quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

You're a slut fer bewbage, ya know that, don'cha kitten?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Real, since you clearly cannot understand plain English, I will attempt to explain this on a third grade level just for you.

Now, I hope this explains everything to you, since you seem to have some problem understanding English. Perhaps English is a second language to you, which would explain how you have come up with some of your outlandish and absurd ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

even so, I'd be interested in hearing the proposal as to how the Queen might hold mineral rights over Texas (to grant to her distant cousin Mr Bush), which as well as not being in the Union at the time of the WoI, is as I understand it something of a special case when it comes to its relationship with the the Union even to this day, such that any such argument should be fascinating to hear.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

A Holocaust denier and an idiot to boot....what more needs to be said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what the hell do you think winning the war is kiddo?   Its when one country takes over another.  YOu know its really not that complicated, germany loses war and loses sovereignty, japan loses war and loses sovereignty.  

This is like high school basics.   Did you ever have a civic class in high school?

Didnt win the war, didnt win the war, you sond like some moronic parrot. Lets put this too you, suppose the war ( fighting ) was considered a stalemate. Then, without "winning" the war, America won her freedom. I realise this is complicated for you, but take your time and get back to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Let us assume that the Queen does indeed hold these mineral rights.

Let us next assume that being a rather nice old lady she gifts those mineral rights to me.

In which Court should I sue for compensation for the breach of my mineral rights, by elements of the American populace or their government, and the restoration of those rights to me such that I may exploit them?

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

That is a most unsatisfactory answer RO - it gives me no idea where to turn for redress and fails again to explain what benefit the supposed rights I have might be without such redress, which there must be should this be a legal matter.

If on the other hand you are advancing an argument that bankers control the world and then wish to associate those bankers with others in positions of power worldwide who benefit from such association, then this might be supportable on a notional basis. But it would not indicate any direct relationship between the Crown and the benefit of mineral rights in the US.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

BUNKUM, FAFF AND BOLLOCKS

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what the hell do you think winning the war is kiddo?   Its when one country takes over another.  YOu know its really not that complicated, germany loses war and loses sovereignty, japan loses war and loses sovereignty.  

This is like high school basics.   Did you ever have a civic class in high school?

Didnt win the war, didnt win the war, you sond like some moronic parrot. Lets put this too you, suppose the war ( fighting ) was considered a stalemate. Then, without "winning" the war, America won her freedom. I realise this is complicated for you, but take your time and get back to me.

yah thats like way kool n shit but you have not provided anything to support your notion that the king gave up title to any land rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what the hell do you think winning the war is kiddo?   Its when one country takes over another.  YOu know its really not that complicated, germany loses war and loses sovereignty, japan loses war and loses sovereignty.  

This is like high school basics.   Did you ever have a civic class in high school?

Didnt win the war, didnt win the war, you sond like some moronic parrot. Lets put this too you, suppose the war ( fighting ) was considered a stalemate. Then, without "winning" the war, America won her freedom. I realise this is complicated for you, but take your time and get back to me.

yah thats like way kool n shit but you have not provided anything to support your notion that the king gave up title to any land rights.

Treaty of Paris, Article one. Its clear enough, even for you.

Lets say you are right though, so here we have your version of history so far.

America didnt actually win the war of independence, we did. King George is no longer "The King who lost the Colonies" but da man himself. Further down the line, his German relations, lend money to his other German relations, so we can have WW1 to cause the depression. Following that, we have an excuse for WW2, to invent a holocaust just to keep you fooled. While we have you fooled, we build the twin towers and pack them full of sparklers ( Thermite to you ). Then, 25 years later we get them blown up and blame some Arab dude.

Why did we do this ?  Just to PISS YOU OFF.... get it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Real, more racist drivel from you about the holocaust.

The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! is an article by Glynn that appeared in the October 31, 1919, issue of The American Hebrew lamenting the poor conditions for European Jews after World War I. Glynn referred to these conditions as a potential "holocaust" and asserted that "six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas".[2][3] Because of these coincidences, the article has been by cited Holocaust-denial groups.