Jump to content

Menu
The Well-Trained Mind Community

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Also, 'hatred of entire nation' - hyperbole, much ?!

Do you people really think Britain is full to the brim of people waking up to froth every morning about the Duchess of Sussex ?

Such silly claims.

I really doubt that Meghan is experiencing this in her day to day life or when she goes on visits to places as a member of the royal family. I'm not doubting that Princess Michael did what she did, she has had difficulties behaving with decorum for as long as I've heard anything about her. Good manners really are a thing in Britain and I doubt very much that the people she meets out in public are being mean to her. The press are out to sell papers of course, so I wouldn't put anything past them, but I would think anyone in public life has to develop something of a thick skin with the press.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 700
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, the problem is that some people wish that the British Royal Family was more spiral-based, but then Harry married someone who was more mastery-based, and instead of being able to blend the two we

Saw this today:  If anyone has a right to be angry at Harry and Meghan it's the people of Sussex, who have been left leaderless without their Duke and who are now defenceless against incursions f

Maybe we should discuss Saxon vs Singapore for awhile.   😏😬😱😂

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Also, 'hatred of entire nation' - hyperbole, much ?!

Do you people really think Britain is full to the brim of people waking up to froth every morning about the Duchess of Sussex ?

Such silly claims.


i think that if I woke up on a daily basis and read/heard of what press is saying about me, I would certainly feel emotionally and mentally destroyed. nobody should have to read so many lies about themselves and have no ability to defend himself/herself. Nobody. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The video of Harry selling her to Bob Iger and pressing him to hire her last summer is fantastic timing. You can argue with the press, but hard to argue with a video. Seems like using one's position to pressure someone to hire your wife is........well, it's something alright. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StellaM said:

 

Why would she be reading the red tops ?

Most people in the public eye, who accept fame, learn how to manage negative press.


Really? You wouldn’t want to know what the press is saying about you? I can’t imagine not caring. 
negative press and campaign of lies aren’t the same thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

The video of Harry selling her to Bob Iger and pressing him to hire her last summer is fantastic timing. You can argue with the press, but hard to argue with a video. Seems like using one's position to pressure someone to hire your wife is........well, it's something alright. 

 


And  money is being donated to charity. Let’s not forget that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roadrunner said:


And  money is being donated to charity. Let’s not forget that.

They don't say anything about that in the video. Saying it is, is conjecture, which is fine- t's a conjecture thread. But don't say it's mentioned in the video because it's not. Plus, even if the money is for charity, you still shouldn't use your position to press people into using your wife. Classy. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:


financial independence from state money. I get it. They are willing to continue working still on charities and not take any state money. All they seem to want is some privacy from constant campaign against them. 


 

 

21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

He is entitled to spend his ill gotten gains, and I am free to laugh my head off when that's described as 'financial independence' by the recipients of such largesse.

I think that, what she means is that the Royal Family's ancestral wealth, a part of which Charles controls and distributes to his sons (Harry, included) stems from that family's colonization of third world countries and plundering (looting) their wealth. There is a large cross-section of people who believe that the Royal Family are living off the wealth that they took from those ancestors in far away countries (e.g. African nations, The East India Company etc). So, when the press says that the Queen (or Charles) spent money towards the luxurious wedding or other extravaganzas for H & M, it is not technically their personal wealth. Much of it was taken out of the colonies in the 1700s and 1800s.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Look, if writers learn to handle negative reviews (and a lot do it by not reading reviews), I'm sure Royals can resist the urge to google themselves, or buy The Mirror or whatever.

If she takes The Guardian, more likely, she'd read nothing but gush, which is odd for a paper from Manchester, but still..we live in odd times.


i can hardly open internet without seeing those stories. Those lies aren’t inconsequential no matter where they are published.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

The video of Harry selling her to Bob Iger and pressing him to hire her last summer is fantastic timing. You can argue with the press, but hard to argue with a video. Seems like using one's position to pressure someone to hire your wife is........well, it's something alright. 

So Harry mentions that Meghan does voice work, and Meghan, who is more than qualified for the job, agrees to do a voiceover for Disney, for free, in return for a donation to the African wildlife charity. OMG, how sleezy and greedy of them! Clearly she's totally unqualified fro that job, only got it because Harry strong-armed Iger into hiring her, and she only did it because she's so desperate for attention. Because you get so much attention for minor voice-over work.

LOL

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So Harry mentions that Meghan does voice work, and Meghan, who is more than qualified for the job, agrees to do a voiceover for Disney, for free, in return for a donation to the African wildlife charity. OMG, how sleezy and greedy of them! Clearly she's totally unqualified fro that job, only got it because Harry strong-armed Iger into hiring her, and she only did it because she's so desperate for attention. Because you get so much attention for minor voice-over work.

LOL

 

That isn’t said at all in the video. Maybe their defense/apologist team is saying it- but you guys who are saying anything is said in that video about charity either haven’t watched it or are purposely misrepresenting what is said. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TCB said:

This! Honestly you're all merely speculating - unless some of you happen to be close friends of Harry and Meghan. It's kind of annoying to hear a bunch of Americans - most of whom have little to no personal experience of living in Britain ( I know some of you do) going on about how racist the British are etc. If I could stereotype for a minute I might be tempted to say that as per usual Americans think they know better than everyone.

?  What are you talking about?  We are basing our opinions of racism on actual facts:  the Blackamoor pin, the comparison of a chimpanzee to H & M’s child, headlines about Meghan being “almost straight outa Compton”. I would (and have) said the same about some of the treatment that Michelle Obama received in the US. This isn’t something that we’re making up. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

That isn’t said at all in the video. Maybe their defense/apologist team is saying it- but you guys who are saying anything is said in that video about charity either haven’t watched it or are purposely misrepresenting what is said. 

Every single article I've read about this video also states the deal was that any money would go to Elephants Without Borders. I find it hard to believe at least one of those media outlets I read didn't question or try to refute that claim. Not the trashy nor the somewhat reliable ones did so that I've seen.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

That isn’t said at all in the video. Maybe their defense/apologist team is saying it- but you guys who are saying anything is said in that video about charity either haven’t watched it or are purposely misrepresenting what is said. 

No one said it was in the video. The terms of the deal have been reported in most of the actual news reports on the subject, and some people believe in consulting more than one source before making a snap judgement based on a single brief video with no attempt to validate or corroborate it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joker said:

Every single article I've read about this video also states the deal was that any money would go to Elephants Without Borders. I find it hard to believe at least one of those media outlets I read didn't question or try to refute that claim. Not the trashy nor the somewhat reliable ones did so that I've seen.

Hey, y'all can stan for them all you want, obviously- but you can't put words in their mouths when it comes to the video. You don't need to read an article about it. I mean, it takes two seconds to find the video on Twitter and let your eyes and ears see the unfiltered thing. Videos > anonymously sourced articles. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

?  What are you talking about?  We are basing our opinions of racism on actual facts:  the Blackamoor pin, the comparison of a chimpanzee to H & M’s child, headlines about Meghan being “almost straight outa Compton”. I would (and have) said the same about some of the treatment that Michelle Obama received in the US. This isn’t something that we’re making up. 

I'm talking about the idea, that a number of posters on this thread have expressed, that the reason for the ill feeling about Meghan is simply because of racism. I'm not denying that any racist things have occurred, but I don't think it is correct to say that any unpopularity she is experiencing must be because Britain is so racist. In my opinion levels of racism are fairly similar in Britain and the US.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Hey, y'all can stan for them all you want, obviously- but you can't put words in their mouths when it comes to the video. You don't need to read an article about it. I mean, it takes two seconds to find the video on Twitter and let your eyes and ears see the unfiltered thing. Videos > anonymously sourced articles. 

WTH? I don't stan anyone but I also don't get the hate. The kind of hate that refuses to believe the actual terms of a deal reported in the news. The idea we should all only believe video clips and look no further is not something I can get behind.

Edited by Joker
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Hey, y'all can stan for them all you want, obviously- but you can't put words in their mouths when it comes to the video. You don't need to read an article about it. I mean, it takes two seconds to find the video on Twitter and let your eyes and ears see the unfiltered thing. Videos > anonymously sourced articles. 

The fact that Meghan did the VoiceOver in return for a donation to the wildlife charity isn't some tabloid rumor, nor was it tweeted by Meghan and Harry's "defense/apologist team." It was reported in the Times, who confirmed details of the deal. Are you saying that stories in rags like the Mail and Sun are to be believed, but the Times is not credible?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The fact that Meghan did the VoiceOver in return for a donation to the wildlife charity isn't some tabloid rumor, nor was it tweeted by Meghan and Harry's "defense/apologist team." It was reported in the Times, who confirmed details of the deal. Are you saying that stories in rags like the Mail and Sun are to be believed, but the Times is not credible?

Heck, even the Sun says the money would go to charity!

And I just checked and the Mail says the same. 

Edited by Joker
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

He is entitled to spend his ill gotten gains, and I am free to laugh my head off when that's described as 'financial independence' by the recipients of such largesse.

well, again, while I have no idea how Charles or the British royal family specifically got their money/land, my impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it was gotten rather a long time ago, on the whole, and passed down.  The degree to which any of us here are financially independent, or wealthy in comparison with people in the third world or say displaced aboriginal people in the first world, depends as directly on the expansion, conquest, and technological and sociopolitical development of our (largely European) ancestors.  The fact that some people in particular have gotten a bigger or more direct share of these spoils doesn't, imo, make them any less deserving of them than we are, with some caveat for people whose ancestors behaved in ways morally wrong even in their own contemporary social contexts (eg the Kennedys)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 9:50 PM, Scarlett said:

On another continent.

 

i know I am being obtuse.....but when I left my young child, I literally calculated the time it would take for me to reach him. 

Different worlds I guess. 

I think there was something very odd about the fact that baby Archie was left in Canada like that. It comes off as in no one told the royal family, or anyone in London, that Megan did not intend to spend much time back in London at all. Even Princess Diana insisted on taking William on her first trip abroad (I do not recall if she got her way, I am thinking she did not, but do not recall) and Kate and William took baby George with them. And they were working on those trips. Megan and Harry had just spent several weeks in Canada and were supposed to be returning to London, but instead, it comes off like the return trip to London was not really a return trip but rather a short jaunt to deliver a message and head back. It feels calculated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

Maybe we should discuss Saxon vs Singapore for awhile.   😏😬😱😂

Well, the problem is that some people wish that the British Royal Family was more spiral-based, but then Harry married someone who was more mastery-based, and instead of being able to blend the two well, what we ended up with was a YE monarchy that was neither spiral nor mastery. And then someone decided to go all Common Core and give a heartfelt interview as to why they changed around sections of their family. This made exactly no one happy. So the family parted ways and decided to make a living hawking wares at homeschool conventions. The end.

Edited by annegables
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 33
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

So they sue (which they can do in the UK far more easily than in the US!)

Look, I just can't bring myself to weep for a couple who just had a six week holiday in a mansion in Canada for free. I just can't.

There is a large gap between weeping for them and vilifying them. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I think there was something very odd about the fact that baby Archie was left in Canada like that. It comes off as in no one told the royal family, or anyone in London, that Megan did not intend to spend much time back in London at all. Even Princess Diana insisted on taking William on her first trip abroad (I do not recall if she got her way, I am thinking she did not, but do not recall) and Kate and William took baby George with them. And they were working on those trips. Megan and Harry had just spent several weeks in Canada and were supposed to be returning to London, but instead, it comes off like the return trip to London was not really a return trip but rather a short jaunt to deliver a message and head back. It feels calculated.

Im not sure of the timing, but did the leak about their plans happen before they left Canada, or were they alerted it would be published before they left Canada? If so, that would explain it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Janeway said:

I think there was something very odd about the fact that baby Archie was left in Canada like that. It comes off as in no one told the royal family, or anyone in London, that Megan did not intend to spend much time back in London at all. Even Princess Diana insisted on taking William on her first trip abroad (I do not recall if she got her way, I am thinking she did not, but do not recall) and Kate and William took baby George with them. And they were working on those trips. Megan and Harry had just spent several weeks in Canada and were supposed to be returning to London, but instead, it comes off like the return trip to London was not really a return trip but rather a short jaunt to deliver a message and head back. It feels calculated.

Well, yes, it was calculated.  That was their plan.  I think they planned for Harry to return to Canada with her,  but it all blew up and he had to stay to sort things out.  

Edited by Scarlett
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janeway said:

I think there was something very odd about the fact that baby Archie was left in Canada like that. It comes off as in no one told the royal family, or anyone in London, that Megan did not intend to spend much time back in London at all.

 

I thought she left Bub with her mum. If a woman is going to leave her baby, she usually prefers it to be with her own mother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you ever wear shoes in the house??? (unless you have a foot condition that makes it necessary to wear shoes almost all the time)

I don't even wear a bra in the house, I'm sure not wearing shoes

  • Like 3
  • Haha 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since at least one person mentioned politics ... I did think maybe she wants to be more free to talk about things she got chided for publicly discussing before (and maybe Harry does too).  I figure we'll know fairly soon if that was part of the issue.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilariously, I personally find both of them and the whole situation kind of obnoxious and have zero personal sympathy.

I'm just struck by the fact that personally, I'd love to make a ton of money/security and leave it to my kids.  I also grew up poor(ish, lower-middle in the US, rich in any historical or worldwide context of course) and I think that's been good in some ways for my personal development, so it is sort of a paradox.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

With the nanny.

Having been the nanny of rich people's kids, Archie would have been just fine and dandy. 

Nannies give you cuddles if you are sad waiting for Mom to return.

 

You are super funny too, with your wealth apologism! It's funny to me to hear people saying some rich bloke like Harry is basically just as hard up as the bin man. And that the Royals are less culpable than the Kennedy's. So silly.

Personally, I think Meghan should do what I do when I'm sad and write in a gratitude journal.

I am indeed happy to have running water and an indoor loo, even though I'm a bit behind the entire population of China what with their universal air con 🙂

 

 

I dunno, my sister is a nanny and while I love her, I would not in 100 years leave my kids with her for any amount of time, and I'm kind of sorry for the kids she nannies.  but she is better to them than their parents are, that's for sure.  

I don't think rich people are insecure financially.  The richest people I knew personally had a much harder life than I and my parents did, though (my step-grandfather's son killed himself, then he and my grandmother split up).  I don't think wealth is a guarantee of happiness, although there is a certain amount of it that provides security and relief from some physical ailments/problems and related anxiety. 

I didn't know the Chinese had universal air conditioning!  I didn't have it as a kid (in Texas) until I was maybe 13 (in Missouri).  My dad grew up in the same place (central Texas) without running water or electricity.   Looking back, we were middle-lower-middle even at the end of my childhood (when we were the richest we ever were) but to my dad it probably felt like living like a king in some ways.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

But this isn't just a 9-5 job for her - it's her whole life. 

My whole life was in a foreign country at the time. Indeed, I lived overseas for twenty years and my husband still lives overseas, as an American in Britain, so I do know some of the challenges.

Lke Meghan, I have acting training. The royals act a part in public and still have their 'life' in private. I'm sorry she wasn't better advised in how to make that work.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

The whole thing is hilarious. 

I'd like to make a ton of money too, and leave SOME of it to my kids, enough that they don't have to worry about basic needs like housing and health. 

My kids are getting character development instead 🙂

At least Meghan is self-made. Came by her $$ honestly. Good for her!

 

Giving your kids character development when they don't have material wants relative to their peers is difficult.  We've achieved it by telling them that none of them can ever have a cell phone. (ETA or animal products except wild fish, which is socially isolating, and we also don't go to church here in the Bible Belt)  So far they seem to feel pretty deprived and all-suffering.

Edited by moonflower
Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad was a lifelong Democrat because of Lyndon Johnson, whom he loved because he brought electricity and running water to the Hill Country.

He also had very little use for rich people, although he expected his whole life to win the lottery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Excellent!

They'll be very well rounded. 

Mine didn't get braces or get to spend Christmas in NY, so much the same thing, really.

 

OMG the complaining here about not getting braces (at 8!).  My sister got braces to the tune of, get this, $4,000!!!!, for a gap tooth, which I also have and which has absolutely no impact on my daily life except the having of a gap in my front teeth.

They also don't get those jeans that are pre-ripped for you, which they even advertise as "destroyed."  Like I'm going to pay nine prices for jeans someone has already "destroyed" for you.  lol.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Roadrunner said:


i hardly think smiling at customers and making chit chat is in any way equivalent of reading day in and day out viscous lies splashed all over papers and hatred of entire nation very publicly being driven against you based on those lies. And people who could easily say in one sentence that none of this is true, stay silent. Oh, pressure little Kate being driven to tears by mister Megan. Please spare me the culture. 

I agree with you, the tabloids have been vile. Hatred of a nation is not correct, however. The tabloids say vile things about most people - enduring that is part of the job of being famous in the UK. Just as surely as standing up for eight hours without a break to pee was part of mine.  Most Brits, even tabloid readers, understand that tabloid stories have only a sketchy relationship with truth.

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

 If Meghan of Sussex has as much right as anyone to these things, she also has as little right as anyone else.

 

Most people out there in the world who don't get a happy ever after love life, or to live the way they want to, or to raise their children the way they think is best. 

These things are not unalienable rights for anyone, no matter how much we think they ought to be.

Yes. Hugs to you, Rosie.

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Running water is the best. 

I often reflect on the gods of plumbing, and give thanks.

We actually had an outdoor loo for a while. 

Having just spent 4 years in 'interim' housing while my husband builds our house - including indoor plumbing - I can tell you that running water, hot water on tap and flushing toilets are the freaking bomb. Character? My kids are dripping with it. Or maybe that's silent fury? 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

And, for the record, while I have no idea what these people in particular say or do re: climate change or the rest of it, I do find most rich people and celebrities immensely hypocritcal about their various activist positions (a la Ricky Gervais).  But for that matter I feel the same way about middle class Americans who are not famous; come on, try to shame me for not giving up plastic straws while eating factory farmed chicken 3x a week?  psh

For having nannies, I dunno, personally I find it repugnant (as I do daycare separate of people who have been divorced/single-parented through no fault of their own and cannot find another option).  But I recognize that people across the world and throughout history have felt differently, so I try not to judge too much.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

lol, you think I'm vilifying Meghan ?

You guys are too funny.

Vilify is harsh, you are right. 

but a whole lot of "assume the worse" and plain old mean gossip is going around about her, including in this thread. One can not feel sorry for her without saying mean things with no knowledge of if they are even true or not. 

This goes for rich and poor. 

I don't think the rich or royalty or whomever should be treated better than others. But I also don't think they should be automatically considered worse than others.

6 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

I dunno, my sister is a nanny and while I love her, I would not in 100 years leave my kids with her for any amount of time, and I'm kind of sorry for the kids she nannies.  but she is better to them than their parents are, that's for sure.  

I don't think rich people are insecure financially.  The richest people I knew personally had a much harder life than I and my parents did, though (my step-grandfather's son killed himself, then he and my grandmother split up).  I don't think wealth is a guarantee of happiness, although there is a certain amount of it that provides security and relief from some physical ailments/problems and related anxiety. 

I didn't know the Chinese had universal air conditioning!  I didn't have it as a kid (in Texas) until I was maybe 13 (in Missouri).  My dad grew up in the same place (central Texas) without running water or electricity.   Looking back, we were middle-lower-middle even at the end of my childhood (when we were the richest we ever were) but to my dad it probably felt like living like a king in some ways.

Yeah, I grew up in South Florida without air conditioning. Often my father got up in the morning unsure how he'd manage to feed us dinner. But I will say that my life was 100 percent happier than that of my DH when he was growing up in a custom built house with all the amenities. Wouldn't trade. But man, he'd have given up that air conditioning and the fancy meals in a heartbeat to have the emotional security I did.

Not saying that some money isn't needed, but beyond a certain point it doesn't guarantee happiness. Enough is good, more than that isn't always better. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Pro-bra, anti-shoes.

Anti-bra, anti-closed shoes. I'd be completely anti-shoes if the ceramic tile in my house was kinder to my legs and back. When I was teaching the first two things I took off when I got home from work were my bra and shoes. Sometimes I took them off at the same time - kicking off my shoes while unhooking my bra. 

 

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Yeah, I grew up in South Florida without air conditioning. Often my father got up in the morning unsure how he'd manage to feed us dinner. But I will say that my life was 100 percent happier than that of my DH when he was growing up in a custom built house with all the amenities. Wouldn't trade. But man, he'd have given up that air conditioning and the fancy meals in a heartbeat to have the emotional security I did.

Not saying that some money isn't needed, but beyond a certain point it doesn't guarantee happiness. Enough is good, more than that isn't always better. 

I'm not directing this at you personally, just using your post so I can add to the discussion.

I grew up poor. I couldn't join Girl Scouts and my brother couldn't be a Cub/Boy Scout because we couldn't afford it. My mother usually worked double shifts just to bring home enough money to pay for food, clothes, and shelter. For a time just before we moved from New Jersey to Florida we lived in the projects - aka government housing apartments. We wore second hand clothes which at that time was not at all cool and made my brother and me the target of bullies. We ate lot of pasta not just because we're Italian-American but because it was cheap and filling. Sometimes we literally didn't know what or how much food we'd have for our next meal. That saying "we didn't know we were poor" didn't apply. We absolutely knew we were poor and the bullies at school never let us forget it. I would give that up in a heartbeat if I could and my family wouldn't have been any different if we had enough money to be comfortable and not food insecure. Dh otoh grew up in a well off upper middle class family with a stay at home mom and a father who was a bank vice-president. He and his siblings will tell you that they had quite a happy childhood.

I wish we would stop perpetuating the myth that poor people are happy and rich people are sad/unhappy/insecure. Both can be happy or unhappy for a variety of reasons and the myth is not good for either group of people.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

I wish we would stop perpetuating the myth that poor people are happy and rich people are sad/unhappy/insecure. Both can be happy or unhappy for a variety of reasons and the myth is not good for either group of people.

True.  Also I think that living in abject poverty while peers all around you are not is very harmful to ones spirit.  People can very happy with very little....but there is an inherent sense of justice in each of us and that sense does not like the disparity that allows some to have an excess and others to live without basic needs of sustenance and covering.  

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 9:50 PM, gardenmom5 said:

the problem is she wanted to be very political - the british royal family is NOT ALLOWED to be political, by british law!  it's in their constitution. 

 

I rather think that there are issues that have become political that at their core, are not. Things like basic human rights come to mind.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Joker said:

WTH? I don't stan anyone but I also don't get the hate. The kind of hate that refuses to believe the actual terms of a deal reported in the news. The idea we should all only believe video clips and look no further is not something I can get behind.

This is one reason why the country is so divided. We’ve forgotten, or never learned, or have chosen  not to find ways to be an intelligent consumer of news. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...