Moderator: Edi
What about the colors they may add on the US dollar billskojikun wrote:You have the queen on your money? Cool. We don't have anything special on American money. And its boring in colour. Its mostly just flowery stupid stuff.Montcalm wrote:I think you`re right he should let his son have the job,his ears would`nt fit on the Canadian dollars.
While absolutely necessary for counterfeiting reasons, they are an ABOMINATION that should never, EVER be mentioned unless ABSOLUTELY necessary!!!Montcalm wrote:What about the colors they may add on the US dollar billskojikun wrote:You have the queen on your money? Cool. We don't have anything special on American money. And its boring in colour. Its mostly just flowery stupid stuff.Montcalm wrote:I think you`re right he should let his son have the job,his ears would`nt fit on the Canadian dollars.
Well, you all still have a lot to learn from out glorious currencyVorlon1701 wrote:Montcalm wrote:While absolutely necessary for counterfeiting reasons, they are an ABOMINATION that should never, EVER be mentioned unless ABSOLUTELY necessary!!!kojikun wrote:
What about the colors they may add on the US dollar bills
Damn stuff won't fold, and slips out of pockets 
oh hardly. this, actually, is my idea of a nicely coloured piece of US money;Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Putting your picture on them?
Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss (yes, the actor) already explored that possibility in The Two Georges.Typhonis 1 wrote:Shoot an islnd in the Carribean was making more for the Crown but hers an interesting thought What would the world be like if the USA remained a crown colony?
It's worth a read if you like the Alternate History genre.Alternate-world yarn from Oscar winner Dreyfuss and Hugo winner Turtledove (Worldwar: Upsetting the Balance, 1995). In this world, the American Revolution never happened, and the North American Union is an integral part of the British Empire--a union symbolized by the Gainsborough painting of the title, featuring George III and George Washington. The tranquility of the NAU- -peaceful, nonviolent, multicultural, technologically 1930s--is threatened only by the ruthless, fascist, separatist Sons of Liberty terrorist group. As the painting tours the NAU, alcoholic divorc‚ Colonel Thomas Bushell of the Royal American Mounties, along with custodian Kathleen Flannery, is given the task of guarding it. In New Liverpool (Los Angeles), used-car salesman Tricky Dick is murdered as a diversion while the Sons steal the painting--just days before King-Emperor Charles III is due to arrive. Bushell's boss, Sir Horace Bragg, and Governor-general Sir Martin Luther King are, understandably, upset. Bushell investigates assiduously, but fails to come up with the painting. Worse, someone highly placed in the RAMS is leaking information to the Sons. Eventually, in Victoria (Washington), Bushell will be called upon to prevent the assassination of Charles III. Despite the rather ponderous approach, Dreyfuss and Turtledove's might-have-been world--something like an indefinitely extended Victorian idyll--charms as it intrigues, and the above- average characters help compensate for the movie-ish sleuthing
Of course they were there for our benefit, and most colonists were more than willing to voluntarily give quartering to British soldiers. It was the fact that they eventually forced us to do so that pissed us off.Vorlon1701 wrote:The American Colonies were the most expensive (financially and militarily) colonies that Britain had. All those taxes that the people went up in arms against, the quartering of soldiers, was FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. He really was better off without them.HemlockGrey wrote:I crack up whenever I remember George III's reaction to American independence. It always reminds me of some kid, who, upon losing a baseball game, says "Well, I didn't really want to win, anyway"
Wouldn't that be a blue Citroen with the Quebec flag on top?Montcalm wrote:
Can i interest you in a blue charger with the Quebec flag on top.
It might have made a difference if there were faster and better commuication methods at the time as well.kojikun wrote:The colonists tried desperately to keep the peace with britain. Before the war broke out, noone spoke of revolution or independence, it was unthinkable and many of the founding fathers expressed this. Even after fighting broke out, but before we actually declared independence, we sent a letter to the king BEGGING him to cease fighting and allow us to remain good british citizens, but in his foolishness he rejected it, thinking it better to fight and kill the colonists then to accept their request for ceasefire and SURRENDER.
the real problem tho was that before the war the king had made it such that all our local democratic counciles had little to no say in things. not only that, but some fucknut of a councilman thought it important to write letters to the king saying how desperate the situation was, and how we were restless and wanting independence, so when our pleas for friendship got to britain they were ignored.
we would LITERALLY still be part of britain today had a very few people decided to keep level heads and not blow things out of proportion.
I think you are referring to the Tea Act of 1773, which led to the Boston "Tea Party."Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Brits probably call it the day us Yanks went apeshit.
Ahhh, our founding fathers. People now look at the Iraq war and say about how our founding fathers would've handled it peacefully. Hell, even I've heard some guys say that at my school.
BULLSHIT! These are the same guys that were blowing peoples heads off because of a tax on their breakfast beverage!
(Cookie to who can find out who's act I stole this from)
I know you're joking, but that wouldn't have worked out. The French colonies within the area that would eventually become the U.S.A. were failures with the notable exception of New Orleans. France didn't really have its priorities straight nor the foresight of Britain in realizing how best to utilize colonies (the Southern colonies in particular were enormously successful for Britain). France was just in it to suck out as much wealth as possible without much care for permanent settlement.NecronLord wrote:The American Upstarts Insurrection.
We should have just sold you all to france.
That's the point. Wreck the french economy, and get them to pay for it.Durran Korr wrote: I know you're joking, but that wouldn't have worked out. The French colonies within the area that would eventually become the U.S.A. were failures. France didn't really have its priorities straight nor the foresight of Britain in realizing how best to utilize colonies (the Southern colonies in particular were enormously successful for Britain).
*nods*YT300000 wrote:Anyway, after the Seven Years War, France was pretty weak, they wouldn't do too well with extra colonies.
So that Britain would be the only remaining superpower?NecronLord wrote:That's the point. Wreck the french economy, and get them to pay for it.Durran Korr wrote: I know you're joking, but that wouldn't have worked out. The French colonies within the area that would eventually become the U.S.A. were failures. France didn't really have its priorities straight nor the foresight of Britain in realizing how best to utilize colonies (the Southern colonies in particular were enormously successful for Britain).
RN - INFLEXIBLE and support ships arrive off canada.YT300000 wrote: So that Britain would be the only remaining superpower?
Clever.
But Canada still has more water than you. And trees. AND ROCKS!
BEAT THAT!
How effective of a colonial manager was Richelieu, though? While Britain was off establishing permanent colonies whose markets would generate massive amounts of wealth for itself, he was still having French settlers trapping fur and moving around nomadically.Seriously though, I call it the worst empire management in histroy. If only we'd had someone like Cardinal Richielieu as prime minister at the time, it never would have happened, as anyone with sense could tell that the demands of the british govt were downright robbery, esp without any real say in the running of the country.
