Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Bassoe]

 

[Zyobot]

 

[ATP]

No they get reunited with their husbands.

And I'm assuming his 72 Virgins if applicable.

I read,that part of those 72 virgins are reused pagan womans who otherwise would go to hell.So,they could get christian and jewish girl,too.
Another possibility - jiins.Female,of course.

 

[PsihoKekec]

 

[Scottty]

 

[Abhorsen]

Given that I'm pretty sure that's Flashman, he'd say "No", but mean "sure, whatever saves my ass." Nowadays, he'd say "Yes, it's awful, isn't it."

 

[Cherico]

 

[Scottty]

 

[Carrot of Truth]

 

[Scottty]

 

[bintananth]

"Submission will not stop the beatings."

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

 

[Cherico]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

even a beaten dog will eventally bite back.

 

[bintananth]

even a beaten dog will eventally bite back.

In many ways the US was the angry beaten dog during the late 18th century.

The Decleration of Indepenence looks like it's a lot of bitching about King George III's misdeeds. It's actually directed squarely at Parliament, which George III had no control over and had to answer to.

 

[S'task]

In many ways the US was the angry beaten dog during the late 18th century.

The Decleration of Indepenence looks like it's a lot of bitching about King George III's misdeeds. It's actually directed squarely at Parliament, which George III had no control over and had to answer to.

No, he did have control over it, in so much as the majority party in Parliament in the leadup to the Revolutionary War (1750s - 1770s) was the Tories, AKA "The King's Party". He had considerable influence in the party and the party was all about supporting his ideas. The anti-monarchical power party, the Whigs, was in Opposition throughout this period.

So while yes, ON PAPER the King had no "power" over the Parliament and it answered to him, in actual practice, the Parliament was a stamp on the policies he wanted.

 

[bintananth]

No, he did have control over it, in so much as the majority party in Parliament in the leadup to the Revolutionary War (1750s - 1770s) was the Tories, AKA "The King's Party". He had considerable influence in the party and the party was all about supporting his ideas. The anti-monarchical power party, the Whigs, was in Opposition throughout this period.

So while yes, ON PAPER the King had no "power" over the Parliament and it answered to him, in actual practice, the Parliament was a stamp on the policies he wanted.

The 1688 English Bill of Rights says that Parliament decides who the king is. The 1215 Magna Carta says that the King answers to Parliament.

King George III was just a rubber stamp.

EDIT: Parliament actually backed Richard III and declared that his nephews - the tower princes - were not legitimate. They didn't want another child on the throne. A physically disabled man who had proven himself capable and was a father (everyone forgets about his son Edward) was their choice.

 

[S'task]

The 1688 English Bill of Rights says that Parliament decides who the king is. The 1215 Magna Carta says that the King answers to Parliament.

King George III was just a rubber stamp.

EDIT: Parliament actually backed Richard III and declared that his nephews - the tower princes - were not legitimate. They didn't want another child on the throne. A physically disabled man who had proven himself capable and was a father (everyone forgets about his son Edward) was their choice.

You're... not understanding.

In the 1760s to 1770s the King was a highly influential member of and basically directed the policy of the dominate faction of Parliament known as "The King's Friends". This was well recorded and known at the time. George III did much to direct Parliament in this period, and he directly controlled the appointment of ministers who set policy and goals for much of the government.

George III was not, as you're characterizing him, an impotent figurehead. On paper, perhaps he was, but in effect due to the majority of the Parliament effectively seeing him as the "party leader" he had considerable sway and influence in the government.

 

[Floridaman]

You know considering how much money we invested we should resonably expect a return on that investment.

And I am not seeing it.

What do you mean the government got exactly what they wanted.

 

[bintananth]

You're... not understanding.

In the 1760s to 1770s the King was a highly influential member of and basically directed the policy of the dominate faction of Parliament known as "The King's Friends". This was well recorded and known at the time. George III did much to direct Parliament in this period, and he directly controlled the appointment of ministers who set policy and goals for much of the government.

George III was not, as you're characterizing him, an impotent figurehead. On paper, perhaps he was, but in effect due to the majority of the Parliament effectively seeing him as the "party leader" he had considerable sway and influence in the government.

I think we're talking past each other.

In the 18th century the British weren't doing anything which did not have the King's approval.

The king was the inbred guy who would say "yes" when the Lords and Commons wanted "yes" to be the answer.

 

[DarthOne]

 

[WolfBear]