry - seems like a normal guy.

Thats because he is

Regardless of his genetics, he was raised in the same household as his brother. He could easily be a stuck up jerk who thinks he is entitled to everything. Hell, for all I know he is that way. I'm just saying going to war gives him serious credit in my book.

How about the Bush twins/whores?

/at least they don't have to DODGE the draft like daddy

Harry's father, James Hewitt, should be very proud of him.

DamnYankees: I'm just saying going to war gives him serious credit in my book.

As I have said before, I'm not taking anything away from him as regards going to Afghanistan. As a personal choice that shows bravery (or stupidity), as I'm quite sure he could have dodged it had he needed to. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

However, I do not believe the media stories that he was "just one of the lads" (thanks Sun) while he was out there. He was flown in by the SAS for chrissakes. and I find it highly annoying that he is being touted as a "hero" by the media when thousands of normal proles have been out there for YEARS.

In short he is still an overprivileged shiat, but one with more cojones than most of his peers.

lol at retards that still think "Romney said his sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

hahah
Morans

Glasgowsfinest: However, I do not believe the media stories that he was "just one of the lads" (thanks Sun) while he was out there. He was flown in by the SAS for chrissakes. and I find it highly annoying that he is being touted as a "hero" by the media when thousands of normal proles have been out there for YEARS.

I agree with this. I didn't say he was a hero. But anyone who voluntarily goes to war for their country when they don't actually have to gets some credit.

Glasgowsfinest: In short he is still an overprivileged shiat, but one with more cojones than most of his peers.

To be fair, he was born into it. He didn't demand his privilege. He doesn't really have a choice in being overly protected - he's a national and imperial symbol, whether he likes it or not. He has to do what he can with his lot.

robrr2003: lol at retards that still think "Romney said his sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

hahah
Morans

Yeah, morans like me, cbsnews (which I linked to), and dozens of other news outlets. We're all retards, unlike robrr2003.

DamnYankees: To be fair, he was born into it. He didn't demand his privilege. He doesn't really have a choice in being overly protected - he's a national and imperial symbol, whether he likes it or not. He has to do what he can with his lot.

He can walk away at any time. It's been done before.

Good for Harry, and good for his brother. It's a shame William trained as a pilot and they are going to stick him out on a boat, but he shouldn't be surprised. For that matter, good for McCain's son too.

Glasgowsfinest: DamnYankees: To be fair, he was born into it. He didn't demand his privilege. He doesn't really have a choice in being overly protected - he's a national and imperial symbol, whether he likes it or not. He has to do what he can with his lot.

He can walk away at any time. It's been done before.

You hold it against him for not turning it down? Come on. I don't demand the kid be Siddhartha.

Dancin_In_Anson:

Yeah.

Hillary is running for President.

Romney is not.

Hillary vote to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Romney did not.

I used that particular image because off the caption.

What the hell are you on about now?

All I see is:

Off topic.

Moot point.

Off topic.

Moot point.

Retarded.

nicedream: robrr2003: lol at retards that still think "Romney said his sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

hahah
Morans

Yeah, morans like me, cbsnews (which I linked to), and dozens of other news outlets. We're all retards, unlike robrr2003.

Naa.. you're a moran because of your inability to read or comprehend said article. Your promotion to retard comes from trying to sell a talking point that has already been shown in error on a topic that is clearly just a bit beyond your reach.

Still benefit of the doubt and all. Show us were he said. "His sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

robrr2003: Show us were he said. "His sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

Link
Link
Link
Link

Google is your friend.

/please don't try to spin this with your wrongly placed quotations or some such other bullsh*t. It's boring.

robrr2003:
Naa.. you're a moran because of your inability to read or comprehend said article. Your promotion to retard comes from trying to sell a talking point that has already been shown in error on a topic that is clearly just a bit beyond your reach.

Still benefit of the doubt and all. Show us were he said. "His sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

I can't show you "were" he said that because I wasn't directly quoting him. You put the quotes in there.

Now what were you saying about *my* inability to read or comprehend?

fobff2003
How dare you bring in reality to WIN the discussion!! Don't you know that reality has reason being here on Fark? Emotions and deflections rules here ....silly rabbit.

I bet a lot of Americans are subconsciously ashamed that the children of limey royalty shows more courage and patriotism then the children of the American elite.

So being in favor of finishing the war = must sign up for duty?

Using that line of thinking I'm sure the libtards that make the argument and believe in global warming have gotten rid of their cars and everything electrical in their homes to reduce their carbon footprint. Global warming supposedly being so much more dangerous to us all than a single war because if you aren't reducing your carbon footprint then millions could die.

So when we know you're in compliance with Al Gore's wishes you can make that argument. However since you'll have to rid your home of computers to do so, we won't expect to hear from you here.

Romney is like most Republicans...
They tout how the so-called war is a great cause (fight them over there so we don't...) but it never seems great enough to send their own children to actually fight it!

/McCain is the exception.

Brubold: So being in favor of finishing the war = must sign up for duty?

Using that line of thinking I'm sure the libtards that make the argument and believe in global warming have gotten rid of their cars and everything electrical in their homes to reduce their carbon footprint. Global warming supposedly being so much more dangerous to us all than a single war because if you aren't reducing your carbon footprint then millions could die.

So when we know you're in compliance with Al Gore's wishes you can make that argument. However since you'll have to rid your home of computers to do so, we won't expect to hear from you here.

WTF are you blathering about?

Brubold: Using that line of thinking I'm sure the libtards

You failed right there.

thamike:
WTF are you blathering about?

It's very simple. You people apparently believe that if I support the war in Iraq that I should fully commit, sign up for active duty and head over there. I'm simply making the argument that if you believe in global warming then you should fully commit, give up all devices that use anything other than solar power, ride your bike instead of a car, all in an effort to reduce your carbon footprint.

If you don't do all that then you aren't fully committed to stopping global warming just as you suggest those of us who support the war don't really support it unless we go over there to fight.

Brubold

Non sequitur.

The idea of giving up your car to help the environment is in any way an equal or a fair comparison to potentially giving up or watching loved ones give up their lives for a war.

It's a bit of a different story when you support war, want others to fight, but don't enlist yourself or don't want your family to enlist.

You can call others to give up their cars and yours and their lives go on.

You can call others to fight a war you believe in and not enlist. Your life goes on, they're potentially going to die.

The idea of giving up your car to help the environment is not in any way an equal or a fair comparison to potentially giving up or watching loved ones give up their lives for a war.

/loves me some slashies

DamnYankees [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-02 10:05:15 AM
Gotta give the Windor kid his credit. I've always like Harry - seems like a normal guy. Wish he would be King over William.

I got into a fight with his father in a bar in Oxford.

yes...let's compare getting your head blown off your farking shoulders to global warming.

that's some good reasoning there, lou.

"it's very simple"

-you nailed it right there.

Considering Romney's performance and expenditures in the election, maybe it's better for America those boys stay home.

thamike: robrr2003: Show us were he said. "His sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

Link
Link
Link
Link

Google is your friend.

/please don't try to spin this with your wrongly placed quotations or some such other bullsh*t. It's boring.

robrr2003 Did that hurt?

Brubold: It's very simple.

The simplicity I see is in your assumption that both situations are either/or, that they are analogous, that opinions and stances need to be plain and simple instead of nuanced and educated, and that one line of reasoning about a topic automatically negates another about a completely different topic.

legendary fool: Brubold

Non sequitur.

The idea of giving up your car to help the environment is in any way an equal or a fair comparison to potentially giving up or watching loved ones give up their lives for a war.

It's a bit of a different story when you support war, want others to fight, but don't enlist yourself or don't want your family to enlist.

You can call others to give up their cars and yours and their lives go on.

You can call others to fight a war you believe in and not enlist. Your life goes on, they're potentially going to die.

But if the global warming alarmists are to be believed, ignoring global warming will cost far more lives than the Iraq war has. So in not fully committing yourselves to stopping global warming you are complicit in the deaths caused by it in the future.

I'm just using the same type of "logic" that leads one to believe that supporting the war equals immediately committing to the fight by actively joining it. Of course it's a silly argument but you people are the ones that started it. So either fully commit to fighting global warming or shut it.

Brubold: Of course it's a silly argument but you people are the ones that started it.

Who are these people and who is sillier, the person who starts a silly argument or the person who continues the silly argument with other people?

T.M.S.: thamike: robrr2003: Show us were he said. "His sons serve the country better by helping him get elected, rather than fight in Iraq."

Link
Link
Link
Link

Google is your friend.

/please don't try to spin this with your wrongly placed quotations or some such other bullsh*t. It's boring.

robrr2003 Did that hurt?

I think it did hurt him. I think he is licking his wounds with his tail between his legs.

Brubold

You aren't using the same type of "logic". It's a stretch to call what you are doing logic. Being obtuse about the subject is more of what you are playing at.

No one here has even mentioned global warming alarmists or supporting anti global warming movements. You just brought it up to try and defend and an indefeasible position. And then you pass it off as "silly logic" to prove discussing the topic is pointless?

The only thing I'm seeing involved in global warming and supporting but not enlisting is hypocrisy. And that doesn't help your argument.

legendary fool: Brubold

You aren't using the same type of "logic". It's a stretch to call what you are doing logic. Being obtuse about the subject is more of what you are playing at.

No one here has even mentioned global warming alarmists or supporting anti global warming movements. You just brought it up to try and defend and an indefeasible position. And then you pass it off as "silly logic" to prove discussing the topic is pointless?

The only thing I'm seeing involved in global warming and supporting but not enlisting is hypocrisy. And that doesn't help your argument.

No, I brought up global warming because it's something most of the political left believes in. Since the political left is making these ridiculous arguments about signing up for duty if you support the war, I'm just using their own cause to illustrate how silly that argument is.

Also hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Hypocrisy would be if I said I support the war but I was really in favor of ending it before our objectives were achieved. Signing up or not signing up has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Brubold

Straw man argument.

Now you're just generalizing about global warming and the political left. And continuing to drag the dead discussion off topic.

This thread was actually about Harry. But the headline takes a jab at Romney, who voted for the war, making a statement about his sons supporting the war by helping him get elected to office instead of enlisting.

Bored Horde: I bet a lot of Americans are subconsciously ashamed that the children of limey royalty shows more courage and patriotism then the children of the American elite.

Not really. While I would expect royalty to at the very least attempt to symbolically lead the country, I have no illusions about politicians. They're just there to find some way to justify armed conflict.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe politics serves a necessary function in this culture. However, you don't expect civil servants to send their children off to war. You don't expect the court scribe, the court jester or the Minister of Economics to send his kin off to war. Likewise, you don't expect the President to do the same.

Your queen != Our president. I suppose the closest analogue would be the Prime Minister, but this is just speaking as a Yank who hasn't really studied the British power structure.

Besides, why feel shame over something you have no power over?