Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
Ironic, isn?t it, that the nation that fought
so hard to get rid of its ?king?, has now
become infested with something about as bad,
while the rest of the Empire found a way to make
that ?king? part of their system of checks
and balances?
A key part of that being that the Head of
State and the Head of Government are not the
same person.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the king
has become respected enough that the government follow him. It is also
the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well there. --scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum
of whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the
Iranian oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and
would like them back.
On 4/30/2026 6:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=ÿ <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the king
has become respected enough that the government follow him.ÿ It is also
the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well there.
--scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the Iranian oilfields.ÿ BP built those oilfields several decades ago and would like
them back.ÿ The oil patch has been talking about this for quite a while.
Lynn
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:50:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum
of whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the
Iranian oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and
would like them back.
Didn?t they get them back under the Shah? What was the point of the
CIA installing the Shah, then, if not to reverse the nationalization
of the oilfields?
On 4/30/26 19:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/30/2026 6:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=ÿ <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the king
has become respected enough that the government follow him.ÿ It is also
the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well there.
--scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the Iranian
oilfields.ÿ BP built those oilfields several decades ago and would
like them back.ÿ The oil patch has been talking about this for quite a
while.
Lynn
ÿÿÿÿThat well may be the case but I would hope that after the present unpleasantness is over the people of Iran are going to get the benefits
of any mineral resources which their nation has underground liquids or solids. The prior attempt by the UK with CIA and USA connivance to
overthrow the democratically chosen Prime Minister which resulted in
the return to power of self-exiled Shah which is what ultimately brought
the Islamic Revolutionary forces to power means something to the
reigning, not ruling, King of the UK.
ÿÿÿÿThat is no way to do regime change and Trump should make
excuses and get out the way.ÿ Right now the Blockade he boasts
of is holding up free passage of the Strait of Homuz.
ÿÿÿÿbliss
On 4/30/2026 11:36 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 4/30/26 19:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/30/2026 6:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=ÿ <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while >>>>> the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the king >>>> has become respected enough that the government follow him.ÿ It is also >>>> the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well there. >>>> --scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the Iranian
oilfields.ÿ BP built those oilfields several decades ago and would
like them back.ÿ The oil patch has been talking about this for quite
a while.
Lynn
ÿÿÿÿÿThat well may be the case but I would hope that after the present
unpleasantness is over the people of Iran are going to get the benefits
of any mineral resources which their nation has underground liquids or
solids. The prior attempt by the UK with CIA and USA connivance to
overthrow the democratically chosen Prime Minister which resulted in
the return to power of self-exiled Shah which is what ultimately brought
the Islamic Revolutionary forces to power means something to the
reigning, not ruling, King of the UK.
ÿÿÿÿÿThat is no way to do regime change and Trump should make
excuses and get out the way.ÿ Right now the Blockade he boasts
of is holding up free passage of the Strait of Homuz.
ÿÿÿÿÿbliss
We, the USA, are only blockading ships going to and from Iran.ÿ Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Persian Gulf countries are
welcome to run the Strait and hopefully the Iranians will not shoot or
mine them.
I saw a video of two empty huge cruise liners from Abu Dhabi run the
Strait at 35+ knots.ÿ They were flying for such big ships!
Lynn
On 4/30/2026 11:04 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:50:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum
of whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the
Iranian oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and
would like them back.
Didn?t they get them back under the Shah? What was the point of the
CIA installing the Shah, then, if not to reverse the nationalization
of the oilfields?
The first Shah of Iran, back in the 1930s.
ÿÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
"The next year, 1932, he surprised the British by unilaterally canceling
the oil concession awarded to William Knox D'Arcy (and the Anglo-Persian
Oil Company), which was slated to expire in 1961. The concession granted Persia 16% of the net profits from APOC oil operations. The Shah wanted
21%. The British took the dispute before the League of Nations. Before a decision was made by the League, the company and Iran compromised and a
new concession was signed on 26 April 1933.[93]"
Lynn
On 4/30/2026 6:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:king
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the
alsohas become respected enough that the government follow him. It is
there.the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well
--scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the Iranian >oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and would like
them back. The oil patch has been talking about this for quite a while.
On 4/30/26 22:36, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/30/2026 11:04 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:50:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum
of whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the
Iranian oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and
would like them back.
Didn?t they get them back under the Shah? What was the point of the
CIA installing the Shah, then, if not to reverse the nationalization
of the oilfields?
The first Shah of Iran, back in the 1930s.
ÿÿÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
"The next year, 1932, he surprised the British by unilaterally
canceling the oil concession awarded to William Knox D'Arcy (and the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company), which was slated to expire in 1961. The
concession granted Persia 16% of the net profits from APOC oil
operations. The Shah wanted 21%. The British took the dispute before
the League of Nations. Before a decision was made by the League, the
company and Iran compromised and a new concession was signed on 26
April 1933.[93]"
Lynn
ÿÿÿÿThey should learn to get along without the rescources of other nations except in honest trade.ÿ So read a bit further in the 20th Century of Persian
aka Iran's history. The people of Iran were not profitting by any of the deals
made long ago by dead puppets of the foreign nations.ÿ Nor do they profit much under the present regime.
ÿÿÿÿWho living in the USA is happy with their slogan of "Death to
America"?
If the USA funded a revolution it would be very bloody and if
unsuccessful then
the regrets will go on for quite a while.
ÿÿÿÿTrump is incapable of dealing with the resistance of a people who
call the USA,ÿ "the great Satan", follow a faith that justifices terrorism and suicide. DJT is not subtle enough use intelligence from
the Israelis to undermine the regime enough that change will come.
It might take a while but most of these cult thing eventually
self destruct or are taken to their limits and then are destroyed.
ÿÿÿÿbliss
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:50:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/30/2026 6:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the king
has become respected enough that the government follow him. It is also
the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well there.
--scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the Iranian
oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and would like
them back. The oil patch has been talking about this for quite a while.
Then he is as foolish as any (now rather old, I should think) Cuban
exiles who expect to get their haciendas, their peons, and their sugar contracts back.
Then he is as foolish as any (now rather old, I should think) Cuban
exiles who expect to get their haciendas, their peons, and their sugar >contracts back.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:50:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/30/2026 6:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Ironic, isnt it, that the nation that fought so hard to get rid of
its king, has now become infested with something about as bad, while
the rest of the Empire found a way to make that king part of their
system of checks and balances?
It is ironic indeed that after 250 years we have the King of England
come to visit us to promote democracy.
A key part of that being that the Head of State and the Head of
Government are not the same person.
This is the case in Thailand, where it works very well because the king
has become respected enough that the government follow him. It is also
the case in Iran where the Ayatollah has become respected enough that
the government follows him, but it doesn't actually work so well there.
--scott
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the Iranian
oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and would like
them back. The oil patch has been talking about this for quite a while.
Then he is as foolish as any (now rather old, I should think) Cuban
exiles who expect to get their haciendas, their peons, and their sugar contracts back.
On 5/1/2026 1:59 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 4/30/26 22:36, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/30/2026 11:04 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:50:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Charles was visiting Trump to make sure that BP, British Petroleum
of whom Charles is a major stockholder, will get control of the
Iranian oilfields. BP built those oilfields several decades ago and
would like them back.
Didn?t they get them back under the Shah? What was the point of the
CIA installing the Shah, then, if not to reverse the nationalization
of the oilfields?
The first Shah of Iran, back in the 1930s.
ÿÿÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
"The next year, 1932, he surprised the British by unilaterally
canceling the oil concession awarded to William Knox D'Arcy (and the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company), which was slated to expire in 1961. The
concession granted Persia 16% of the net profits from APOC oil
operations. The Shah wanted 21%. The British took the dispute before
the League of Nations. Before a decision was made by the League, the
company and Iran compromised and a new concession was signed on 26
April 1933.[93]"
Lynn
ÿÿÿÿÿThey should learn to get along without the rescources of other
nations
except in honest trade.ÿ So read a bit further in the 20th Century of
Persian
aka Iran's history. The people of Iran were not profitting by any of
the deals
made long ago by dead puppets of the foreign nations.ÿ Nor do they profit
much under the present regime.
ÿÿÿÿÿWho living in the USA is happy with their slogan of "Death to
America"?
If the USA funded a revolution it would be very bloody and if
unsuccessful then
the regrets will go on for quite a while.
ÿÿÿÿÿTrump is incapable of dealing with the resistance of a people who
call the USA,ÿ "the great Satan", follow a faith that justifices
terrorism
and suicide. DJT is not subtle enough to use intelligence from
the Israelis to undermine the regime enough that change will come.
It might take a while but most of these cult things eventually
self-destruct or are taken to their limits and then are destroyed.
ÿÿÿÿÿbliss
Both you and I have zero power over the nation known as the United
Kingdom.ÿ They are going to do what they want to do.
Lynn
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:that
Then he is as foolish as any (now rather old, I should think) Cuban
exiles who expect to get their haciendas, their peons, and their sugar >>contracts back.
Oh, I met people when I was in school in Atlanta who seemed to think
somehow their family would get their plantations back if just thosedarned
Lincoln Republicans would get out of office and George Wallace would fix >everything. Generations have been taught that they suffered aninjustice
and they are still hoping for repayment.
British Petroleum of
whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Both you and I have zero power over the nation known as the United Kingdom. They are going to do what they want to do.
Lynn
Of course they are. But they are only the remmant of the
old BE.
What they have done in the past is remembered among the colonized
nations that they exploited.
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:[...]
British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:[...]
British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
I too would like to see a proper citation.
On 5/2/2026 11:07 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:[...]
British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
I too would like to see a proper citation.
Not the best possible source, but Co Pilot says:
"The British Royal Family's finances are partly private, but any
significant ownership in a major public company like BP would be visible through:
UK disclosure rules for major shareholdings
U.S. SEC filings for BP's ADRs
Institutional ownership databases
Insider ownership reports
Since none list Charles III, the evidence strongly supports that he does
not own BP stock at any reportable level."
pt
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
ÿBritish Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
On 5/2/2026 11:07 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:[...]
British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
I too would like to see a proper citation.
Not the best possible source, but Co Pilot says:
"The British Royal Family?s finances are partly private, but any
significant ownership in a major public company like BP would be visible through:
UK disclosure rules for major shareholdings
U.S. SEC filings for BP?s ADRs
Institutional ownership databases
Insider ownership reports
Since none list Charles III, the evidence strongly supports that he does
not own BP stock at any reportable level."
On 5/2/2026 11:07 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:[...]
ÿ British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
I too would like to see a proper citation.
Not the best possible source, but Co Pilot says:
"The British Royal Family?s finances are partly private, but any
significant ownership in a major public company like BP would be visible through:
UK disclosure rules for major shareholdings
U.S. SEC filings for BP?s ADRs
Institutional ownership databases
Insider ownership reports
Since none list Charles III, the evidence strongly supports that he does
not own BP stock at any reportable level."
pt
On 5/2/2026 10:17 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 5/2/2026 11:07 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:[...]
ÿ British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
I too would like to see a proper citation.
Not the best possible source, but Co Pilot says:
"The British Royal Family?s finances are partly private, but any
significant ownership in a major public company like BP would be
visible through:
UK disclosure rules for major shareholdings
U.S. SEC filings for BP?s ADRs
Institutional ownership databases
Insider ownership reports
Since none list Charles III, the evidence strongly supports that he
does not own BP stock at any reportable level."
People like the British Royal Family own things which own other
things. Trusts and such. Good luck drilling through them.
On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
ÿBritish Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,
Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.
It might be dangerous to hold your breath whilst waiting.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 493843:35:36 |
| Calls: | 146 |
| Files: | 547 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (97K bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,650 |