Morrissey has obviously been reading this: http://xi4.com/2013/11/21/rockefeller-on-the-royal-family-part-1/
What do you mean?
I don't understand your post.
I don't understand any of your posts to be honest.
I think I got it. It took a little while, but I believe the word "symbol" is misused in her sentence. I think what she is driving at is that Kate's husband, William, the medical helicopter pilot makes a decent enough wage to cover the purchase of these dresses, and that public money was not used to purchase them.
My guess would be that dress designers are falling over themselves to get Kate to wear their clothing. Let's face it, Kate has the perfect body for modeling high end fashion. I would think these dresses/gowns are given to her in return for her wearing them.
arent all old people racist?coming from a neo nazi this is really rich. you know tons or racist old people, it just happens that none of them are your nazi friends.
Really? Is that better than actually paying for them? Is the grandson's wife of the person who has the power to declare war receiving bribs from fashion designers?
Jealous much! Quite unbecoming I must say. I doubt Vera Wang is trying to make inroads into the royal family
You don't know who is actually paying those "gifts". That's why those personal "gifts" to some people close to positions of power shouldn't exist. Please don't be naif.
I'm not a jealous person, I love the people I admire. I wouln't move a finger for a dress, because when a woman is beautiful she doesn't need to spend a lot of money in clothes. A doll is not beautiful, it's a doll. Sometimes there's something missing in the picture and some people need to fill that void with money. Well... they can't.
Are you trying to insinuate that Kate somehow has the ability to influence the parliamentary rule of England??? Ha, ha, ha!!! This is up there with some of the most unintended hilarious things you have ever written. She is a figurehead, a face for the royal family. A very pretty and kind face, but nothing more.
I really think you are a bit off. So if your beautiful you shouldn't feel a desire to dress well and look nice? It is usually the least attractive people that believe this way. She is a girl, that likes wearing nice clothes and looks good wearing them. The only void she is filling is the lack of attractive people in the royal family.
arent all old people racist?
ANYway.. in the world of other people morrissey doesnt like....
while i find morrisseys comments regarding him funny, i really dont think jamie oliver's such a bad guy. i find him quite likeable. (although i dont think there needs ever be said anything good about macdonalds...).
arent all old people racist?
ANYway.. in the world of other people morrissey doesnt like....
while i find morrisseys comments regarding him funny, i really dont think jamie oliver's such a bad guy. i find him quite likeable. (although i dont think there needs ever be said anything good about macdonalds...).
The champagne has been put on ice for Thursday when we celebrate the 90th Birthday of our wonderful Queen.
God bless you Ma'am long may you reign over us.
Benny-the-British-Butcher
God save the Queen.
I think a lot of Moz's pet hates probably originate in some perceived slight. JO probably met him 15 years ago and didn't curtsy.
He's undoubtedly overpaid, but viewing JO as a major cultural villain is just a bit silly.
Actually, he slaughters live anumals on television and in front of children. For that, he can go f*** himself.
I see your point; however, Jamie is killing the animal himself and feeding it to you. By doing so, he says to the public and to very young kids that this kind of violence is okay and that's what animals are here for - to murder and consume. Morrissey is showing his audience (and anyone else who will listen) the hell and torture animals go through daily in hopes that some people will change their minds and go vegetarian (at least). To stop the violence and senseless death of millions of innocent beings. So, yeah...I feel there is a difference.Don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily something I would praise. But is showing an animal being slaughtered on TV really much worse that showing it as part of a concert backdrop? And, if we acknowledge that most people are meat-eaters, is the fact that one of them is willing to do their own slaughtering rather than letting someone else do it for minimum wage really such a moral scandal?
Jamie Oliver seems to be basically supportive of and happy to promote vegetarianism and veganism. Whatever else is true, that can't be a bad thing for a celebrity chef. Yet there are others, like Gordon Ramsey and Anthony Wobble-Thompson, who are really aggressively anti-veggie. Which makes Morrissey singling out JO for obsessive hatred a bit puzzling. There are more worthy targets available, IMO.
I see your point; however, Jamie is killing the animal himself and feeding it to you. By doing so, he says to the public and to very young kids that this kind of violence is okay and that's what animals are here for - to murder and consume. Morrissey is showing his audience (and anyone else who will listen) the hell and torture animals go through daily in hopes that some people will change their minds and go vegetarian (at least). To stop the violence and senseless death of millions of innocent beings. So, yeah...I feel there is a difference.
Some animals are here to be killed and consumed, get over it