Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wolfcreek

All the hoopla over Diana’s death would fill a soap bubble the size of our galaxy. And once popped, nothing... Enough all(fricken)ready!

Come up with solid proof, or shut your pie hole. (not you WC)

That being said, I don’t have a problem with rational sorrow over Diana’s death. I was sorry to hear of it. The boys lost their mother and I don’t like to see that sort of thing.

I don’t use the term ‘rid ourselves’ in conjunction with England. Although we did fight for our independence and take it by force, we do have a special relationship with Great Britain. When push comes to shove, I’ll take Great Britain’s support up against just about anyone’s support globally. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and even Tony Blare stood by the U.S. when we needed them, and I’d like to think we would stand by them as well.

With what is taking place in the world today, I’m not sure Great Britain will always be there. If it weren’t, it would be a sad day for me and our nation.

Despite our differences, we have a lot of heritage mixed up with Great Britain and other nations surrounding it on the islands. I’d hate to see that heritage lost to swarms of third worlders who don’t have a clue when it comes to the 21st Century.


41 posted on 03/11/2010 2:11:46 PM PST by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

I agree with *the boys lost their mother* sadness, *it’s never a good thing*, blah blah but, the women who cried for a week or more.... come on! You didn’t even know the women.

My ancestry comes mainly from Ireland, Scotland and Wales. That England is screwing it up for the rest of Great Britain.


55 posted on 03/11/2010 2:32:39 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

“we do have a special relationship with Great Britain.”

‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.’
George Washington

You might do well to remember the horrific damage England inflicted upon is. The “special relationship” is designed to do nothing more than give England access to America’s power, to fulfill *their* foreign policy. It’s hard to think of a nation which, as a government, has dealt with the USA in a more cynical manner. They attacked us in 1812. They tried to split us again in the civil war, they conspired to bring us into WWI, literally demanding that we feed Americans into the British Army. They were bitter that we founght as Americans.
They fully threatened to sink our merchantmen while we were neutral, while criticizing Germany for doing it if the ship was headed to England.
After the war they wanted us to forgive all their war debts as “America’s rightful contribution”.
They demanded a fleet double the size of ours in the Naval Treaty of 1921.
England is the absolute root of the entire middle east conflict, and the India/Pak conflict, and now,,as we clean up their mess, they contribute a token force, and have the audacity to say *they* are helping US? Utterly Amazing!

England SOLD the Russians the jet engine for the MiG-15!

And now, Much of the international banking crisis leads straight to London.

England has been one of the greatest menaces to moral government, American freedom, and individual liberty on earth. It’s just disguised in a teacup. The only decent thing they have contributed is a series of explorers. And most of them were treated badly at home later.

As a final how do you do,,misery in Manchester, in the era of Oliver Twist and Ebeneezer Scrooge inspired 2 nice men. Marx and Engals.

With special freinds like england,, who needs enemies?

Of course, this is just my opinion.


57 posted on 03/11/2010 2:36:57 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
I've always been ambivalent toward the British monarchy and never quite understood the American public's mania over Diana. I thought Charles, a homely, quirky bore by any standard, married Diana because of pressure from his parents and the British 'establishment' so I felt a bit sorry for the 20-year-old woman he married in that absurd wedding back in 1981.

However, post-separation/divorce, Diana became more and more visibly promiscuous and her battles with the Royal Family were tedious and nothing anyone I knew could care about. Diana had a very comfortable lifestyle, two lovely children and a title, which is a big deal in the U.K. Her well-publicized complaints about her famous in-laws and the paparazzi fell on deaf ears in my house. She was passably attractive but nothing that would snap a man's around to stare at her had she not been famous.

This lawyers assertion that Diana's untimely, rather gruesome death was an "unexpected consequence" of some murky establishment plot to frighten her away from the millionaire Muslim playboy, 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, may or may not be true. After more than a dozen years, who really cares anymore?

While I have no use for the 'Royal Family' and never was enchanted by Princess Diana, I do respect our national and ethnic ties to Great Britain and of course, back in '97, I was sorry to learn of Diana's death at age 36 in a stupid and unnecessary car accident, plot or no plot. However, I thought the U.S. TV coverage was excessive and I slightly resented this near-worship of what seemed like a pampered, vapid and somewhat promiscuous young mother...but that's me.

59 posted on 03/11/2010 2:39:12 PM PST by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson