It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Queen Elizabeth Is A Bloated Parasite by Infowars.com

page: 22
26
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I like you. You're a fun mod. Cheers.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 




But the point still stands.


And just what point was that because I really couldn't see one that made any sort of sense at all,.



Right now, there are no rebels anymore to fight the good fight,


How on earth do you know that or what even qualifies you to make such a statement?
You know absolutely nothing about this country, it's people, it's laws or it's traditions and culture.

Exactly how many Brits do you actually know?



So unless people in your country wake the hell up, a future disagreement between the people and the backward royalty is a pretty one sided fight.


That's what Charles thought too.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


You really have got to stop spouting the same old nonsense that has been debunked so many times now it's really getting embarrassing.

And sorry but you've got no chance of goading me, or hopefully anyone else, into going off topic and discussing gun control etc.

You are so transparent in your attempts to change the subject when you are clearly losing this debate, why I don't know because you'd only lose those arguements too.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


He is right to a point. Eventually there is going to be a dispute with the people that want independants. The Irish might be all for a union now, but give it a 100 years. The scots already want to vote on it. Wales is completely ignored. Eventually this is going to come to a head. This isn't me speaking because I know the country, this is me speaking because I know history.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


First they ignore you,then they laugh at you ,then fight you and then accept it.

Seems you are on the verbal fighting stage.Official british figures gives 100 million and full statistical analysis of the population data gives a median figure of 1.8 billion.

Britain in some ways is like North Korea as far as spying on the public is concerned.


edit on 19-6-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lannister
 


What non-Brits tend not to realise is the ingrained love - hate relationship we have with each other that has existed since Roman times.
We ebb and flow and sometimes fall out with each other.
But when push comes to shove and when it really matters we will never desert each other.
There is a common bond that will always remain.

The Irish that want their independance already have it.

But despite what many would have you believe there are still incredibly close links between The Republic and The Union.

Scotland will choose as it see's fit......personally I think Scotland will be stronger if it remains some ties with the rest of the UK but it's for the Scots alone to decide upon.

I'm sure come closer to the vote someone will start a thread on it and we'll be able to discuss at length.

The Welsh aren't ignored - it's just that the independance movement isn't as strong in Wales as it is in Scotland.
If Scotland votes for independance then I wouldn't be too surprised to see Wales get a referendum.

As a matter of interest there is growing support for an English Parliament the same as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have whilst maintaining Westminster for Union matters etc.
There are also those who would be glad to see England free from what they see as the burden of Scotland etc.

I've expressed my opinions in various threads, I don't think it's appropriate to derail this thread further by going into them here.

As I said earlier - the ties that bind run deep.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Scotland could easily be rich with its massive oil and gas reserves then.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
The Queen is a dope dealer gangsta:

www.presstv.ir...

The committee of 300 by John Coleman confirms it.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


yielding enough power to not look like it and wielding enough power for total control...

Who chooses the Prime Minister?

What no Vote?

wiki:




The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the head of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister and Cabinet (consisting of all the most senior ministers, who are government department heads) are collectively accountable for their policies and actions to the Monarch, to Parliament, to their political party and ultimately to the electorate. The current Prime Minister, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, was appointed by the Queen on 11 May 2010.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


the opening/closing/disolving of parliament are just formal occasions just like the appointment/resignation of a prime minister in that technically the monarch can reject the choices of parliament but don't think its happened



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 




Scotland could easily be rich with its massive oil and gas reserves then.


What will be will be, it's Scotland's choice, simple as that.

As a slight aside, it's interesting that you appear to support Scotland's Right To Self-Determination yet would deny The Falkland Islanders that self same right.

Now I wonder why that may be?



The Queen is a dope dealer gangsta:


Well, that's not an unbiased source is it?
And because a French Presidential candidate said it that means it must be true.....or do you think it's true just because it fits in with your pre-conceived bigotted anti-UK viewpoint?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


add a little more from wiki, since everyone luvs it so much






The Prime Minister also acts as the public "face" and "voice" of Her Majesty's Government, both at home and abroad.

Under this arrangement Britain might appear to have two executives: the Prime Minister and Sovereign. The concept of "the Crown" resolves this paradox.[8] The Crown symbolises the state’s authority to govern: to make laws and execute them, impose taxes and collect them, declare war and make peace. Before the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 the Sovereign wore the Crown and exercised the powers it symbolises. Afterwards Parliament gradually forced Sovereigns to assume a neutral political position. Parliament placed the Crown in "commission", entrusting its authority to responsible Ministers (the Prime Minister and Cabinet), accountable for their policies and actions to Parliament and the people. Although the Sovereign still wears the Crown and her prerogative powers are still legally intact,[note 1] Parliament has removed her from everyday governance, leaving her in practice with three constitutional rights: to be kept informed, to advise, and to warn



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


LaRouche is known for alleging conspiracies by the British. LaRouche has said that the dominant imperialist strategic force acting on the planet today is not the United States, but the "Anglo-Dutch liberal system" of the British Empire, which he asserts is an oligarchic financial consortium like that of medieval Venice, more like a "financial slime-mold" than a nation.[48] According to this theory, London financial circles protect themselves from competition by using techniques of "controlled conflict" first developed in Venice, and LaRouche attributes many wars in recent memory to this alleged activity by the British.[49]

According to Chip Berlet and Dennis King, LaRouche has always been stridently anti-British and has included Queen Elizabeth II, the British Royal Family, and others, in his list of conspirators who are said to control the world's political economy and the international drug trade.[41][42][50] According to Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen, LaRouche is the "most illustrious" Anglophobe.[51] These views are reflected in three books authored by members of his organization:

Dope, Inc. by David P. Goldman, Konstandinos Kalimtgis and Jeffrey Steinberg, 1978 (ISBN 0-918388-08-2): this book discusses the history of narcotics trafficking, beginning with the Opium War, and alleges that British interests have continued to dominate the field up to the modern era, for example through money laundering in British offshore banking colonies. The heart of the conspiracy, according to LaRouche, is the financial elite of the City of London.

The Civil War and the American System by Allen Salisbury, 1979 (ISBN : 0918388023): alleges that British interests encouraged and financed the secession movement and supported the Confederacy against the Union in the American Civil War, because they preferred North America to be a primitive agrarian economy that they could dominate through policies of free trade.

The New Dark Ages Conspiracy by Carol White, 1980 (ISBN 0-933488-05-X): alleges that a group of British intellectuals led by Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells attempted to control scientific progress in order to keep the world backward and more easily managed by Imperialism. In this conspiracy theory, Wells wished Science to be controlled by some kind of priesthood and kept from the common man, while Russell wished to stifle it altogether by restricting it to a closed system of formal logic, that would prohibit the introduction of new ideas. This conspiracy also involved the promotion of the counterculture.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


seems like lot about a tea company pushing smack been known for long time, hope that is not a shocker for you who authorized it...and the smack for tea trade



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


There is much that I disagree with the UK's electoral and parliamentary process etc but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

After a General Election the leader of the majority, or largest party, is asked to visit The Queen where he or she asks for permission to form a government.
Permission has never been denied - it is purely a ceremonial and traditional task.

If permission were ever denied then it would lead to a constitutional crisis that I have no doubt would lead to the abolition of the monarchy.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Scotland could easily be rich with its massive oil and gas reserves then.


Braveheart one of Mel Gibson's best performances...rape my wife, would kill every born child for 10 generations, of the rapist or one they served, as hostile take over is a hostile take over....not some water downed leverage buyout



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


Seems like a lot of allegations and theories and very little definitive evidence to me.

And let's face it, none of it is new and sure, there could well be an element of truth in it all but what you've presented there is never going to convince anyone of anything.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I disagree some with your theory of outcome and don't let me bark remove any bark from any trees...

The Queen is not going to ever reliquish power in a crisis...that leave her powerless and there are some precautions in place that when and if it did happen, new appointed prime minister, priest and cabinet would be installed, the Queen get's what she wants.

That was part of the deal and ceremony or not, she going to get it and that is why she retains control of the puppet cabinet members enough to sway parliament anyway she wants and all the showboating is just to appease the peasants, like benny hill or monty python
edit on 19-6-2012 by Physic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


And you do realise that Braveheart was a Hollywood film and has very little in common with the historical FACTS surrounding William Wallace et al.

It was meant for entertainment - hell, even I hated the English when I watched it - but it wasn't real - sorry if I've shattered any of your illusions - and whilst I'm at it there's no Father Christmas as well!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Sure,There is evidence of the Queen financial hands in drugs. Have you forgotten the opium war against China? Why does Mi6 support wahabbism?Wahabbis are running the afghan drug network and muslim brotherhood and wahabbism are british fronts.




top topics



 
26
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join