# Politics and News > UK, Canada, Oz, NZ >  The Crown

## WVYankee

As a multi-generational American, am curious to know what you guys/gals think of the subject. Supportive or not? Agreeable is tentative, and not what I seek. Put differently, and more succinctly, what I query is, how do you view, on a personal level, the Crown's bearing on influencing your sustentation of how things have been going in your respective countries with the Crown and its politics controlling your nations--Great Britain included.

That said, with the understanding that Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America are all offspring of the Crown. As are many other parts of the modern world, albeit, much smaller segments. Red, white and blue, all of us, in varying fashion. Union Jack still on both Aussie and NZ flags.

Very convoluted question, for all of the obvious reasons we're all acquainted with. But please, cut to the chase.

Thanks in advance for all comments.

----------

Rebel Yell (02-28-2021)

----------


## Rebel Yell

I like crown, works for me.

----------

Northern Rivers (02-28-2021),WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

England is a pissant nation now that has no real power. USA has far more influence over Australia than ..... we are calling the British Royal family 'The Crown' now? I don't think I will - and who in Gods name is watching that trash show on TV? Why do people care about what the royals do? I don't understand it. You Americans are so lucky that you don't have to hear about everything Prince Harry does. Anyway - US far more influence. Governor General doesn't do anything really. If you look into it it was actually the CIA that had Whitlam removed not the Queen. And many believe that the CIA murdered Harold Holt. I say good on them. ASIO only exists to shine the CIAs boots really. England has very little Influence these days. This is why I am against Australia becoming a Republic - its a waste of money. England doesn't care what we do. We may as well just stay in Commonwealth. Why waste the money?

----------

Quark (02-28-2021),Rebel Yell (02-28-2021),WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## Big Dummy

> I like crown, works for me.



0A38A4B3-3296-4F04-A31B-FD31C8027E22.png

Waffles!

----------

Authentic (02-28-2021),Esdraelon (02-28-2021),Rebel Yell (02-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I like crown, works for me.


Budweiser is the King of Beers.

----------


## Authentic

Crown Russe vodka is about as rotgut as you can get.

----------


## Hillofbeans

Hell no

----------

WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## Authentic

At this rate Charles may never be king.

Long live the queen!

----------

WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Budweiser is the King of Beers.



Up in Canada, Bud is considered to be a soda.


Stan

----------

Brat (03-01-2021),JustPassinThru (03-01-2021),Mainecoons (02-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Up in Canada, Bud is considered to be a soda.
> 
> 
> Stan


What about Molson?

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> England is a pissant nation now that has no real power. USA has far more influence over Australia than ..... we are calling the British Royal family 'The Crown' now? I don't think I will - and who in Gods name is watching that trash show on TV? Why do people care about what the royals do? I don't understand it. You Americans are so lucky that you don't have to hear about everything Prince Harry does. Anyway - US far more influence. Governor General doesn't do anything really. If you look into it it was actually the CIA that had Whitlam removed not the Queen. And many believe that the CIA murdered Harold Holt. I say good on them. ASIO only exists to shine the CIAs boots really. England has very little Influence these days. This is why I am against Australia becoming a Republic - its a waste of money. England doesn't care what we do. We may as well just stay in Commonwealth. Why waste the money?



I don't consider England to be a pissant country, not as long as it has a Navy and nuclear weapons, and remains a friend of the U.S.

One has to respect Elizabeth II, on the throne of England since 1951, that is an amazing feat of political accomplishment. Hell - Charles may pass away before she does. One should also note that the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which she is the titular leader of, has gained many more members since World War II, then it had prior to 1939. 

What I dislike about England is her past military rule as the British Empire. Particularly her treatment of tiny Ireland, a nation whose culture they actually tried to lobotomize and South Africa, where they engineered a pure money grab for the Transvaal where the Kimberly Diamond mines are located. Cecil Rhodes (the ultimate British imperialist), of Rhodes Scholar fame, Rhodesia was named after him, the Brits went after the tough Dutch Boer farmers in 1899-1901, a population that had been established and farming in South Africa and Natal for over 300-years. Another tiny country the Brits went after for monetary purposes, King, Queen and Country. That war saw the British institute summary executions of POW's without trial; a scorched-earth policy of their lands, farms and buildings, and concentration camps for her women and children. The Boer War found the British Army up against the first white, heavily armed military in her march to Empire, and it took a massive infusion of British troops to quell the Dutch Boers.

Australia and New Zealand are sort of strange ducks of nations. The British Fleet protected them throughout most of their history, until the start of World War II, when America took on that role. My father, a World War II Marine, always spoke highly of the New Zealand Kiwi's, and his R&R station during the island hopping battles of the Third Marines, in Auckland. The Pacific theater was an American Naval and combat Army-Marine war.

The Aussies are amusing and sort of odd-duck people when it comes to their relationship with England. They are more like America than English. The fact that they happen to have fought with America in every modern war we got ourselves into endears them to us, they are a solid ally in the Orient, with China and North Korean influence and danger always poised. Add that into the fact they happen to be the world's greatest alcohol drinkers, champions of the world at that, ya gotta like em, right Mate?

Canada has some oddities that America doesn't have. Universal health insurance for one, but essentially, it is hard to tell the difference between the two nations. The majority of their population lives within 100-miles of the U.S. border. Regarding guns, and gun violence, England and Canada do not have a reputation for that type of violence. You automatically become about 95% safer from criminal activity once you cross the Peace Bridge to Canada in Buffalo, or the tunnel to Windsor in Detroit. Generally they are considered politically our poor cousins, but they have been a staunch ally throughout most of America's modern history. Their troops fought in all our modern wars on our side. Their troops made the first test assault on Normandy to test the Nazi defenses and got slaughtered. 

We share the world's longest, peaceful border with them, and even participate in sports (Canada and America have hosted the Olympic Games several times), plus the National Hockey League operates in America and Canada easily. I personally like Toronto (was brought up south of Buffalo, N.Y., 90-miles from Toronto) and like Montreal and Quebec City. Never been there but hear Vancouver is a beautiful city also. Canada is a friend, they do have a strange French-type habit of going their own way occasionally on foreign affairs, but it was Canada who recused a bunch of our hostages held in the Iranian Embassy during that crisis during the Carter Administration. I remember newspaper headlines at the time blazoned with "Thank You Canada" and they were well deserved. They might bitch and moan like the middle child, but will always follow America in most things and the number of entertainment and sports personalities that come to us from Canada? A general credit, if one excludes Justin Beiber.

As I wrote, don't like the British Empire's history. Although we fought and won two wars with them, it was the British Naval fleet that screened America for about 100-years of its political and military power that protected America and allowed us to conquer and control an entire virgin continent and develop into the great nation we are today. For that, America is thankful, although we don't say it often, and of course, their laws are the basis for many of America's Bill of Rights and Constitution.  America likes England - the Queen and the Royal Family? Wally World Europe, but that doesn't stop our citizens from making London a preferred tourist stop, and a place to spend our dollars. We are treated very well in England, France? A different story.


Stan

----------

TheOneOnly2 (02-28-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> What about Molson?



That is a Canadian beer, Molson Blue contains something like 12-18% higher alcohol content than American offerings. 


Stan

----------

Authentic (03-01-2021)

----------


## El Guapo

*Ahem*

_Labatt's_ Blue

that was my go-to brew of choice... back when I _went_ there.

----------

StanAtStanFan (02-28-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

> I don't consider England to be a pissant country, not as long as it has a Navy and nuclear weapons, and remains a friend of the U.S.
> 
> One has to respect Elizabeth II, on the throne of England since 1951, that is an amazing feat of political accomplishment. Hell - Charles may pass away before she does. One should also note that the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which she is the titular leader of, has gained many more members since World War II, then it had prior to 1939. 
> 
> What I dislike about England is her past military rule as the British Empire. Particularly her treatment of tiny Ireland, a nation whose culture they actually tried to lobotomize and South Africa, where they engineered a pure money grab for the Transvaal where the Kimberly Diamond mines are located. Cecil Rhodes (the ultimate British imperialist), of Rhodes Scholar fame, Rhodesia was named after him, the Brits went after the tough Dutch Boer farmers in 1899-1901, a population that had been established and farming in South Africa and Natal for over 300-years. Another tiny country the Brits went after for monetary purposes, King, Queen and Country. That war saw the British institute summary executions of POW's without trial; a scorched-earth policy of their lands, farms and buildings, and concentration camps for her women and children. The Boer War found the British Army up against the first white, heavily armed military in her march to Empire, and it took a massive infusion of British troops to quell the Dutch Boers.
> 
> Australia and New Zealand are sort of strange ducks of nations. The British Fleet protected them throughout most of their history, until the start of World War II, when America took on that role. My father, a World War II Marine, always spoke highly of the New Zealand Kiwi's, and his R&R station during the island hopping battles of the Third Marines, in Auckland. The Pacific theater was an American Naval and combat Army-Marine war.
> 
> The Aussies are amusing and sort of odd-duck people when it comes to their relationship with England. They are more like America than English. The fact that they happen to have fought with America in every modern war we got ourselves into endears them to us, they are a solid ally in the Orient, with China and North Korean influence and danger always poised. Add that into the fact they happen to be the world's greatest alcohol drinkers, champions of the world at that, ya gotta like em, right Mate?
> ...


I kind of like the Queen. I saw her at Dubbo zoo as a kid when she was visiting you know. Ha. But yeah she doesnt bother me. I kind of like Wills too. He seems alright. Its Harry that I dislike. He is such an attention whore. I feel kind of sorry for the Royals really - they are servants of sorts. William and Harry's friends wouldn't have to deal with the crap that those two do - and they would all be just as wealthy if not more so. I think that being a royal would be a lot like that movie King Ralph. I have pity for them. Remember when Wills and Harry had to fill sandbags when it flooded? Ha. Peers would have much nicer and easier lives.

All I know about Canada is what I have learned from Degrassi High. They are basically like Americas version of what New Zealand is to us Australians. 

And I don't really drink alcohol. 

But yeah I agree with most of what you are saying. British stock nations are all pretty good friends and should be. A bit of jest between us doesn't hurt.

Edit - I'm a bit of an imperialist though. The way I see it all nations should follow the leader state - or be forced to. But yeah - leader nation should be ..... sportsmanlike about it. If possible.

----------

StanAtStanFan (02-28-2021),WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## Esdraelon

I don't usually intentionally disrespect the customs or history of other nations but with examples like Andrew and Harry and his wench, they are begging for disrespect.  Almost as bad as slow Joe and his HO.

----------

Rebel Yell (03-01-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Crown Burgers in Salt Lake City.

----------


## Northern Rivers

Victoria gave representation to Australia...with a Governor General, thanks to the Eureka Stockade. She was smart enough to "put the fire out" and not see another "United States".

When the referendum was on about becoming a Republic...I voted NO...because...it was only a name change...The People still could not vote for President.

Belonging to The Commonwealth is pretty much the only real benefit to remaining Subject to The Crown.

----------

WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## patrickt

My dearest friend ever was English till the day she died. She was furious when she was forced to get an E.U. passport. She went through the Blitz in London. She was tiny and strong and crawled through tunnels in wrecked buildings looking for survivors. She told me about the day she came out of a tunnel and everyone was looking at the King and Queen. She said, "Patrick, that's when I knew we were all in it together."

England might be better off if it were still run by royalty. The left has ruined the country but another country's choice of governments doesn't concern me. America's does.

----------


## Swedgin

Personally, I would like to know the feelings of British citizens towards Prince Harry and his American bride....?

----------


## JustPassinThru

I don't think my opinion on the Royals, matters.  I think they and the concept are a throwback; are an anachronism and dysfunctional to both appearances and function.  That said, I'm not in an affected nation - so my opinion is free and worth just that.




> Canada has some oddities that America doesn't have. Universal health insurance for one, but essentially, it is hard to tell the difference between the two nations.


Quite easy, actually.  Citizens versus subjects.  I can sum it all up this way:  The dollar coin.

Introduced on both sides of the border at the same time.  Received the same way - with derision.  Nobody wanted it.

The Treasury stopped minting them, and continued with the dollar bill.  The Royal Canadian Mint continued to mint them, recalled the dollar-notes, and then, doubling down, came up with the $2 coin.

They did not CARE what the subjects felt about the new money - it's what you have, deal with it, eh?

"Universal" healthcare.  Having spent a LOT of time in Canada, prior to their reclassifying me as a criminal, all about nothing...I have talked to many locals.  Once in Calgary, 2009, I was touring Banff by motorcycle.  Had some mechanical issues and went to the Suzuki agency.

The young man behind the counter was a young, athletic guy - with a painful limp.  He had to make calls to get what I needed, and waiting for return calls, we got to talking.  He was a motocross racer; this dealership was a sponsor; and he had a bad accident.  Both ankles broken.

And misdiagnosed.  And by the time he got in to a better physician, than the ER perfunctory examiner, three weeks later, both the breaks had calcified.

He was going to have both ankles surgically re-broken and pinned correctly.

In nine months.

That just floored me.  In Cleveland, he could have had it done the next day; and then had his pick of malpractice attorneys on his way out of the hospital.

THAT is the difference between Canada and the States.  Right to Bear Arms, versus disarmament.  Right to choose medical care, versus government clinics, and the typical dysfunction.




> The majority of their population lives within 100-miles of the U.S. border. Regarding guns, and gun violence, England and Canada do not have a reputation for that type of violence. You automatically become about 95% safer from criminal activity once you cross the Peace Bridge to Canada in Buffalo, or the tunnel to Windsor in Detroit. Generally they are considered politically our poor cousins, but they have been a staunch ally throughout most of America's modern history. Their troops fought in all our modern wars on our side. Their troops made the first test assault on Normandy to test the Nazi defenses and got slaughtered.


That's no longer true.  Toronto suffers now from African and Middle Eastern immigration - and Wokesterism.  They have had riots, Antifa, Ray-Sissm accusation, and feces on the sidewalk up there, too.  I've seen Canadian news reports out of Toronto - I recognize the locales but not the filth and chaos and closed businesses.




> We share the world's longest, peaceful border with them, and even participate in sports (Canada and America have hosted the Olympic Games several times), plus the National Hockey League operates in America and Canada easily. I personally like Toronto (was brought up south of Buffalo, N.Y., 90-miles from Toronto) and like Montreal and Quebec City. Never been there but hear Vancouver is a beautiful city also. Canada is a friend, they do have a strange French-type habit of going their own way occasionally on foreign affairs, but it was Canada who recused a bunch of our hostages held in the Iranian Embassy during that crisis during the Carter Administration. I remember newspaper headlines at the time blazoned with "Thank You Canada" and they were well deserved. They might bitch and moan like the middle child, but will always follow America in most things and the number of entertainment and sports personalities that come to us from Canada? A general credit, if one excludes Justin Beiber.


True of the people.  NOT of the government, not now.

Justin True-D'oh is like AOC, only more stupid.  And he thinks he's regal; and given how he keeps on getting re-elected, he may well be right.

It's only a matter of time until that border is fortified - probably by the Canadians, since we seem to want to be invaded.  One thing Canada has NOT done is go with the insanity of Open Borders.




> As I wrote, don't like the British Empire's history. Although we fought and won two wars with them, it was the British Naval fleet that screened America for about 100-years of its political and military power that protected America and allowed us to conquer and control an entire virgin continent and develop into the great nation we are today. For that, America is thankful, although we don't say it often, and of course, their laws are the basis for many of America's Bill of Rights and Constitution.  America likes England - the Queen and the Royal Family? Wally World Europe, but that doesn't stop our citizens from making London a preferred tourist stop, and a place to spend our dollars. We are treated very well in England, France? A different story.
> 
> 
> Stan



We share a language; a history; a traditional set of values; that is how it is we get along.  *This should be NOTED* whenever we're accused of being Intolerant for not supporting female genital mutilation, or child marriage, or sister marriage, or polygamy, or whatever other depravity the Third World immigrants want to bring in, here.

Without common values, there is no community.  We can be comfortable with the English or Australians or Canadians in our midst.  Not so much with Sunni Moslems.  Or Communist Chinese.

But it's an obvious reality that is being rejected, now.

----------


## WVYankee

> England is a pissant nation now that has no real power. USA has far more influence over Australia than ..... we are calling the British Royal family 'The Crown' now? I don't think I will - and who in Gods name is watching that trash show on TV? Why do people care about what the royals do? I don't understand it. You Americans are so lucky that you don't have to hear about everything Prince Harry does. Anyway - US far more influence. Governor General doesn't do anything really. If you look into it it was actually the CIA that had Whitlam removed not the Queen. And many believe that the CIA murdered Harold Holt. I say good on them. ASIO only exists to shine the CIAs boots really. England has very little Influence these days. This is why I am against Australia becoming a Republic - its a waste of money. England doesn't care what we do. We may as well just stay in Commonwealth. Why waste the money?


Thanks, and the only response not aimed at taking the piss out of a dumb yank. (My wife is from Melbourne). 

So, do you to belong the Liberal Party? (Took me a bit to grasp that concept!)

----------

TheOneOnly2 (03-03-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> I don't consider England to be a pissant country, not as long as it has a Navy and nuclear weapons, and remains a friend of the U.S.
> 
> One has to respect Elizabeth II, on the throne of England since 1951, that is an amazing feat of political accomplishment. Hell - Charles may pass away before she does. One should also note that the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which she is the titular leader of, has gained many more members since World War II, then it had prior to 1939. 
> 
> What I dislike about England is her past military rule as the British Empire. Particularly her treatment of tiny Ireland, a nation whose culture they actually tried to lobotomize and South Africa, where they engineered a pure money grab for the Transvaal where the Kimberly Diamond mines are located. Cecil Rhodes (the ultimate British imperialist), of Rhodes Scholar fame, Rhodesia was named after him, the Brits went after the tough Dutch Boer farmers in 1899-1901, a population that had been established and farming in South Africa and Natal for over 300-years. Another tiny country the Brits went after for monetary purposes, King, Queen and Country. That war saw the British institute summary executions of POW's without trial; a scorched-earth policy of their lands, farms and buildings, and concentration camps for her women and children. The Boer War found the British Army up against the first white, heavily armed military in her march to Empire, and it took a massive infusion of British troops to quell the Dutch Boers.
> 
> Australia and New Zealand are sort of strange ducks of nations. The British Fleet protected them throughout most of their history, until the start of World War II, when America took on that role. My father, a World War II Marine, always spoke highly of the New Zealand Kiwi's, and his R&R station during the island hopping battles of the Third Marines, in Auckland. The Pacific theater was an American Naval and combat Army-Marine war.
> 
> The Aussies are amusing and sort of odd-duck people when it comes to their relationship with England. They are more like America than English. The fact that they happen to have fought with America in every modern war we got ourselves into endears them to us, they are a solid ally in the Orient, with China and North Korean influence and danger always poised. Add that into the fact they happen to be the world's greatest alcohol drinkers, champions of the world at that, ya gotta like em, right Mate?
> ...


Thanks, but asking for responses from those other than American, though I agree with, well, MOST of what you posted.

That imparted, America's Second Amendment rights are front and center as to what won America's independence. And that FACT is not debatable, no matter how its spun. Furthermore, the FBI's own statistics have proven over and over that the well armed citizen REDUCES the violent crime rate in substantial numbers--IF those that wield them aren't doing so for criminal reasons. The cesspools that have become our cities are the exception. And therein lies the answer that's twisted into not only a lie, but the very root of the problem of just WHO possesses weapons in the first place. Even a child could figure this out--WITHOUT prompting from some impotent liberal.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> My dearest friend ever was English till the day she died. She was furious when she was forced to get an E.U. passport. She went through the Blitz in London. She was tiny and strong and crawled through tunnels in wrecked buildings looking for survivors. She told me about the day she came out of a tunnel and everyone was looking at the King and Queen. She said, "Patrick, that's when I knew we were all in it together."
> 
> England might be better off if it were still run by royalty. The left has ruined the country but another country's choice of governments doesn't concern me. America's does.



I always enjoyed the story about the Queen Mother during the Nazi air blitz of London in 1940. She would dress up in her flowered dresses and hats and have a car and driver take her around London to observe the bombing damage. It was tough on the British, but, then again, London is a very big city. Germany made the mistake of trying to break the British citizens will to fight on by terror bombing, the RAF was magnificent during this time. What the Luftwaffe should have been doing was knocking out British airdromes which were the stations for radar, something new then, which allowed the British planes to locate and fly directly at the German fighters and bombers, without wasting gas. All the Nazi fighters could only stay over London for about 6-7 minutes of fighting time, before turning back. Otherwise they would run out of fuel, crash in the Channel, be killed or captured. The British pilots who survived crashing in the Channel were rescued to fight again.

Anyway, back to the Queen Mother. The British tabloids were very critical of her at the time, complaining it was unseemly for Royalty to be rummaging around in the rubble of bombed out buildings, shelters, and homes, greeting the people, dressed to the nines.

The Queen Mother's classic response to that criticism was, "Why are you upset. The people always wear their Sunday best clothes when they visit me, so I am just repeating the courtesy."


Stan

----------

Swedgin (03-03-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

> Thanks, and the only response not aimed at taking the piss out of a dumb yank. (My wife is from Melbourne). 
> 
> So, do you to belong the Liberal Party? (Took me a bit to grasp that concept!)


Ha. Nah - Im working class so they hate me. Not as much as the leftist Labour Party hates me though. I do not participate in Australian elections. I am forced to go get my name marked off so I dont get a fine but I do not consent to being ruled by either party in Australia. I dont believe in democracy. I consider myself to be a realist. 

If my pay scale improved I would probably vote liberal. Ha. Culturally I support them over the white working class hating educated leftist Labour Party but that is kind of the point of modern neoliberalism I guess. ... I should not go on. Im not taking anything personally though. But my present reality forces me to lean to what you would call the right I guess. Im not political though. It is what it is. Like if someone paid me to write leftist propaganda I would do it. And that doesnt mean that I have no integrity because at the end of the day its all nonsense anyway. Im just a guy. Im not out to cause problems. edit - For me its about who is paying me. Who is supporting me. My loyalty is with them. I would prefer to get paid by America. But I would work for China if they paid me. Having said that Im not going to break a contract for a higher bidder. Im not going to break a deal. A deal is a deal. But I do have standards. For example I wouldnt want work with ASIO - they are piss ants. Pathetic retards. I write propaganda - thats what I want to do. When I have time thats what I work on. Try to get better at. 

At the end of the day I am not political. Not political. Realist. I support the elites. I want to get with the power. I am for myself. I got no family. No loyalties. I dont even have friends really. I seek to be of value. To contribute. 

And yeah - 'dumb yank' stereotype is pretty dumb. Inferiority complexes are terrible things.

----------

WVYankee (03-03-2021)

----------


## WVYankee

> Ha. Nah - Im working class so they hate me. Not as much as the leftist Labour Party hates me though. I do not participate in Australian elections. I am forced to go get my name marked off so I dont get a fine but I do not consent to being ruled by either party in Australia. I dont believe in democracy. I consider myself to be a realist. 
> 
> If my pay scale improved I would probably vote liberal. Ha. Culturally I support them over the white working class hating educated leftist Labour Party but that is kind of the point of modern neoliberalism I guess. ... I should not go on. Im not taking anything personally though. But my present reality forces me to lean to what you would call the right I guess. Im not political though. It is what it is. Like if someone paid me to write leftist propaganda I would do it. And that doesnt mean that I have no integrity because at the end of the day its all nonsense anyway. Im just a guy. Im not out to cause problems. edit - For me its about who is paying me. Who is supporting me. My loyalty is with them. I would prefer to get paid by America. But I would work for China if they paid me. Having said that Im not going to break a contract for a higher bidder. Im not going to break a deal. A deal is a deal. But I do have standards. For example I wouldnt want work with ASIO - they are piss ants. Pathetic retards. I write propaganda - thats what I want to do. When I have time thats what I work on. Try to get better at. 
> 
> At the end of the day I am not political. Not political. Realist. I support the elites. I want to get with the power. I am for myself. I got no family. No loyalties. I dont even have friends really. I seek to be of value. To contribute. 
> 
> And yeah - 'dumb yank' stereotype is pretty dumb. Inferiority complexes are terrible things.


Thanks for your openness. THAT'S exactly what I was hoping to hear. From those of you outside the US. 

Some things I'd like to comment on that you were good enough to share:

Compulsory voting is stupid. And irrational. It defeats the whole purpose of having a choice. Besides all of that, it invites even more morons to "mark an 'X'" than do in America's system, just for the sake of "voting." It's ludicrous--and that's being kind. The stupid and lazy shouldn't be allowed to express anything with a "vote." Voting is (or certainly SHOULD be) reserved for the INFORMED, who make INFORMED decisions. And protected while doing so--UNLIKE what just went down in America, of all places.

Over a century ago, Marxism came oh so close to getting a firm foothold on England through their Labour Party--until WWII happened. It's dangerous shit--the kind of shit that works hand in hand with even more dangerous power mongers that destroy nations, once they seize control. Europe itself is laced with such examples. 

As for who is paying you, you really need to look further than the length of your own arm and come to terms with the FACT that if it's too good to be true, then it probably IS. Personal wealth and freedom are ALWAYS built on hard work, sacrifice, and a moral sense. And there are NO shortcuts to that. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. And a trap.

One more thing--anyone who proclaims themselves to be "elite" doesn't give a rat's ass about YOU. No matter what diarrhea they shoot out of their pie-hole that looks like rainbows and rays of sunshine at the moment. THAT you can take to the bank.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Belonging to The Commonwealth is pretty much the only real benefit to remaining Subject to The Crown.


Yes, and now we are out the corrupt protectionist racket the Eu, we can rebuild out the neglected Commonwealth, which is five times the size of the rotten EU Single market



> My dearest friend ever was English till the day she died. She was furious when she was forced to get an E.U. passport. She went through the Blitz in London. She was tiny and strong and crawled through tunnels in wrecked buildings looking for survivors. She told me about the day she came out of a tunnel and everyone was looking at the King and Queen. She said, "Patrick, that's when I knew we were all in it together."


Thats the point. The lesson to be learned was that Area bombing of civilians, which  was , according to the Nazis, supposed to break civilian morale, did the exact opposite when applied to the English, because we will not put up with being bullied. It precisely the same 'Bulldog Spirit" (as it was called) when it came to Brexit, the working class Labour and the posh County Tories came together and voted out. In WW2, when the Queen got bombed in Buckingham Palace that totally sealed it, and we all became one. 



> England might be better off if it were still run by royalty. The left has ruined the country but another country's choice of governments doesn't concern me. America's does.


Quite possibly, but its far too late. Our democracy and civil liberties were gained over a 600 year period in a series of "Settlement Treaties", ie agreements between the King and the people, the first was Magna Carta, there were others, such as the  Charter of the Forest of 1217. Such Treaties gave the King  right to tax us in return for recognising our civil liberties and freedoms.  Too late to undo it all now!




> Personally, I would like to know the feelings of British citizens towards Prince Harry and his American bride....?



They can fuck off,  both are now totally Persona Non Grata. She insulted the English people, our culture, traditions and our Monarchy.  She thought she was going to come her, be Queen Bee, and live a life of semi-torpor and lotus eating riding the taxpayer funded gravy train, and not have to give public service in return. Furthermore, she utterly failed to grasp firstly that she was a minor member of the RF and down the bottom of the pile (even Eugenia and Beatrice outranked her) and secondly she completely failed to grasp the difference between 'celebrity' and 'royalty', and still hasnt grasped it.  So, i strongly suggest the bitch doesn't dare  step foot on english soil ever again, her or her Gamma male lapdog.


Whats more, she foolishly thinks she can take on the Monachy, ie the richest woman in the world with the most powerful contacts and connections ,and unlimited resources at her disposal.  She ow accusing the Monachy of lying, which is an outrageous insult to us.

'There's a lot that's been lost': Meghan slams The Firm for 'perpetuating falsehoods about us' | Daily Mail Online

First, the one thing the Queen doesnt do is lie, because the people have to believe in the Monarchy for it to survive, and it would be a catastrophic mistake to lie and be found out, Andrew has got very near the knuckle on this one, but the Queen says nothing rather than tells a lie.  Furthermore, these allegations of Markle bullying staff have been floating round for a while  (Kate had to intervene at one stage). All that happened was the staf were asked to keep a lid on it to save markel and Harry embarrassment.  Now that shes decided to launch a full on attack against the Monachy on TV, the Queen has said "well fuck her then, lets have a full on investigation into her bullyign and she if we can damage her back".

This is not a battle the idiot markle woman can win, the Monarchy has been doing this for a thousand years, they are well practised at the art of dealign with troublesome people like markle, who are out to cause trouble.  And attacking the Monachy just gets her more and more hated here.

----------

Swedgin (03-08-2021),WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

You might want to read the other side of the story by an impartial observer

Revenge of the Sussex survivors' club: The inside story of how a fairytale turned into a nightmare | Daily Mail Online

----------

WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## Dubler9

The Monarchy stashes multi millions of pounds in offshore accounts while war veterans suffer and are homeless- through lack of money..
Prince Andrew is protected form proper pursuance into his alleged sexual perversions with under age girls. (Epstein was his best friend and a convicted pedo, sexual deviant)
I wore the Crown (as part of my uniform) and saluted the Crown and took an oath to Her Majesty for many years... then I woke up.

----------

WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> My dearest friend ever was English till the day she died. She was furious when she was forced to get an E.U. passport. She went through the Blitz in London. She was tiny and strong and crawled through tunnels in wrecked buildings looking for survivors. She told me about the day she came out of a tunnel and everyone was looking at the King and Queen. She said, "Patrick, that's when I knew we were all in it together."
> 
> 
> Don't underestimate the influence of the Queen Of England. Although she doesn't rule the nation politically, or directly, every politician in England is subservient to her. The Prime Minister isn't the ruler or a President-type - he is simply the Queen's First Minister. If she isn't pleased with what her politicians do or pass as legislation, it is my understanding that she can delay implementation of any legislation, as long as six months if necessary, and force Parliament occasionally to edit or eliminate parts she doesn't like. "I am not pleased" is a powerful influence in British politics.
> 
> 
> Stan   
> 
> England might be better off if it were still run by royalty. The left has ruined the country but another country's choice of governments doesn't concern me. America's does.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Thanks, but asking for responses from those other than American, though I agree with, well, MOST of what you posted.
> 
> That imparted, America's Second Amendment rights are front and center as to what won America's independence. And that FACT is not debatable, no matter how its spun. Furthermore, the FBI's own statistics have proven over and over that the well armed citizen REDUCES the violent crime rate in substantial numbers--IF those that wield them aren't doing so for criminal reasons. The cesspools that have become our cities are the exception. And therein lies the answer that's twisted into not only a lie, but the very root of the problem of just WHO possesses weapons in the first place. Even a child could figure this out--WITHOUT prompting from some impotent liberal.



You can ask for responses from other than American's regarding the relationship between two age-old nations like England and America, but when you post up a new thread here in TPF, all of us get to comment on it. You are not an editor or monitor, the post was interesting, and the British RF and politics and their position in the world, is always of immense interest to American's. The forum is open to all, not selected audiences.

Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The Monarchy stashes multi millions of pounds in offshore accounts while war veterans suffer and are homeless- through lack of money..



So you are trying to say most of the rest of the rich people in the world dont do such things? Ill tell you something,if you had the same net worth you'd do the same thing.





> Prince Andrew is protected form proper pursuance into his alleged sexual perversions with under age girls. (Epstein was his best friend and a convicted pedo, sexual deviant)



Same argument as above. paedophilia is not limited by age, wealth, or religion, merely by when where and how successfully you cover it up.  Half the BBC and a large chunk of the entertainment industry are pedophiles and sexual deviants. And Prince Andrew has shown its just as rife i the USA





> I wore the Crown (as part of my uniform) and saluted the Crown and took an oath to Her Majesty for many years... then I woke up.

----------

WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Theres a simple fact here - Never before has the Palace held a member of the Royal Family to  account like this, and its move represents a serious blow to markles  carefully curated status of victimhood

----------

Swedgin (03-08-2021),WVYankee (03-04-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> You might want to read the other side of the story by an impartial observer
> 
> Revenge of the Sussex survivors' club: The inside story of how a fairytale turned into a nightmare | Daily Mail Online



Seems like Parliament should enact another law regulating royal marriages, to the effect that no royal may marry an American divorcee.  With no exceptions.

----------


## WVYankee

> You can ask for responses from other than American's regarding the relationship between two age-old nations like England and America, but when you post up a new thread here in TPF, all of us get to comment on it. You are not an editor or monitor, the post was interesting, and the British RF and politics and their position in the world, is always of immense interest to American's. The forum is open to all, not selected audiences.
> 
> Stan


Firstly, I have no power to edit other's posts, nor would I if I did.

Secondly, you made it clear you're an American, as I obviously am. While your commentary is appreciated, it isn't hard to understand that my queries were reserved for those OUTSIDE of American influence, namely those borne of the Crown, that *still have ties* with it. And with that, am seeking some honest opinion from those that actually *are*, which is what's transpiring, just as I requested.

Please just go along with that and stop butting in. This thread isn't about you, or our nation.

Thanks in advance.

----------


## WVYankee

Above post notwithstanding, thanks for all of the great information you've all provided. Great discussion.

Please carry on!

----------


## jirqoadai

are you kidding me Smarty? resolve? the english folded like a wet napkin at dunkirk. and greece, and tobruk

----------


## jirqoadai

and singapore, and rabaul, and hongkong. and ceylon

----------


## jirqoadai

and rangoon.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> and rangoon.


You are on very dodgy ground with all this, and I dont want to upset many of the other Americans here, but i could rip your country apart with its record  of Imperialist bullying and naked aggression to smaller countries  since 1776 , (and not to mention it was the USA that invented the Concentration Camp) but i wont, suggest you stay off this subject.

----------

Swedgin (03-08-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> You are on very dodgy ground with all this, and I dont want to upset many of the other Americans here, but i could rip your country apart with its record  of Imperialist bullying and naked aggression to smaller countries  since 1776 , (and not to mention it was the USA that invented the Concentration Camp) but i wont, suggest you stay off this subject.



The British Army invented the concentration camp during the Boer War of 1899-1901, imprisoning Dutch Boer women and children.

A young Winston Churchill actually got himself captured in South Africa during this war, as a correspondent for London newspapers, and exposing the horror of the Brits concentration camps. That war was administered by Kitchener, who later led the British in World War One. 

BTW, when I see posts like this - it is why I post to the thread, whether the author of the thread thinks I am butting in or not.


Stan

----------


## TheOneOnly2

> Thanks for your openness. THAT'S exactly what I was hoping to hear. From those of you outside the US. 
> 
> Some things I'd like to comment on that you were good enough to share:
> 
> Compulsory voting is stupid. And irrational. It defeats the whole purpose of having a choice. Besides all of that, it invites even more morons to "mark an 'X'" than do in America's system, just for the sake of "voting." It's ludicrous--and that's being kind. The stupid and lazy shouldn't be allowed to express anything with a "vote." Voting is (or certainly SHOULD be) reserved for the INFORMED, who make INFORMED decisions. And protected while doing so--UNLIKE what just went down in America, of all places.
> 
> Over a century ago, Marxism came oh so close to getting a firm foothold on England through their Labour Party--until WWII happened. It's dangerous shit--the kind of shit that works hand in hand with even more dangerous power mongers that destroy nations, once they seize control. Europe itself is laced with such examples. 
> 
> As for who is paying you, you really need to look further than the length of your own arm and come to terms with the FACT that if it's too good to be true, then it probably IS. Personal wealth and freedom are ALWAYS built on hard work, sacrifice, and a moral sense. And there are NO shortcuts to that. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. And a trap.
> ...


Writing good propaganda can be hard work and it has value. I haven't taken any shortcuts. Goebbels, Bernays, Hitler, Marx. London, Orwell. I know more about propaganda than most. I have more value than $%$%loads of people that are on the books of the elite. I know that. Its a fact. And the elite need help. I know that. I am available. 

And dude - if you believe in democracy then you may as well believe in pro wrestling. But you aren't are mark are you?

Edit - And no history lesson but the working class did all their damage after WW2 not before it. It is after WW2 that concession had to be made. After WW2 that all the nationalization occurred. Think NHS, utilities, mining, public housing ( not 'projects' for minorities / decent public housing for working class ) etc etc. This all came in Britain after WW2 - all socialist ideals realized under so-called ' Democratic Capitalism'. Working class were winning until fall of USSR which coincided with birth of neoliberalism. I spell it all out in my great propaganda script ' What is a neoliberal'. After fall of USSR is when privatization, defunding of public options, mass immigration, removal of import tarrifs etc etc took hold in places like Britain/UK. 

You gotta understand that when I write something like 'What is a neoliberal' I'm not trying to cause a problem so much as show my value. My understanding. I'm not out to cause a problem - I'm out for that f$%$ money. And the status/station that I deserve. Not so much validation - my identity doesn't matter to me. I'm trying to prove anything. But I do pursue happiness. And hey - I'm not looking for someone to care. Looking to make a deal. The elite can trust me.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The British Army invented the concentration camp during the Boer War of 1899-1901, imprisoning Dutch Boer women and children.
> 
> A young Winston Churchill actually got himself captured in South Africa during this war, as a correspondent for London newspapers, and exposing the horror of the Brits concentration camps. That war was administered by Kitchener, who later led the British in World War One. 
> 
> BTW, when I see posts like this - it is why I post to the thread, whether the author of the thread thinks I am butting in or not.
> 
> 
> Stan



Nope the first concentration camp in the strict sense was the Confederate POW camp at Richmond, Virginia, at which thousands of soldiers were starved and died.  Libby Prison was a Confederate prison during the American Civil War. It gained an infamous reputation for the overcrowded and harsh conditions under which officer prisoners from the Union Army were kept. Prisoners suffered from disease, malnutrition and a high mortality rate. By 1863, one thousand prisoners were crowded into large open rooms on two floors, with open, barred windows leaving them exposed to weather and temperature extremes.  

That was 30 years before the Boer War. You get the honours for the first one.


You don't post here very much, so FYI dont ever doubt I can back up what I post.

----------


## Oceander

> Nope the first concentration camp in the strict sense was the Confederate POW camp at Richmond, Virginia, at which thousands of soldiers were starved and died.  Libby Prison was a Confederate prison during the American Civil War. It gained an infamous reputation for the overcrowded and harsh conditions under which officer prisoners from the Union Army were kept. Prisoners suffered from disease, malnutrition and a high mortality rate. By 1863, one thousand prisoners were crowded into large open rooms on two floors, with open, barred windows leaving them exposed to weather and temperature extremes.  
> 
> That was 30 years before the Boer War. You get the honours for the first one.


Got first and second, then, because the Confederates also established Andersonville Prison outside of Andersonville, GA, in 1864:  Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia

Andersonville was, if anything, even more barbaric, being open-air, and at one point held about 29,000 prisoners.

----------

UKSmartypants (03-05-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Got first and second, then, because the Confederates also established Andersonville Prison outside of Andersonville, GA, in 1864:  Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia
> 
> Andersonville was, if anything, even more barbaric, being open-air, and at one point held about 29,000 prisoners.



I believe it was Confederate General Nathan Forest who remarked upon the Confederate surrender, "Wait till they find out what we did at Richmond"

----------


## jirqoadai

> Nope the first concentration camp in the strict sense was the Confederate POW camp at Richmond, Virginia, at which thousands of soldiers were starved and died.  Libby Prison was a Confederate prison during the American Civil War. It gained an infamous reputation for the overcrowded and harsh conditions under which officer prisoners from the Union Army were kept. Prisoners suffered from disease, malnutrition and a high mortality rate. By 1863, one thousand prisoners were crowded into large open rooms on two floors, with open, barred windows leaving them exposed to weather and temperature extremes.  
> 
> That was 30 years before the Boer War. You get the honours for the first one.
> 
> 
> You don't post here very much, so FYI dont ever doubt I can back up what I post.


point lookout is older. 1608. you referenced a military hospital. libby did not accept prisoners until 1862. 
check your headgear newguy

----------


## Oceander

> I believe it was Confederate General Nathan Forest who remarked upon the Confederate surrender, "Wait till they find out what we did at Richmond"


But it was the head of Andersonville who was executed for war crimes committed at the camp:  "The site was commanded by Captain Henry Wirz, who was tried and executed after the war for war crimes."  Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia

----------


## UKSmartypants

> point lookout is older. 1608. you referenced a military hospital. libby did not accept prisoners until 1862. 
> check your headgear newguy



Point Lookout was built 1863, idk where u get 1608 from. Its still a Concentration Camp that predates the Boer War, and its still American.

Shall we also go into the numerous false flag attacks perpetrated by the USA, the number of smaller nations  its declared war on, the number of national leaders its brought down, the napalming of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia, and the deliberate sacrifice of Pearl Harbour........talk about people who live in glass houses.....

Trouble is people like you think the USA can do no wrong.  Makes you no better than the average marxist.

----------


## Oceander

> point lookout is older. 1608. you referenced a military hospital. libby did not accept prisoners until 1862. 
> check your headgear newguy


Check your own headgear.  Point Lookout wasn't used as a prisoner of war camp until 1862 or thereabouts.  It also wasn't nearly as bad as Andersonville or Libby.

----------


## jirqoadai

> Its stil la Concentration Camp that predates the Boer War. 
> 
> shall we also go into the numerous false flag attacks perpetrated by the USA, the number of smaller nations  its declared war on, the number of national leaders its brought down, the napalming of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia, and the deliberate sacrifice of Pearl Harbour........talk about people who live in glass houses.....
> 
> Trouble is people like you think the USA can do no wrong.  Makes you no better than the average marxist.


camp chase columbus ohio predates libby due to first prisoners brought in may 61.

----------


## jirqoadai

you said FIRST camp. FIRST

----------


## Oceander

> Its stil la Concentration Camp that predates the Boer War. 
> 
> shall we also go into the numerous false flag attacks perpetrated by the USA, the number of smaller nations  its declared war on, the number of national leaders its brought down, the napalming of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia, and the deliberate sacrifice of Pearl Harbour........talk about people who live in glass houses.....
> 
> Trouble is people like you think the USA can do no wrong.  Makes you no better than the average marxist.


Dodohead failed to mention that Point Lookout wasn't used as a prison until 1862.  So, even though Point Lookout wasn't nearly so bad as Libby or Andersonville, maybe that means the first three were of American vintage.

----------

UKSmartypants (03-05-2021)

----------


## jirqoadai

> Dodohead failed to mention that Point Lookout wasn't used as a prison until 1862.  So, even though Point Lookout wasn't nearly so bad as Libby or Andersonville, maybe that means the first three were of American vintage.


where were the congressional leaders who lincoln had arrested from maryland placed? shitears.

----------


## jirqoadai

was it camp chase or old capitol prison? camp point lookout was used from 1608 onwards. but not exclusively as a pow camp. old capitol prison was first serving that need in 1815

----------


## jirqoadai

what year were the longknives using Three Rivers Stadium as a pow camp. 17 what?

----------


## Oceander

> was it camp chase or old capitol prison? camp point lookout was used from 1608 onwards. but not exclusively as a pow camp. old capitol prison was first serving that need in 1815


Point lookout wasn't used as a camp from 1608 onward.  Geez.  Its first apparent use was in the early 1800s as a lookout for British ships.  A camp of any real sort wasn't established there until the 1860s.

----------


## Oceander

> where were the congressional leaders who lincoln had arrested from maryland placed? shitears.



You wanna play that game, shit-for-brains?

----------


## jirqoadai

> You wanna play that game, shit-for-brains?


sure. why not. go for it shitears

----------


## Big Wheeler

> are you kidding me Smarty? resolve? the english folded like a wet napkin at dunkirk. and greece, and tobruk


More anti British rhetoric? The British have had numerous political and military fuck ups over the years.Singapore was one of the more embarrassing and due to  imcompetence by the officer class.As an armchair general what would you have done at Dunkirk?Surrendered? 300,000 or so soldiers rescued to return to fight another day instead of being interned.Our WW2 started in 1939 when the UK stood alone after France and Belgium were overrun so we had a slow start certainly.Our cities and ports were bombed until we got the better of the luftwaffe.How many pieces of ordnance were dropped on the US during that time.My gratitude to the US forces is without limit for their service as is my gratitude to the forces of former empire countries who,you would have us believe, hated us for former alleged mistreatment.Countries such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand,India and South Africa amongst others.The British population suffered true hardship from shortages and economically.US aid was vital and kept your economy going nicely and our war effort but there were no freebies or mates rates.Once again my appreciation is without limit.Did US forces appreciate the resentment by some Brits at our level of hardship and their "overpaid,oversexed and over here."
Overall,I think the Brits have done quite well over the years punching well above our weight from our small island off the west of europe.What is the world's lingua franca? If a Chinese and a Brazilian ship in middle of the ocean were to hail each other,what language would they use?What language are we using now?
Cut the petty abuse to each other,guys.Not impressive.

----------


## WVYankee

Saying this thread has been derailed is a massive understatement.

Please desist with the pissing matches and simply respond to my question: Do you support the Crown? Past history notwithstanding, how do you stand present day, and why (or why not?)

Once again, all of us are borne of the same colours and display them on our flags (Canada being the lone exception with their flag--but a very large part, nonetheless).

I shall abstain from giving my comment, unless otherwise asked, for the sake of letting things play out, to allow me to get a little better idea of what how you good folks view things in your respective nations, as things stand today. 

Passion is not only understood, but appreciated--but please exercise civility whilst doing so. We are NOT at war with each other!

Thanks.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Point Lookout was built 1863, idk where u get 1608 from. Its still a Concentration Camp that predates the Boer War, and its still American.
> 
> Shall we also go into the numerous false flag attacks perpetrated by the USA, the number of smaller nations  its declared war on, the number of national leaders its brought down, the napalming of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia, and the deliberate sacrifice of Pearl Harbour........talk about people who live in glass houses.....
> 
> Trouble is people like you think the USA can do no wrong.  Makes you no better than the average marxist.



Apparently you don't understand what a concentration camp is as opposed to a POW camp.

The Confederate POW camps, as terrible as they happened to be, were not used to house or hold innocent women and children, just captured soldiers from the Union armies. Andersonville historically is the one everyone writes about - but in reality - the conditions of that prison were due more to Confederate lacking food and medicine and doctors, because they didn't have enough to supply Lee's armies, than a deliberate attempt to murder POW's, as was done in the South African prisons. The commander of Andersonville Prison was the only Confederate ranking officer hanged after the war - and in reality, the conditions were nothing he could do anything about. 

The British Concentration Camps during the Boer War, which the Brits started, were worse, simply because they captured innocent women and children and put them in labor, concentration camps. Those were not combatants but innocents who posed no threat to the British Army as Union POW's would have if they were released. Huge difference - a prison vs a concentration camp. You can't call a prison a concentration camp when it held soldiers, and the Southern camps only held soldiers, while the British captured women and children, all innocents, in a scorched earth policy to eliminate the Dutch Boer's from South Africa, in a war they started, for money. 

Try to get your history correct once in awhile.


Stan

----------


## Authentic

> Apparently you don't understand what a concentration camp is as opposed to a POW camp.
> 
> The Confederate POW camps, as terrible as they happened to be, were not used to house or hold innocent women and children, just captured soldiers from the Union armies. Andersonville historically is the one everyone writes about - but in reality - the conditions of that prison were due more to Confederate lacking food and medicine and doctors, because they didn't have enough to supply Lee's armies, than a deliberate attempt to murder POW's, as was done in the South African prisons. The commander of Andersonville Prison was the only Confederate ranking officer hanged after the war - and in reality, the conditions were nothing he could do anything about. 
> 
> The British Concentration Camps during the Boer War, which the Brits started, were worse, simply because they captured innocent women and children and put them in labor, concentration camps. Those were not combatants but innocents who posed no threat to the British Army as Union POW's would have if they were released. Huge difference - a prison vs a concentration camp. You can't call a prison a concentration camp when it held soldiers, and the Southern camps only held soldiers, while the British captured women and children, all innocents, in a scorched earth policy to eliminate the Dutch Boer's from South Africa, in a war they started, for money. 
> 
> Try to get your history correct once in awhile.
> 
> 
> Stan


Maybe he finds his history Boering.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Point Lookout was built 1863, idk where u get 1608 from. Its still a Concentration Camp that predates the Boer War, and its still American.
> 
> Shall we also go into the numerous false flag attacks perpetrated by the USA, the number of smaller nations  its declared war on, the number of national leaders its brought down, the napalming of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia, and the deliberate sacrifice of Pearl Harbour........talk about people who live in glass houses.....
> 
> Trouble is people like you think the USA can do no wrong.  Makes you no better than the average marxist.



Historically, you are not very bright, particularly if you want to try to compare America's march to empire, with the British one.

American atrocities exist, yes. Our Civil War was as bloody as they come. Our war with Mexico and the Native American Indian population was simply a power grab. We needed their lands in the West and Southwest to complete Manifest Destiny, particularly because of the massive immigration we were getting from Europe of Poles, Irish, Russians, and Italians. It was why Congress passed the Homestead Act giving anybody who would settle out west, 160 free acres of land as long as they farmed it. Pushed thousands and thousands out of the big Eastern cities, and onto the Indian lands. We annexed massive Texas and California from Mexico, both were independent countries. The Spanish American War was launched solely for imperialist reasons - and we ended up owning Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines because of it. 

As I have previously written, all of this was accomplished with the protection of the British Navy, which screened America from European Wars and conquest attempts, and the Monroe Doctrine, still in place today, which won't allow European countries to control land in North America.

So, yes, we have our bloody and cruel conquests. But, do we really need to document 1,000 years of British cruelity.

Their 700 year misrule of tiny Ireland was horrific, and that hash still hasn't been settled.
The Brits twice had to knock out Napoleon and France in the 1800's. Along with the fact the two nations fought continuously for 100-years before the Brits finally retreated to their island and left the French coastline of Brittany and Normandy. The number of tiny countries England attacked and ruled in their march to Empire is staggering, they did it all over the world. 

India was the crown jewel of the British Empire. Australia was a penal colony. They entered World War I over German atrocities against tiny Belgium - while ignoring their horrendous record of cruel treatment of tiny Ireland, who they promised Home Rule to if the Irish fought in World War I at England's side. Thousands did, and the British refused to honor their promise after the war. 

In a minor civil uprising in Dublin in 1916 by some Irish writers and poets, the British sent 15,000 troops to quell the riot, and then executed 16 of those Irish patriots by firing squad. They posed no threat to the British empire - other than to show the Irish people some were willing to fight. On a positive side, England eliminated the Atlantic slave trade and used their navy to interdict it. In 1948, the British, crawling out of Palestine with their tail between their legs, turned over every strategic military position to the Arab League, which swore to destroy the new state of Israel (smallest of any country they got involved with). The Arab countries attacked the day after Palestine was partitioned creating a Jewish homeland state, no thanks to England.

We already have covered the Boer War, nothing but a greedy money grab which in turn grabbed the Brits by the balls when the Dutch Boers fought back fiercely. They also attempted to destroy the Zula Nation, still alive today, in South Africa, without success, and all the Zulus had to fight with were spears against rifles, and never surrendered.

Dunkirk's miracle occurred because Hitler, for whatever reason from his forested brain, called a halt to Guderian's panzers and the German Army for three days, with 300,000 British troops vulnerable on the beach. They got evacuated with every flotilla of ship England could muster, but lost all of their weapons. 

Fortunately for England, the German General Staff didn't have a Case Blue for the conquest of England with a cross channel invasion, supported by U-Boats in the narrow channel. England's fleet was scattered across the world - if the General Staff had a reasonable plan for Sea Lion, Hitler probably would have implemented it on the spot, and Nazi troops would have marched on London. The U-Boats would have wreaked havoc in the narrow channel to British warships. The only documented historical reason Hitler didn't finish off England, was that he felt they would surrender, and he didn't really have the heart to do it, he was more busy with the attack on Russia. It was American Lend Lease which kept England in the war as an operational base, and our only method to attack Germany directly before D-Day was the daylight bombing from English airfields by American B-17's.

Pearl Harbor was a surprise, not a sacrifice. Singapore, which Churchill thought was a fortress, was taken by the Japanese from behind, all their harbor guns pointed out to sea. And, a day after Pearl Harbor, England hadn't learned the lesson of having combat air support for shipping. They stupidly let their two best ships - Prince Of Wales and Repulse, leave the harbor on a silly scouting mission of the S.China Sea, and Japanese bombers sank them both. In less than three days, America and Britain were both eliminated from the Pacific theater of the war. It was a long, bloody grind back.

World War II cemented the union and "special relationship" between England and America. No doubt about it. The Marshal Plan, which rebuilt Europe with American taxpayer dollars, saved dozens of countries, including England. 

But, if one follows British history, and literature, you learn that for hundreds of years, hangings were common daily activities on the streets of London, not in America, and we didn't kill the Indians every day either. Charles Dickens' great novel "Tale Of Two Cities" about the French Revolution, was written to warn England's crown of what happens with revolution gone out of control in a major nation - as it did in France with their revolution. The French Revolution scared the hell out of Dickens. 

Both nations have warts, all nations have warts. But England controlled the world at one time, then got run out of every country they ruled.

America still remains the world's best hope - and fortunately, we are allied with England. Comparing the atrocities of history is pretty silly, there is nothing one can do about it, and what many people believe caused certain historical incidents, turns out to be different as history catches up.


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Historically, you are not very bright, particularly if you want to try to compare America's march to empire, with the British one.
> 
> American atrocities exist, yes. Our Civil War was as bloody as they come. Our war with Mexico and the Native American Indian population was simply a power grab. We needed their lands in the West and Southwest to complete Manifest Destiny, particularly because of the massive immigration we were getting from Europe of Poles, Irish, Russians, and Italians. It was why Congress passed the Homestead Act giving anybody who would settle out west, 160 free acres of land as long as they farmed it. Pushed thousands and thousands out of the big Eastern cities, and onto the Indian lands. We annexed massive Texas and California from Mexico, both were independent countries. The Spanish American War was launched solely for imperialist reasons - and we ended up owning Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines because of it. 
> 
> As I have previously written, all of this was accomplished with the protection of the British Navy, which screened America from European Wars and conquest attempts, and the Monroe Doctrine, still in place today, which won't allow European countries to control land in North America.
> 
> So, yes, we have our bloody and cruel conquests. But, do we really need to document 1,000 years of British cruelity.
> 
> Their 700 year misrule of tiny Ireland was horrific, and that hash still hasn't been settled.
> ...


See,  this is so full of misinformation and American ignorance of the worlds' history, im not even going to waste my time addressing the many many nonsense statements and wrong claims in it. Lets just summarising it by saying its all bollox down to the last comma and full stop,  the usual short-sighted view of the world some American have, when they try and interpret the history of the rest of the world, which they dont at all understand.  You have the same grasp of world history as meghan markle has of english culture  its all about "Ohh look at us americans, we save the world every day, aren't we superior".

NO, you arent. And unlike you, i have no desire to offend the many decent Americans on here by extrapolating further on the evils perpetrated on the world by the USA in the pursuit of money and power, unlike you, who clearly has no qualms about annoying your friends, then wondering why you dont have any.

Friend of meghan markels, are you?

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> See,  this is so full of misinformation and American ignorance of the worlds' history, im not even going to waste my time addressing the many many nonsense statements and wrong claims in it. Lets just summarising it by saying its all bollox down to the last comma and full stop,  the usual short-sighted view of the world some American have, when they try and interpret the history of the rest of the world, which they dont at all understand.  You have the same grasp of world history as meghan markle has of english culture  its all about "Ohh look at us americans, we save the world every day, aren't we superior".
> 
> NO, you arent. And unlike you, i have no desire to offend the many decent Americans on here by extrapolating further on the evils perpetrated on the world by the USA in the pursuit of money and power, unlike you, who clearly has no qualms about annoying your friends, then wondering why you dont have any.
> 
> Friend of meghan markels, are you?


I don't see any responses from American's supporting your contentions, in fact, doubt if any are offended by what I wrote. Your feeble attempt at misdirecting my accurate historical comments obviously isn't working. At no point have I indicated American's are superior to anybody. I even included the historical mistakes we made, and the fact that you don't acknowledge England's support the fact you are entirely prejudiced toward America. You won't get far on TPF with attitudes like that, too many of us are pretty smart and historically knowledgeable.

You seem to be doing a pretty good job obfuscating history and offending American's in here all by yourself.


Everything in my post is truthful and historically accurate, the fact that you can't answer it reflects you are ignorant of English history and America's.

You couldn't even grasp the original point of the difference between a prison camp during a major war, and a civilian concentration camp where innocent women and children were held. American Civil War historians, North and South, all agree on the horrific conditions of the Andersonville, Georgia prison camp, and the reason - that the Confederates couldn't take proper, basic care of their POW's because they lacked the medical and foodstuffs necessary to care for them. They didn't have enough to supply their own army let alone a massive prison camp.

America didn't summarily execute their enemies without a trial as the British did during the Boer War, and later in 1916, of the Irish Patriots who were simply trying to rouse that country out of lethargy imposed by 700-years of classic misrule by England. It wasn't an accident or oversight, it was normal British policy in dealing with Irish revolutionaries. British common law was thrown away in dealing with them regularly. America's military has a reputation of fighting hard without hate.

I can sit here and write the accurate history (the type of which you are incapable of writing because of a jaundiced view) all day long if you want. But suffice to say - your response to my post is a total retreat and repudiation of your historical opinions, because you couldn't answer the truth. 

In fact, I liken your views in here on this thread to a great American movie line by Jack Nickelson, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

BTW, who or what is a meghan markels and why is it important historically for me to know anything about it ???


Stan

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> See,  this is so full of misinformation and American ignorance of the worlds' history, im not even going to waste my time addressing the many many nonsense statements and wrong claims in it. Lets just summarising it by saying its all bollox down to the last comma and full stop,  the usual short-sighted view of the world some American have, when they try and interpret the history of the rest of the world, which they dont at all understand.  You have the same grasp of world history as meghan markle has of english culture  its all about "Ohh look at us americans, we save the world every day, aren't we superior".
> 
> NO, you arent. And unlike you, i have no desire to offend the many decent Americans on here by extrapolating further on the evils perpetrated on the world by the USA in the pursuit of money and power, unlike you, who clearly has no qualms about annoying your friends, then wondering why you dont have any.
> 
> Friend of meghan markels, are you?



hmmm..........been several days, and no response from our "expert" historical mind here to the truthful history I posted. 

I would say that speaks volumes of his knowledge and prejudice.


Stan

----------


## Big Wheeler

Hi Stan.You don't help yourself if you mock a stray "s"in Smarty's post.It's as irrelevant as you putting apostrophes twice in your post #64.Plural American is Americans not American's.It's well known that we Brits were not very nice to a lot of people on many occasions over the centuries.It's also a common belief that,on occasions,Americans have behaved in a similar way.My experience on my travels tells me that a lot of people don't like Brits or Americans that much but they tend to like Canadians,Aussies and New Zealanders,and the Irish.Speaking of whom I assume that you have Irish ancestry of whom at least one must have suffered at the hands of us Brits over the last 700 years.Assuming so,how long are you going to let the memory fester.Will there ever be an end?It's like Arabs and Israelis.At my Spanish home I have two Irish friends,one protestant and one catholic,who won't even share a room.I don't hold a grudge against Germans for the hard time they gave my dad and grandad getting on for a hundred years ago.Let it go,Stan.I'm fairly confident I'm more enlightened than my 700 years ago forbears.

----------

UKSmartypants (03-08-2021),WVYankee (03-11-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> hmmm..........been several days, and no response from our "expert" historical mind here to the truthful history I posted. 
> 
> I would say that speaks volumes of his knowledge and prejudice.
> 
> 
> Stan


Its too long winded to address, im not really interested in ploughing thought it, i dont have that much spare time to waste. Plus ofc,  you proved me right in the pointlessness of debating with you when you resorted to the primary school juvenile comeback "Ner ner ne ner ner you love meghan",  I mean ffs, grow up, i don't debate with 9-year-olds.

As for your claim for 'historical accuracy'.......     :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Unless you actually ARE 9 years old, based on some of your posts its a distinct possibility.....

----------


## Swedgin

??????????????????????????????????????????????????  ?????

LOL.  Dude.

Maybe you might want to look at the REST of the war.

El Alamein.

Normandy.

The Battle of Britain.

Taranto.

The British won some, and, lost some.

Just like everyone else on ALL sides in the Second World War.

But, fortunately, the Yanks joined in, the French Underground kept fighting and, the British managed to hold out long enough for dumbass to attack the Russians.....

(Just in case anyone forgot....there were a few months when the United Kingdom stood against the full might of Germany, all by themselves.....)

----------

WVYankee (03-11-2021)

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Hi Stan.You don't help yourself if you mock a stray "s"in Smarty's post.It's as irrelevant as you putting apostrophes twice in your post #64.Plural American is Americans not American's.It's well known that we Brits were not very nice to a lot of people on many occasions over the centuries.It's also a common belief that,on occasions,Americans have behaved in a similar way.My experience on my travels tells me that a lot of people don't like Brits or Americans that much but they tend to like Canadians,Aussies and New Zealanders,and the Irish.Speaking of whom I assume that you have Irish ancestry of whom at least one must have suffered at the hands of us Brits over the last 700 years.Assuming so,how long are you going to let the memory fester.Will there ever be an end?It's like Arabs and Israelis.At my Spanish home I have two Irish friends,one protestant and one catholic,who won't even share a room.I don't hold a grudge against Germans for the hard time they gave my dad and grandad getting on for a hundred years ago.Let it go,Stan.I'm fairly confident I'm more enlightened than my 700 years ago forbears.




Read post #65 and post #67 and you will understand why I am teasing smartypants in here. His historical knowledge is flawed, and he can't acknowledge any wrongdoing by the Royal Family or England. 

As for helping myself? Don't understand that remark - I am merely posting to a thread that I found interesting, and as one well versed in, British History, all I am doing is correcting him. 

Americans seem to love the British Royal Family, and I acknowledged in an earlier post, that Queen Elizabeth II's long reign is an amazing political accomplishment. But that family is really off-kilter on many things in the past and present. When your son and heir betrays his marriage vows, you don't take it out on his wife, nor put her in a position where her Royal protection was eliminated, and her status as a royal negated. The end result was her very untimely and poorly investigated death leaving behind two juvenile male children. One following the family Queen and Country route, the other, a juvenile mind, following his penis in all things. There is little to compliment or respect about the royals after that disastrous PR stunt, just because the Queen "wasn't pleased." 

The rest of my post, was historical record, and a few teasing lobs at smarty - harmless - but he couldn't take the heat, nor could he respond and negate my historical accounts.

Well, anyway, thanks for setting me straight, if that was your intention, but since I haven't wandered off of the reservation, your lecture fell on deaf ears. No - I am not a fan of the RF, as it exists in modern times from the 1980's on and certainly not a fan of their march to Empire in the 1800's.


Stan

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The rest of my post, was historical record, and a few teasing lobs at smarty - harmless - but he couldn't take the heat, nor could he respond and negate my historical accounts. 
> Stan



no no no.  Im quite happy to debate. But you went far beyond discussion, your posts  became juvenile and when i didnt take the bait, they became racist , bigotted and full of hate, and turned into ad hominem vitroil.

I want nothing to do with bitter hate filled cretins like you.  Twitter is full of people like you, and i dont engage. Keep it polite or fuck of and annoy someone else, I dont play your sick game.

----------


## Big Wheeler

Honest.I'm truly intrigued by the feelings of some Americans towards the British Empire as was.It's not like it was the only empire that ever existed throughout world history.In fact you've had a bit of a go at creating your own.Most European countries have had their own empires or at least some overseas posssessions so were they satisfactory in some way.They were all established in similar fashion,sort of "We come in peace.Shoot to kill,Jim."A large part of the immigration into the fledgling US was from citizens of those countries mostly looking for a better life.As they trekked west they came into conflict with the Native Americans and destroyed their culture in what an earlier correspondant described as "simply a land grab."That's an understatement if ever I heard one.
Similarly you are reaping what you sowed in your own version of apartheid as displayed by current events.On this side of the pond we have been dragged into it too because although our black immigration didn't really start until the 1950s(Thanks,Adolf)our black rights and BLM protestors have assumed North American blacks' history of abuses have taken place in the UK.That is absolutely not true.Whatever else these people say the UK is a very tolerant country.
So to sum up I would say that you and us,like everyone else ,are broadly similar.None of us are as pure as the driven snow.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Honest.I'm truly intrigued by the feelings of some Americans towards the British Empire as was.It's not like it was the only empire that ever existed throughout world history.In fact you've had a bit of a go at creating your own.Most European countries have had their own empires or at least some overseas posssessions so were they satisfactory in some way.They were all established in similar fashion,sort of "We come in peace.Shoot to kill,Jim."A large part of the immigration into the fledgling US was from citizens of those countries mostly looking for a better life.As they trekked west they came into conflict with the Native Americans and destroyed their culture in what an earlier correspondant described as "simply a land grab."That's an understatement if ever I heard one.
> Similarly you are reaping what you sowed in your own version of apartheid as displayed by current events.On this side of the pond we have been dragged into it too because although our black immigration didn't really start until the 1950s(Thanks,Adolf)our black rights and BLM protestors have assumed North American blacks' history of abuses have taken place in the UK.That is absolutely not true.Whatever else these people say the UK is a very tolerant country.
> So to sum up I would say that you and us,like everyone else ,are broadly similar.None of us are as pure as the driven snow.


How long has England/UK been England/UK?

How long has the United States of America, been the United States of America?

How long did it take these respective lands masses of people and governments...to correct slavery, then laws regarding slavery and racism, then work on the citizenry to enforce those laws regarding racism?

Empires is another matter, that perhaps could be put in perspective. Define empires and then define conquest...and then a comparison could be drawn up between England/UK and the United States of America.

I think I had it clocked in regarding America on something I used to write about - at about 83/84 years for America to deal with slavery. 1776 = The United States of America (ratified 1784 or some such date) and the American Civil War (of which slavery issues were no small part) 1861.

Historically, by comparison to other nations - they have been remarkable and praiseworthy, in my opinion anyways.

----------

