British Royal/Celebrity Wedding

[g_bambino]

And good thing you have me on ignore...

What a good idea!

[Guest American Woman]

What a good idea!

Oh, please, please do if that's the only way you can resist your urges to respond to me. Thank you in advance. That would save you from actually having to prove your claim, too, so good timing on your part. :D

Edited April 30, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

I can see replies to people I have on ignore. It's too bad.

[msj]

And good thing you have me on ignore so I'm normally spared such irrelevant responses.

Wow, even coming from you AW, I'm surprised at it's abject stupidity.

What smallc said was not irrelevant at all....

Or, no more relevant/irrelevant than your comment regarding Catholicism....

Which is it? Relevant or irrelevant?

Both are relevant, imo.

[g_bambino]

Good thing Obama actually was born in the US.

But, even then, there are those who besmirch him simply for having African ancestry. I think AW is in denial of the fact that there are still parts of the US where skin colour and/or ethnicity relegate you to a subclass. Somehow, in her mind, those who live in the ghettoes of Washington or Chicago or Miami are all on the same par as the inhabitants of green lawned, gated communities in New Hampshire. I wonder when the last time was that a black kid from Compton was invited to a party in Beverly Hills.

[Guest American Woman]

I can see replies to people I have on ignore. It's too bad.

Too bad you can't choose to ignore them on your own and barring that inability that you can't choose not to respond to them. Too bad you're controlled by a button.

Edited April 30, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

I can see replies to people I have on ignore. It's too bad.

But, but, but, you don't understand the game! Listen to her!

You see, smallc, if AW chooses to comment on the ignore feature while choosing to ignore the substance of your post, then she can feel all self-satisfied and content with herself.

Edited April 30, 2011 by msj

[g_bambino]

she can feel all self-satisfied and content with herself.

That's what she does best!

[Guest American Woman]

But, even then, there are those who besmirch him simply for having African ancestry. I think AW is in denial of the fact that there are still parts of the US where skin colour and/or ethnicity relegate you to a subclass. Somehow, in her mind, those who live in the ghettoes of Washington or Chicago or Miami are all on the same par as the inhabitants of green lawned, gated communities in New Hampshire. I wonder when the last time was that a black kid from Compton was invited to a party in Beverly Hills.

I wonder when the last time royalty married a Catholic and didn't lose the crown.

"Besmirched 'by some'" or not, he was elected to the highest office in the U.S. by the majority of the voters. And I still wonder what the term is for social class the people you are referring to are delegated to in the United States; I'm wondering what term they are referred to by the mainstream media.

Oops! You can't read this. Resume responding to me through smallc so I can resume laughing.

[Guest American Woman]

But, but, but, you don't understand the game! Listen to her!

You see, smallc, if AW chooses to comment on the ignore feature while choosing to ignore the substance of your post, then she can feel all self-satisfied and content with herself.

His post had substance? If I responded with "good thing Harper is a Canadian citizen," would my post have similarly contained substance? Cuz that would be my obvious response, which has jack sh*t to do with royalty not being able to keep the crown if they marry a Catholic. But do carry on discussing me. I'm rather enjoying it. A good laugh is good for the soul.

[msj]

His post had substance? If I responded with "good thing Harper is a Canadian citizen," would my post have similarly contained substance? Cuz that would be my obvious response, which has jack sh*t to do with royalty not being able to keep the crown if they marry a Catholic. But do carry on discussing me. I'm rather enjoying it. A good laugh is good for the soul.

Oh, we all know it's all about you!

As for substance - no point arguing with someone who doesn't understand the terms of reference....

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, we all know it's all about you!

Thank you. I'm not sure everyone knows it though, so if you could pass the word along, I'd really appreciate it.

As for substance - no point arguing with someone who doesn't understand the terms of reference....

No point responding to someone whose "terms of reference" had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.......

[bush_cheney2004]

But, even then, there are those who besmirch him simply for having African ancestry. I think AW is in denial of the fact that there are still parts of the US where skin colour and/or ethnicity relegate you to a subclass.

You mean just as it happens in some parts of Canada? Nothing unusual there.

Somehow, in her mind, those who live in the ghettoes of Washington or Chicago or Miami are all on the same par as the inhabitants of green lawned, gated communities in New Hampshire. I wonder when the last time was that a black kid from Compton was invited to a party in Beverly Hills.

Last year...this year the "white" kids went to Compton:

Beverly Hills at Compton

[msj]

Well, one fun thing I got out of this thread is this handy series from the NY Times.

Wish Canada had something like this.

I'm in the top 86th percentile:

Occupation 71 (just an accountant which is not exactly "prestigious")

Education 91.

Income 97.

Wealth 85. Ah, still building the wealth - this graphic discriminates based on youth and getting a late start due to too many years seeking a higher education!

But, in a few more years, knock on wood, I will catch up to my peers.

I guess what I'm saying is that I really am a snobby Canadian, even by American standards. (That one is for you BC_2004).

So, AW, there: it's not all about you; sometimes it's about me too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, one fun thing I got out of this thread is this handy series from the NY Times.

Wish Canada had something like this.

Don't worry....America lets even the poorest downtrodden from Canada use our Web resources!

[Smallc]

Occupation: 63

Education: 75

Income: 69

Wealth: 29

Overall: 59.

Not bad for 22.

Edit to correct education.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

Occupation: 80

Education: 91

Income: 69

Wealth: 29

Overall: 67

I'm poor.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, one fun thing I got out of this thread is this handy series from the NY Times.

Wish Canada had something like this.

Don't feel too bad because Canada doesn't have something like that; the United States doesn't have something like that either, just the NY Times. Keep that search engine going, though, and perhaps you'll find that the National Post, or some other Canadian media source, has something like that too. Or better yet, perhaps you'll find something relevant to post in response to the posts I've made.*

*See? Ultimately it is all about me.

[msj]

Don't worry....America lets even the poorest downtrodden from Canada use our Web resources!

Yes, thank you for inventing the internet!

[msj]

Don't feel too bad because Canada doesn't have something like that; the United States doesn't have something like that either, just the NY Times. Keep that search engine going, though, and perhaps you'll find that the National Post, or some other Canadian media source, has something like that too. Or better yet, perhaps you'll find something relevant to post in response to the posts I've made.*

*See? Ultimately it is all about me.

Oh, I know it's all about you, ultimately. It's that narcissistic complex you have!

I thought it was quite interesting and wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it: you might learn something, for a change.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, I know it's all about you, ultimately.

Good. Glad to hear you know your place.

I thought it was quite interesting and wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it: you might learn something, for a change.

I might. But then, I don't feel a real need to "learn" where the NY Times ranks my education, et al.

So instead, how about explaining to me how the requirement that the POTUS be born in the U.S. is comparable to royalty losing the crown if they marry a Catholic? That's something I am interested in learning.

Edited April 30, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

So instead, how about explaining to me how the requirement that the POTUS be born in the U.S. is comparable to royalty losing the crown if they marry a Catholic? That's something I am interested in learning.

I'm not interpreting it that way.

My interpretation is of the craziness of the "birther" movement towards a POTUS who happens to be black.

This compared to the craziness of the Monarchy over what religion one may or may not be brought up in and may or may not believe.

If Obama weren't black no one would care about the birther movement.

In fact, if he was an Austrian bodybuilder who had not lost his political appeal, maybe some would want to change the Constitution to allow such Austrians into power.

As for the Monarchy - yeah, they have their kooky rules about the Royal family being the head of the Anglican Church and all that which gets in the way of having a Catholic sit on the throne.

Either way, kooky to me.

And, either way, tells lots about some of the attitudes about far too many people within the countries (and the opinions of us outside those countries).

As for how this relates to class - well, economic opportunity, race, religion etc all play a role in social class and social standing.

If you don't know that then you're a lucky woman for not having to experience anything that would challenge your white Anglo-Saxon middle class world.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not interpreting it that way.

My interpretation is of the craziness of the "birther" movement towards a POTUS who happens to be black.

I didn't interpret it that way at all. The comment was "good thing he was born in the US," not "good thing he could prove he was born in the US" and it was in direct response to my "good thing she wasn't Catholic" comment. I think your interpretation is just that -- your interpretation. But you did hit the nail on the head -- he does "happen" to be black. If you think that's what the fuss was about, his race, you are sadly out of touch. Fact is, the birthers would be there making a ruckus about anyone they didn't approve of under similar circumstances, making something out of nothing; making something out of whatever they could grasp at. In this instance he "happens" to be black.

If Obama weren't black no one would care about the birther movement.

Bullcrap they wouldn't.

In fact, if he was an Austrian bodybuilder who had not lost his political appeal, maybe some would want to change the Constitution to allow such Austrians into power.

Riiiight. Because no other POTUS or politician has been subjected to endless witch hunts. Clinton, for example. It's all because Obama is black.

Seems to me you are the one singling out his being black.

As for the Monarchy - yeah, they have their kooky rules about the Royal family being the head of the Anglican Church and all that which gets in the way of having a Catholic sit on the throne.

Either way, kooky to me.

It's beyond kooky and I would be willing to wager big bucks that if the U.S. forbade anyone who married a Muslim from being POTUS "kooky" wouldn't be your reaction.

And, either way, tells lots about some of the attitudes about far too many people within the countries (and the opinions of us outside those countries).

I think your spin on the Obama birthers, that it's only because he is black, tells a lot more about your attitude than anything else. I don't think they give a crap about his race one way or the other; I think it's you making something out of it.

As for how this relates to class - well, economic opportunity, race, religion etc all play a role in social class and social standing.

It still has nothing to do with relegating people to a social class, such as "commoner." We don't have that here, regardless of what some's personal beliefs may be, which quite clearly has been my point. And there is a big difference, whether you recognize it or not. And I'll add that "race" and "social standing based on ancestry" are also two different things.

Edited May 1, 2011 by American Woman

[August1991]

What smallc said was not irrelevant at all....

Or, no more relevant/irrelevant than your comment regarding Catholicism....

That's a fair point. There have been British monarchs/wives born abroad but being Catholic would probably make the person inadmissible.

I wonder when the last time royalty married a Catholic and didn't lose the crown.

Exactly.

I think AW is in denial of the fact that there are still parts of the US where skin colour and/or ethnicity relegate you to a subclass.

Skin colour or ethnicity do not alone relegate one to any social position. If the US has a class system, it is a very porous one. How else to explain people like Kennedy or Nixon becoming president?

Occupation 71 (just an accountant which is not exactly "prestigious")

Accountants get 71? WTF? If I were class-concious, I'd rather be a purple-skinned, homeless, Catholic rather than be an accountant. The only occupation less prestigious and more lower class than being an accountant is being a dentist. (I don't care how much money they make. It's not enough compensation for the sheer drudgery.) Edited May 1, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

My interpretation is of the craziness of the "birther" movement towards a POTUS who happens to be black.

...

If Obama weren't black no one would care about the birther movement.

I disagree. Obama's origins, birth and childhood were out of the ordinary. And anyway, if it weren't the birth certificate, it would have been something else. I reckon that if Obama only has to contend with questions about his birth certificate, then he's doing well. So far, he hasn't had a special prosecutor on his tail.

If you want crazy, many people want to put George W. Bush on trial for war crimes. The Republicans managed to impeach Clinton.

Such craziness goes with the modern presidency.