I didn't even know she was pregnant until yesterday.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
British royal family = BORING
|
I didn't even know she was pregnant until yesterday.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
And now she isn't. My world remains startlingly unchanged.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Just been listening to a radio interview with Kate Middleton's midwife:
"What colour hair did it have?" "None at all, completely bald," he replied. "Is it cute?" "It was beautiful, one of the cutest I've ever seen." "Sweet! Now let's talk about the baby."
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Dang, I like a little hair.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Re: RE: British royal family = BORING
July 24, 2013 at 9:26 am
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2013 at 9:26 am by NoraBrimstone.)
In a more serious (but not completely) thought, Its funny that monarchy goes against article 1 of the human rights declaration. Well, I guess they make money selling merchandize, money enough to keep people from thinking. Americans mostly mock the French, but they knew how to deal with royalty.
Capitalism in general goes against Article 1 of the Human Rights Declaration, doesn't it?
(July 24, 2013 at 1:51 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Capitalism in general goes against Article 1 of the Human Rights Declaration, doesn't it? It seems to me that unless you interpret "right" to include "any and all entitlement or possession that you can get", it doesn't have to. If you do, then no one ought to get anymore entitlement and possessions than any other, and any economic system driven by disequilibrium in wealth and possession, such as capitalism, would contradict Article one. But if you define right to be some specific set of entitlements and/or obligations, then it would be possible to adjust the content of the set to suite essentially any system of economy and governance. (July 23, 2013 at 10:11 am)Stimbo Wrote: The monarch du jour has the power to dissolve Parliament and refuse to sign laws into statute. Beyond that, I think the only power any of them have is to distract attention from the real news stories and shift papers.Well that technically not accurate, The Queen can Delay a law but can only for a period of time before parliament says, screw you were doing it anyway. BTW I am a British Republican.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies: Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|