Condescending speech she gave to those Africans?
-
spasticfreakshow — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 09:17 PM)
Indeed. Both Elizabeth's and Margaret's speeches, in Kenya and Rhodesia respectively, were unbelievably patronizing. Particularly shameful, seeing as some of their reviled "savages" were politely looking on.
I think it's great that the producers are preserving some of the authenticity, even when it's never very flattering to see the whole complete picture of a bygone era. I bet the grandparents of most of the participants on this thread have said and believed horrid, horrible things. They weren't royalty and nobody was looking - doesn't make it better. It just makes itthe 50s. -
TaRaNRoD — 5 years ago(August 27, 2020 01:54 AM)
I bet the grandparents of most of the participants on this thread have said and believed horrid, horrible things.
Oh yeah, and even recently one of grandparent said something really abysmal, but I can't really blame her since it's simply how people thought back in her days.
"You're a disease, and I'm the cure!" - Marion "Cobra" Cobretti -
CheruthCutestoryII — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 08:46 PM)
Sixty years ago a married couple couldn't share a bed on TV.
There were limits on how often someone could kiss.
You couldn't hold office if you had ever had any affiliation with anything vaguely communist.
That got offended WAY MORE often than we do.
Most people thought I was a hero for killing Lydia's parrot. -
cdz6969 — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 11:02 AM)
All the lisping beep can bleat about so-called "colonial oppression"
Yea? Tell that to the French and British Governments who's French Algerian & Pakistani / Arabs populations from their former colonies that become more susceptible to being inspired by terrorist organizations due to decades of being categorized as 2nd class citizens.
Jesus would support Universal Health Care -
yasqothamad — 9 years ago(January 26, 2017 11:21 PM)
"I" wasn't around hundreds of years ago, or indeed fifty years ago when the last colonialism ended. Funny how you think it's ok to generalise about and lump together all white Europeans, but if anyone should do the same about African black and Arab Muslims, you have a pearl-clutching, pant-wetting meltdown. Well here's the thing: people aren't falling for it any more, as seen by President Trump's immigration restrictions, as well as election results throughout Europe.
-
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 09:10 AM)
Trump's has lost every court case this week for his "policies". And it doesn't matter if "you" were there or not, your comment was based on societies, i.e. The imperialist Western Powers and now Islamic refugees. And it made you look stupid, which you've compounded with your reply.
-
firstwinsgop-1 — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 08:46 PM)
Because they are low ranking judges and the lower levels of the US judicial system is full of hacks. Believe me, as the case winds its way up the system, Trump will be vindicated. His opponents literally have no case. US Law explicitly grants the President the power to exclude from America any class of alien.
-
firstwinsgop-1 — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 06:39 PM)
I am probably the sharpest legal mind in the history of IMDB posting. But honestly, you don't need to be as knowledgeable as me to figure this one out. The pertinent statute:
8 USC 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
This is an open and shut case. In order for a judge to order a stay, plaintiffs need to have a significant chance of prevailing on the merits. The Boston judge denied the stay precisely because the case itself is so weak that it failed to meet this standard. No serious legal analyst believes Trump will lose this. The law is crystal clear. It isn't even the first time this as been done. Jimmy Carter took the same action based on the same statute way back in 1979. -
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 09:27 PM)
Your first sentence proves you are a clown. Citing statutes is foolish, if you were an attorney you'd know that. The judges have interpreted the statutes and they've uniformly, republican and democrat alike, ruled against Trump. If it makes it to SCOTUS he'll lose 6-2