Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

DP. That was what I first thought. But actually he's complaining about how living in LA is exposing them to the media. He's complaining about the First Amendment.

They didn't have to live there. There are many places that are not so available to the paparazzi. Almost everywhere else in the country, basically.

His comments:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” the former senior royal confessed. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said. I believe we live in an age now where you've got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means. There's a massive conflict of interest.”

So he has a negative tone (again, that's fine, because in America you can criticize things! the literal point of the first amendment). But he is hardly 'slamming' or 'condemning' or whatever people are saying. He self admits he doesn't fully understand it but it is not at all surprising he would have a lot of thoughts about it considering his lifelong campaign against the media he believes murdered his mother. Good thing he's not ever running for office in America or has any control whatsoever on American laws and principals. The first amendment isn't going anywhere and its ludicrous to say that because he expresses a not entirely positive opinion about it that like...what...there are any consequences whatsoever. His opinion on it is literally irrelevant. I want to get rid of the 2nd amendment but its never going to happen!

And honestly he's right, people have used the first amendment to spread so much misinformation. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the first amendment, I think its foundational to american principals and democracy, but I also thing that the spread of propaganda and misinformation is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. So I do not think these comments are controversial, I think they are just reflective of a public figure correctly identifying a massive problem and, IMO, not targeting the correct culprit/solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

DP. That was what I first thought. But actually he's complaining about how living in LA is exposing them to the media. He's complaining about the First Amendment.

They didn't have to live there. There are many places that are not so available to the paparazzi. Almost everywhere else in the country, basically.

His comments:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” the former senior royal confessed. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said. I believe we live in an age now where you've got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means. There's a massive conflict of interest.”

So he has a negative tone (again, that's fine, because in America you can criticize things! the literal point of the first amendment). But he is hardly 'slamming' or 'condemning' or whatever people are saying. He self admits he doesn't fully understand it but it is not at all surprising he would have a lot of thoughts about it considering his lifelong campaign against the media he believes murdered his mother. Good thing he's not ever running for office in America or has any control whatsoever on American laws and principals. The first amendment isn't going anywhere and its ludicrous to say that because he expresses a not entirely positive opinion about it that like...what...there are any consequences whatsoever. His opinion on it is literally irrelevant. I want to get rid of the 2nd amendment but its never going to happen!

And honestly he's right, people have used the first amendment to spread so much misinformation. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the first amendment, I think its foundational to american principals and democracy, but I also thing that the spread of propaganda and misinformation is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. So I do not think these comments are controversial, I think they are just reflective of a public figure correctly identifying a massive problem and, IMO, not targeting the correct culprit/solution.

Look also at his comments before that. He's complaining about the First Amendment and how he doesn't like it. He's talking about people taking their picture, not misinformation and propaganda.

As British royalty who is living permanently in the US, it's a dumb thing to say. But no one has ever said that Harry is bright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

NP, but what (I think) the PP was saying is that there’s a long-standing and strong norm that members of the BRF (including non-working members, it goes for anyone personally associated with the BRF) do not comment on domestic or foreign politics. It’s seen as overstepping and possibly unduly influencing others, since they’re a hereditary monarchy and the UK is a democracy. They’re not supposed to comment on foreign politics either because their role abroad is basically that of diplomats. If you recall, MM got a flurry of bad press because, while in Ireland a few days before their abortion referendum, she said something in public like “I hope it passes.” You’re really not supposed to do that, no matter how sympathetic you are to the cause.

So a member of the BRF (even if he is no longer a senior royal, he’s still in line to the British throne - hasn’t removed himself yet) commenting/offering his opinion on U.S. constitutional principles is a violation of that norm. However, it’s not surprising because his entire point is that he’s too good for the BRF’s rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

DP. That was what I first thought. But actually he's complaining about how living in LA is exposing them to the media. He's complaining about the First Amendment.

They didn't have to live there. There are many places that are not so available to the paparazzi. Almost everywhere else in the country, basically.

His comments:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” the former senior royal confessed. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said. I believe we live in an age now where you've got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means. There's a massive conflict of interest.”

So he has a negative tone (again, that's fine, because in America you can criticize things! the literal point of the first amendment). But he is hardly 'slamming' or 'condemning' or whatever people are saying. He self admits he doesn't fully understand it but it is not at all surprising he would have a lot of thoughts about it considering his lifelong campaign against the media he believes murdered his mother. Good thing he's not ever running for office in America or has any control whatsoever on American laws and principals. The first amendment isn't going anywhere and its ludicrous to say that because he expresses a not entirely positive opinion about it that like...what...there are any consequences whatsoever. His opinion on it is literally irrelevant. I want to get rid of the 2nd amendment but its never going to happen!

And honestly he's right, people have used the first amendment to spread so much misinformation. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the first amendment, I think its foundational to american principals and democracy, but I also thing that the spread of propaganda and misinformation is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. So I do not think these comments are controversial, I think they are just reflective of a public figure correctly identifying a massive problem and, IMO, not targeting the correct culprit/solution.

Look also at his comments before that. He's complaining about the First Amendment and how he doesn't like it. He's talking about people taking their picture, not misinformation and propaganda.

As British royalty who is living permanently in the US, it's a dumb thing to say. But no one has ever said that Harry is bright.

He's embarrassed himself beyond belief. Their PR people should be fired!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

DP. That was what I first thought. But actually he's complaining about how living in LA is exposing them to the media. He's complaining about the First Amendment.

They didn't have to live there. There are many places that are not so available to the paparazzi. Almost everywhere else in the country, basically.

His comments:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” the former senior royal confessed. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said. I believe we live in an age now where you've got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means. There's a massive conflict of interest.”

So he has a negative tone (again, that's fine, because in America you can criticize things! the literal point of the first amendment). But he is hardly 'slamming' or 'condemning' or whatever people are saying. He self admits he doesn't fully understand it but it is not at all surprising he would have a lot of thoughts about it considering his lifelong campaign against the media he believes murdered his mother. Good thing he's not ever running for office in America or has any control whatsoever on American laws and principals. The first amendment isn't going anywhere and its ludicrous to say that because he expresses a not entirely positive opinion about it that like...what...there are any consequences whatsoever. His opinion on it is literally irrelevant. I want to get rid of the 2nd amendment but its never going to happen!

And honestly he's right, people have used the first amendment to spread so much misinformation. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the first amendment, I think its foundational to american principals and democracy, but I also thing that the spread of propaganda and misinformation is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. So I do not think these comments are controversial, I think they are just reflective of a public figure correctly identifying a massive problem and, IMO, not targeting the correct culprit/solution.

Look also at his comments before that. He's complaining about the First Amendment and how he doesn't like it. He's talking about people taking their picture, not misinformation and propaganda.

As British royalty who is living permanently in the US, it's a dumb thing to say. But no one has ever said that Harry is bright.

He's embarrassed himself beyond belief. Their PR people should be fired!

Can you post the before part I can’t find the excerpt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

DP. That was what I first thought. But actually he's complaining about how living in LA is exposing them to the media. He's complaining about the First Amendment.

They didn't have to live there. There are many places that are not so available to the paparazzi. Almost everywhere else in the country, basically.

His comments:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” the former senior royal confessed. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said. I believe we live in an age now where you've got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means. There's a massive conflict of interest.”

So he has a negative tone (again, that's fine, because in America you can criticize things! the literal point of the first amendment). But he is hardly 'slamming' or 'condemning' or whatever people are saying. He self admits he doesn't fully understand it but it is not at all surprising he would have a lot of thoughts about it considering his lifelong campaign against the media he believes murdered his mother. Good thing he's not ever running for office in America or has any control whatsoever on American laws and principals. The first amendment isn't going anywhere and its ludicrous to say that because he expresses a not entirely positive opinion about it that like...what...there are any consequences whatsoever. His opinion on it is literally irrelevant. I want to get rid of the 2nd amendment but its never going to happen!

And honestly he's right, people have used the first amendment to spread so much misinformation. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the first amendment, I think its foundational to american principals and democracy, but I also thing that the spread of propaganda and misinformation is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. So I do not think these comments are controversial, I think they are just reflective of a public figure correctly identifying a massive problem and, IMO, not targeting the correct culprit/solution.

Look also at his comments before that. He's complaining about the First Amendment and how he doesn't like it. He's talking about people taking their picture, not misinformation and propaganda.

As British royalty who is living permanently in the US, it's a dumb thing to say. But no one has ever said that Harry is bright.

If Harry indeed hates the media so much then he should have chosen a completely private life. They seem perfectly happy to use the media when it suits them and then whine when it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

DP. That was what I first thought. But actually he's complaining about how living in LA is exposing them to the media. He's complaining about the First Amendment.

They didn't have to live there. There are many places that are not so available to the paparazzi. Almost everywhere else in the country, basically.

His comments:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” the former senior royal confessed. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said. I believe we live in an age now where you've got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means. There's a massive conflict of interest.”

So he has a negative tone (again, that's fine, because in America you can criticize things! the literal point of the first amendment). But he is hardly 'slamming' or 'condemning' or whatever people are saying. He self admits he doesn't fully understand it but it is not at all surprising he would have a lot of thoughts about it considering his lifelong campaign against the media he believes murdered his mother. Good thing he's not ever running for office in America or has any control whatsoever on American laws and principals. The first amendment isn't going anywhere and its ludicrous to say that because he expresses a not entirely positive opinion about it that like...what...there are any consequences whatsoever. His opinion on it is literally irrelevant. I want to get rid of the 2nd amendment but its never going to happen!

And honestly he's right, people have used the first amendment to spread so much misinformation. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the first amendment, I think its foundational to american principals and democracy, but I also thing that the spread of propaganda and misinformation is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. So I do not think these comments are controversial, I think they are just reflective of a public figure correctly identifying a massive problem and, IMO, not targeting the correct culprit/solution.

Look also at his comments before that. He's complaining about the First Amendment and how he doesn't like it. He's talking about people taking their picture, not misinformation and propaganda.

As British royalty who is living permanently in the US, it's a dumb thing to say. But no one has ever said that Harry is bright.

If Harry indeed hates the media so much then he should have chosen a completely private life. They seem perfectly happy to use the media when it suits them and then whine when it doesn’t.

That's it. Yet they admonish her dad, and other family members. I have to say Piers Morgan whether one likes him or not, has been right all along.

[Anonymous]

I'm glad this guy has stuck to his guns. He has many sources in the UK, and I believe he knows the queen didn't give them permission.

https://www.newsweek.com/piers-morgan-meghan-markle-prince-harry-hijacked-lilibet-queen-nickname-1600634

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

Well its as American as apple pie to disagree so I just disagree with that. It's been 225 years and we're a global superpower far more powerful than England. It's a silly thing to get upset about. Especially when coming from a person who will never be a monarch and who's country's monarchy is essentially symbolic only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

Well its as American as apple pie to disagree so I just disagree with that. It's been 225 years and we're a global superpower far more powerful than England. It's a silly thing to get upset about. Especially when coming from a person who will never be a monarch and who's country's monarchy is essentially symbolic only.

I see you value the 1st amendment about as much as Harry does. Until it's gone. And you have already said that you want the 2nd amendment gone too. 2nd Amendment is there as a bulwark in case 1st amendment fails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

Well its as American as apple pie to disagree so I just disagree with that. It's been 225 years and we're a global superpower far more powerful than England. It's a silly thing to get upset about. Especially when coming from a person who will never be a monarch and who's country's monarchy is essentially symbolic only.

I see you value the 1st amendment about as much as Harry does. Until it's gone. And you have already said that you want the 2nd amendment gone too. 2nd Amendment is there as a bulwark in case 1st amendment fails.

LOL, when agree to disagree doesn't work you just resort to flamboyantly offensive ad hominems to try to get a rise out of me. You should maybe get some therapy to address why you are so desperate to make people angry on the internet. I continue to think you are not American, but have like, read a book like, 'how to offend americans for dummies' or something.

[Anonymous]

H and M act like spoiled brat teenagers. And such a contrast with his brother this week especially, as the BRF flawlessly hosted the G7 leaders. They really need to lay low because everything they are doing further cheapens their image.