supermike80
Footballguy
Go to CNN....Queen Bad. Poor Harry and Meghan
Go to Fox --The poor Queen
Interesting.
Go to Fox --The poor Queen
Interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Meow. This Charlie Kirk guy is really taking this hard.https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1369007830548807681 (video clip at link).
Charlie Kirk says Meghan Markle is "making it up like Jussie Smollett" and calls Prince Harry a "metrosexual beta male"
So Charlie Kirk was present at all the Royal conversations or just talking out his ###?!https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1369007830548807681 (video clip at link).
Charlie Kirk says Meghan Markle is "making it up like Jussie Smollett" and calls Prince Harry a "metrosexual beta male"
I'll go with door two MonteSo Charlie Kirk was present at all the Royal conversations or just talking out his ###?!
I stand with @Grace Under Pressure !Hoping many can come together under the "Who Cares!" tent.
We LITERALLY fought a war and created a new country to break away from all of that.I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed.
Think Hollywood. Hollywood has stars and starlets beyond even the Royals. It's international. It serves the same function and filters untold billions away from people who could otherwise spend it on other things. And with all the tax breaks and intellectual property concerns, not to mention real estate, it does get into political economy at a certain level.I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed.
Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly.Think Hollywood. Hollywood has stars and starlets beyond even the Royals. It's international. It serves the same function and filters untold billions away from people who could otherwise spend it on other things. And with all the tax breaks and intellectual property concerns, not to mention real estate, it does get into political economy at a certain level.
But yeah, Hollywood is our imperfect equivalent.
If you ask Brits one on one, most would agree. Collectively, there's that pride. And there's clearly something to it, as many Americans are all about following the British Royal family as well, which is even more weird.Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly.
But our taxes don’t pay for the kardashian’s houses and lifestyle. We actually chose to elevate them sex tape and all.I can’t criticize the Brits. My daughters are obsessed with the Kardashians and various Bachelors/Bachelorettes. At least the Royals have some tradition.
The Kardashians rode the coattails of an American heiress, Paris Hilton. She was Paris's friend on the social scene and played second fiddle most of the time. She made an educated guess by leaking her sex tape to the public. She calculated she'd go from nobody to somebody and that the American public would buy products and pay to voyeur any form of celebrity put forth, no matter how that celebrity came to be. She was right and made her family multi-multi millionaires by giving it up one night for the camera.I can’t criticize the Brits. My daughters are obsessed with the Kardashians and various Bachelors/Bachelorettes. At least the Royals have some tradition.
I agree with you about some sort of merit going into it rather than just being born into family, but the institutions serve the remarkably same function sociopolitically, down to the punctilio and maintenance required of them. Both seem to set manners and norms for their respective societies. The Royals are well-heeled and have antiquated manners and formal norms mixed with fame. It is a restrictive life, but one given to opulence and wealth. While within our society, one that is more dynamic and shifting (and possibly coarser) than that of Britain's, Hollywood brings proper modernity and cutting edge manners and norms mixed with fame. It is permissively restrictive in a paradoxical way, and also given to opulence and wealth.Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly.
Charlie Kirk having his own radio talk show to provide him with a platform to call a 10 year, 2 Afghanistan tour Apache helicopter pilot who got elevated to the rank of Captain, a metrosexual beta male is today’s GOP in a nutshell.So Charlie Kirk was present at all the Royal conversations or just talking out his ###?!
Yeah? Say that to Miley Cyrus. The Gretzky kid. Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly.
Party in the USA is the best "USA" song to come out in the past 30 years. No, I'm not kidding.Yeah? Say that to Miley Cyrus. The Gretzky kid. Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.
I don't know about Harry being a "beta".......but I do get a Smollett vibe from Megan. Something just seems off about her.https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1369007830548807681 (video clip at link).
Charlie Kirk says Meghan Markle is "making it up like Jussie Smollett" and calls Prince Harry a "metrosexual beta male"
At times, it seems a good portion of this country embraced the idea of an American Royal Family.... #Barron2036I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed.
The difference is that the fame and fortune of Miley Cyrus is largely dependent upon the free market system of American capitalism. There's no government subsidization which forces the people to financially support Miley's lifestyle whether we like it or not.Yeah? Say that to Miley Cyrus. The Gretzky kid. Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly.
Well there are multiple differences however there are plenty of "celebrities" here that are only such because of their parents.The difference is that the fame and fortune of Miley Cyrus is largely dependent upon the free market system of American capitalism. There's no government subsidization which forces the people to financially support Miley's lifestyle whether we like it or not.
In America, if the free market wants those children to lose a significant portion (if not all) of their celebrity status, then it will happen.Well there are multiple differences however there are plenty of "celebrities" here that are only such because of their parents.The difference is that the fame and fortune of Miley Cyrus is largely dependent upon the free market system of American capitalism. There's no government subsidization which forces the people to financially support Miley's lifestyle whether we like it or not.
DUDE........I get it. I was responding to the comment about----oh nevermind SIGHIn America, if the free market wants those children to lose a significant portion (if not all) of their celebrity status, then it will happen.
The Brits don't quite have that option.
Yep. I still see this as being the distinguishing difference between the two and why I don't equate them.In America, if the free market wants those children to lose a significant portion (if not all) of their celebrity status, then it will happen.
The Brits don't quite have that option.
There's a logical fallacy at play here. When you only know of Billy Ray and Miley Cyrus, then it's easy to assume that she's only famous because of her father.Miley seems to be a weird example. Looked up Billy Ray and one of the first lines says "Best know as Miley's father.
Miley is very talented. That girl can sing.Yeah? Say that to Miley Cyrus. The Gretzky kid. Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.
That and we talk about race in this country CONSTANTLY. For a nation heck bent on eliminating racial divide, we sure talk about it a lot.Putting aside the whole royal/celebrity issue: the interview was political because it was about racism, which remains a big problem in the United Kingdom. It’s a different problem than here because our racial issues are rooted in our history of slavery and Jim Crow, while theirs are rooted in colonialism, but it’s nonetheless still a problem. Brexit proved that.
Outside the "baby being too dark" thing what was really noteworthy in this interview? I mean the whole thing with the Royals is tabloid and that is a pretty shocking statement for the clickbait crowd.supermike80 said:That and we talk about race in this country CONSTANTLY. For a nation heck bent on eliminating racial divide, we sure talk about it a lot.
Heck I dunno.Outside the "baby being too dark" thing what was really noteworthy in this interview? I mean the whole thing with the Royals is tabloid and that is a pretty shocking statement for the clickbait crowd.
is that even true? Like, are we supposed to believe people at face value? Especially celebrities who have an image to craft?Outside the "baby being too dark" thing what was really noteworthy in this interview? I mean the whole thing with the Royals is tabloid and that is a pretty shocking statement for the clickbait crowd.
I guess with tabloid stuff it doesn’t even matter But to your point we don’t know.is that even true? Like, are we supposed to believe people at face value? Especially celebrities who have an image to craft?
I have not watched the whole thing but that is definitely the most headline grabbing thing I was seeing.Heck I dunno.
Of course. Because race.....Cause thats the biggest focus in this country by leaps and bounds.I have not watched the whole thing but that is definitely the most headline grabbing thing I was seeing.
That was my point though that in this case that was the most shocking thing. The race aspect of this was specifically called out in the statement made by the Queen.Of course. Because race.....Cause thats the biggest focus in this country by leaps and bounds.
Dont know what else they talked about. Because all I read about was the racismThat was my point though that in this case that was the most shocking thing. The race aspect of this was specifically called out in the statement made by the Queen.
Had no idea Pierce Morgan posted here.is that even true? Like, are we supposed to believe people at face value? Especially celebrities who have an image to craft?
I have watched the interview now, the rest of it was basically saying how weird the Royal family is and that they want their own life, etc. The implied racism, worries about their safety, and the comment about their child’s skin color was the main issue that I think most people would have.Dont know what else they talked about. Because all I read about was the racism
Whatever happened to Kate's sister, i remember she was pretty cute at their wedding and took plenty of spotlight from the new princessmore of a Billy/Kate guy myself