The royal baby

[lillywolf]

Re: The royal baby

Well pack 'em up in their little shipping crates and send 'em on up!


Do we have to take the whole set or can we leave Camilla there?

NO YOU HAVE THE WHOLE DAM LOT!!!!!!!!!! Most of the taxes British people pay supports the royals and the rubbish government!

It was the UK people who paid for most of the wedding, and all the other weddings before that too

[Maria de Luna]

Re: The royal baby

NO YOU HAVE THE WHOLE DAM LOT!!!!!!!!!! Most of the taxes British people pay supports the royals and the rubbish government!

It was the UK people who paid for most of the wedding, and all the other weddings before that too

Camilla just isn't gonna pretty up the place at all.....


Also, that is actually pretty crappy, that your taxes support these people, I was legitimately completely unaware of that.... Seems like ya'll need to have a coup, like Egypt!

[thalassa]

Re: The royal baby

NO YOU HAVE THE WHOLE DAM LOT!!!!!!!!!! Most of the taxes British people pay supports the royals and the rubbish government!

I remember reading an article a few years ago that said that the cost of supporting the Royal family came to under $2 US, per person, per year. Considering that we have more people that Britain over here in the US...I'll take 'em. I'm pretty sure the tourism revenue offsets pretty well!

[Maria de Luna]

Re: The royal baby

I remember reading an article a few years ago that said that the cost of supporting the Royal family came to under $2 US, per person, per year. Considering that we have more people that Britain over here in the US...I'll take 'em. I'm pretty sure the tourism revenue offsets pretty well!

Well they have to pay shipping costs, cause now were gonna have to house 'em! The US is not equipped with castles, do they come with the playset?

[Poshi]

Re: The royal baby

I wouldn't mind the US getting some castles. That shit is awesome. Maybe we can all pitch in and buy some of those too?

[Quetzal]

Re: The royal baby

I like the castles, just not the royal family xD The castles stay!

The royals don't live in castles anyway, they live in crappy palacey mansion thingies. You can have those if you want.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: The royal baby

I like the castles, just not the royal family xD The castles stay!

The royals don't live in castles anyway, they live in crappy palacey mansion thingies. You can have those if you want.

You are making this toy far less fun...

But I can take the palac-y mansion-y thingies.... again if they are included in the basic playset....

[Raphaeline]

Re: The royal baby

I'm usually not interested in the lives of celebrities - in fact, it's a point of pride for me that I only recognize a fraction of the people on the cover of the magazines at the checkout line at the store - but for some reason, I'm all excited over Kate and William's baby. In fact, I'm more excited about THEIR baby right now than I am about MY baby. I think it's because there's something about the whole thing that makes it feel like a fairy tale. The wedding of a princess... the birth of a future king... meanwhile, I spent all morning at the WIC office, then trying to unstop the toilet because someone thought wipes could be flushed. I don't know why envy isn't playing into the scenario - I'm the kind of person that I would expect to be all bitter. But really, I think I'm enjoying the fanfare. And it gives me something to be excited about, which right now is a pretty useful thing.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The royal baby

His name is George Alexander Louis.
Next up: John, Paul, & Ringo.

[nymphetflower]

Re: The royal baby

i hate all the negativity about it, its a BABY!! hes done nothin wrong and yet all over fb are things like we (US) fought so we wouldnt have to give a damn about the royals. babys are innocent and precious, royal, poor or born to scumbags- theres no reason to hate

[Yorin]

Re: The royal baby

i hate all the negativity about it, its a BABY!! hes done nothin wrong and yet all over fb are things like we (US) fought so we wouldnt have to give a damn about the royals. babys are innocent and precious, royal, poor or born to scumbags- theres no reason to hate

Its not so much that we're hating the baby itself. It's a kid-honestly I feel sorry for the poor muchkin. It's the ridiculous amount of BS hype that the media's giving all of this.

Congrats, a monarchy has its line continuing. This doesn't call for 12 hours of non stop CNN reporting on basically going "ZOMG ITS A BABY" and showing us nothing but them sitting outside the palace wondering if the dad's gunna walk outside instead of actually reporting on NEWS. The media has done nothing but browbeat this to death and its uncalled for. They wanna do a special-fine. Have a set special, but don't take up time that should be spent of them doing their actual job.

They could've very well have been reporting about the facts that Russia is declaring a war on homosexuality, Britain blocking porn on the internet, US dropping (deactivated) bombs over the great barrier reef, New Zeland about to be legalizing spying on its citizens, 500 convicted Al-Queda members escaping from a jail in Iraq, and the fact that deforestation in the Amazon has increased by 437% this year ALONE.

But nope. Everyone's hung up on what the baby's gunna be named.

THAT is the reason for all the "hate".

[Maria de Luna]

Re: The royal baby

I completely agree Yorin, but I think part of it must be the "its good happy news" aspect... people trying not to be depressed and scared...

[Heka]

Re: The royal baby

US dropping (deactivated) bombs over the great barrier reef,

say what?

/10ch

[Yorin]

Re: The royal baby

I completely agree Yorin, but I think part of it must be the "its good happy news" aspect... people trying not to be depressed and scared...

To which I can understand that but for that to be pretty much the ONLY thing on that entire day? There are other things that were happening that needed reported on as well....

say what?

/10ch

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/21/world/asia/australia-reef-u-s-bombs/

[thalassa]

Re: The royal baby

say what?

/10ch

They didn't drop the bombs ON the reef, the dropped them as far away as they could safely, without crashing an entire airplane in the ocean because they were low on fuel and couldn't make it back to the ship. Its standard operating procedure for ANY navy (or military aviator), it wasn't intentional, and it was done to keep from killing (at least) 2 people and 2 airplanes...which would have been much worse (spent fuel, oil and other lubricants, scattered pieces of jets over a large area, etc). The next step (also SOP) is to have a salvage team recover them, if humanly possible. If not, in the general scheme of things (relatively speaking), its really NOT that big of a deal (on the scale of 1-10, 11 being Chernobyl, we're talking a 2 or 3), shit will just start growing on them...sure, there's some icky stuff inside, but by the time it would corrode that far, it would most likely leak out slowly enough that it wouldn't do much damage...and in the mean time, it becomes 3-D contouring on the bottom of the ocean that increases surface area for stuff to grow on and increases biodiversity--basically, it adds heterogenity, and increases what are known as prey refuges (which is why the strip down ships, clean 'em up and sink 'em when they decommission them--it would actually be cheaper to stick'em on land and let 'em rust out). Contrary to popular opinion, the Navy does care about the environment (particularly global warming, which becomes a strategic problem for them), its just that the environment isn't their very first priority (more like 3 or 4)...which is bound to piss some people off.