Democrats: Party Of The Rich

[rollwave]

Well looky here. John Kerry has raised $175 million . That's more than Bush raised in 2000. Billionaires are flocking to Senator Flip Flop's campaign in an attempt to buy the White House. George Soros, Steve Jobs, Lee Iaccocoa, Warren Buffett, Barbera Streisand, and the rest of the Hollywood crowd are giving it up for the Dems. I thought the Dems were supposed to be the party of the downtrodden? Typical Democrat hypocrisy. They also claim to be the party that has helped African Americans too. Yet it was Republican Abraham Lincoln who led the Civil War that freed the slaves against Southern Democrats. It was Democrats in the South that oppressed Blacks for 100 years after the Civil War. Politicians in the South were almost exclusively Democrats. And to top it off, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It was LBJ's Great Society that created welfare and housing projects that destroyed Black families. There's another great liberal idea for you. Black illigitimacy soared after the Great Society programs were enacted. Yet they are able to claim to be the party of the minorities just as they accuse Republicans of being the party of the rich.

Oops! I forgot another prominent billioaire: Theresa Heinz Kerry. :D

[Alex H]

Republicans: Party of the Would Be Rich If Only I Can Fuck Over Enough People.

[Illuminati]

One word - Sources? ;)

[clocker]

Two words- so what?

Is it a surprise to you that Prsidential politics is a high stakes game?

If raising big bucks and consorting with the rich is a "bad thing" then I suppose you consider Bush to be worse...he has raised considerably more than 175 million.
And HE does it under the guise of "conducting Presidential business" so the public gets to pay for it.

[Rat Faced]

Although I'd agree there really isnt much difference between The Democrats and The Republicans these days (Just look at how they vote in Congress/Senate).....

You show an alarming lack of knowledge of History rollwave.

The "American Civil War" was started for economic reasons, not because of Slavery. The only reason that Slavery became an issue was due to the Black Americans wishing to fight for the Unionists.

It wasn't even, strictly speaking, a Civil War...

The Southern States paid most of the Federal Taxes and when they decided to leave the Union (which, as a Voluntary Union, they had every right to do) they became in effect an independant nation.

The Union therefore invaded the Confederacy... One country against another.

Abraham Lincoln also stopped Slaves being released immediatly.

After General David Hunter issued an order declaring free all the slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, President Lincoln quickly overruled him and used the occasion to press his own plan for gradual emancipation with compensation to owners.

Blacks were also pressed into service for the Union side (after some initially had to fight for the right to fight) and were paid considerably less than the white soldiers.

The original Emancipation declaration also, for some unknown reason, didnt include Maryland or the Union States... I think it was 6 years after the war that Slavery actually stopped in the Northern States, although it was never very common in the Union to start with.


As to the Democrats record on the Minorities:

The prison population under Clinton DOUBLED due to the Drugs Laws he implemented...most of this was for possesion of Drugs, not dealing.

The sentence for possesion of Crack (mostly used by Minorities) is THREE TIMES greater than that for possesion of Cocaine (mostly used by Rich White Boys)..


What type of party attacks its own voters?

Do you see Republicans come down hard on Tax Evasion/Avoidance?

Do you see them come down hard on Companies poluting the environment?

No, you dont...

On the other hand...you dont see Democrats coming down hard on these things either... The Minorities are an easy target for any Government.

[rollwave]

The problem with liberals is that most have zero knowledge of history. Ever hear of the Civil War? Abraham Lincoln? Who was the president during the Civil War? Answer: A. Lincoln, the first Republican president. What was major cause of the Civil War? Ever hear of slavery? The Great Society? Civil Rights Act of 1965? Try going to the library and reading some history books instead of relying in Al Frankin, Michael Moore, and the Nation for information.

[Rat Faced]

I do read History, often... I love the subject.

Yes, ive heard of "The Civil War"...and ive just told you why "STRICTLY SPEAKING" it wasnt one.

The North was, by and large anti-slavery...but it was legal and practised by a minority. The incoming Government was also anti-slavery...but did not try and emancipate the Slaves in the Southern States.. In fact, on March 2nd 1861 Congress passed:


"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

ie: One of the 1st acts of Lincoln and Congress was to amend the Constitution so that Washington couldnt force any of the States to abolish Slavery.


The Union was Voluntary, some states left... Unfortunatly they paid most of the Federal Taxes and the North was forced to invade or go Bankrupt.

They left because it had been declared that in "New Territories", slavery would not be allowed... Not because the US Government tried to force them to give up slavery.

They decided that this was one insult too much, after subsidising Northern Business Interests up until 1846 by way of Federal funding that they didnt get any benefit from but paid the majority of.... and now they couldnt have any influence in the settlement of the New Territories...

From Georgias own Declaration of Cause:


This question was before us.

We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution.

This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end.

This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South.

We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it.

These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great.

The case of the South was impregnable.

The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.


(Ive opened up this segment, which ws written as one paragraph..for ease of reading, however i have not changed any sentence or the context)


The 1st shots fired were by the new Confederacy, after the North refused to withdraw the Union Army out of South Carolina...and so they attacked Fort Sumpter on 12th April 1961.

In their eyes, this was a Foreign Army on their soil.

Yes, the Slaves were freed because of it... However it was Free Black Americans in the North, mostly Slaves that had escaped from the South...that made slavery a major issue. Until then it was just one of many...mainly economic.

Like i said, read the emancipation declaration by General Hunter... which named South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. ie: Slavery was still legal everywhere else. The last slaves in the South were released 2 years after the war had finished. The last in the North 6 years afterwards.

What has the Civil Rights Act of 1965 got to do with 19th Century History? Other than being influenced by it and events afterwards?


Lincoln took advantage of a situation, like any Good President would.

The Northern economy wasnt Slave Orientated..it existed, but nowhere near as much as in the South, whose economy was almost entirely Slave Orientated. It was disapproved of generally in the North...was one of those "minor issues" that pissed off the South, other than the huge Tax Burdon it was shouldering, which was disproportionate to the number of Representatives it had in Washington...it was getting fucked up the ass... (Remember that "No Taxation without Representation" Argument?....wonder where i heard that? Oh yeah,...reason for independance in the 1st place :rolleyes: )

The Black Americans in the North were willing to fight, he gave them that right and [/B]made[B] slavery in the Southern States into "The Big Issue".


Yes, Lincoln was a great man....but not the Saint you picture him.

He slowed Congress down... They wanted to emancipate immediately, he didnt...he wanted it gradual and with compensation to the white owners. He also had no interest in the Slave Economy of the South, other than a dislike of it, when he came to office... He just didnt want it spreading, and pushed for its abolision in the Northern States...but NOT by Federal Act, he wanted each State to do what was in its own interests... This was actually the sensible approach, as to go the other way would have caused even more trouble.

[rollwave]

The problem with you libs is you people get all caught up in minutiae and miss the big picture. Without slavery there is no Civil War. The South was fighting to protect their way of life. After Lincoln's inauguration, Souther state started to ceceed one by one because they saw Lincoln as being an abolitionist who would end their way of life and take away their 'property.' Lincoln didn't immediately call for the end of slavery because he felt that stopping its spread would eventually kill it. Once the Confederacy( every one a Democrat) fired on Fort Sumter the war began. After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclomation of 1862. Lincoln would be killed 3 years later by a Democrat. True the war wasn't begun to free the slaves, but that was the end result. The South sure as hell was fighting to preserve slavery, even though the majority of soldiers didn't own slaves.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by rollwave@1 July 2004 - 18:07
The problem with you libs is you people get all caught up in minutiae and miss the big picture. Without slavery there is no Civil War. The South was fighting to protect their way of life. After Lincoln's inauguration, Souther state started to ceceed one by one because they saw Lincoln as being an abolitionist who would end their way of life and take away their 'property.' Lincoln didn't immediately call for the end of slavery because he felt that stopping its spread would eventually kill it. Once the Confederacy( every one a Democrat) fired on Fort Sumter the war began. After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclomation of 1862. Lincoln would be killed 3 years later by a Democrat. True the war wasn't begun to free the slaves, but that was the end result. The South sure as hell was fighting to preserve slavery, even though the majority of soldiers didn't own slaves.
Only because he was forced to back down from his 19th May 1862 proclamation of nullifying General Hunters' (A Democrat) Emancipation Edict of the 9th May.

So he re-proclaimed it (provisonally) on 22nd September 1862...

The proclamation wasnt until 1st January 1863, and excluded The Union States, Tennessee, southern Louisiana, and parts of Virginia.


You make it sound like he did it all off his own back, and all Slaves were freed...they werent, not even in the North.


If your going to use History in a debate...at least know the subject matter :P


Oh, and im not a Democrat....


Im a Constitutional Monarchist ;)



I think all this shows is that whereas now The Republicans are to the Right and The Democrats to the Left...

150 years ago it was the other way around :P

[clocker]

Originally posted by rollwave@1 July 2004 - 11:07
The problem with you libs is you people get all caught up in minutiae and miss the big picture.
If by "minutiae" you mean "facts", then you're partially right.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by rollwave@1 July 2004 - 17:22
The problem with liberals is that most have zero knowledge of history. Ever hear of the Civil War? Abraham Lincoln? Who was the president during the Civil War? Answer: A. Lincoln, the first Republican president. What was major cause of the Civil War? Ever hear of slavery? The Great Society? Civil Rights Act of 1965? Try going to the library and reading some history books instead of relying in Al Frankin, Michael Moore, and the Nation for information.
A classic example of retorting to what one wished the other person said rather than what they actually said.

[vidcc]

Not wishing to get too involved with this because it's not exactly "current affairs" but History is clouded with inacuracies and it depends on which source one chooses as to how much sun is blocked out. Remember that the word "history" comes from the made up theory i just made up "his story" meaning it's only as good as the viewpoint of the historian.

Of course there are certain facts that can be proven and Rat has done his homework very well or at least it seems that way

To rollwave directly on the comment of the "big picture".... the big picture couldn't exist without the components to get it to that size and if one only uses the components one approves of then your big picture may shrink or even colaspe under the strain of having insuficient framework.
All that said the people of Lincons day are not the people of today for either party so to use such history is as irrelivent to the debates of today as blaming modern Italians for any wrong doings of the roman empire

[j2k4]

Hmmm.

From "Democrats: Party of the rich" to Lincoln, slavery, secession and the Civil War in several quick posts-

Too messy for me; I only have high boots for forum duty, not waders. ;)

Slog to your heart's content, y'all! :)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 14:22
Hmmm.

From "Democrats: Party of the rich" to Lincoln, slavery, secession and the Civil War in several quick posts-

Too messy for me; I only have high boots for forum duty, not waders. ;)

Slog to your heart's content, y'all! :)
actually it was the first post of the thread that went to the extremes

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+1 July 2004 - 16:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 1 July 2004 - 16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2004 - 14:22
Hmmm.

From "Democrats: Party of the rich" to Lincoln, slavery, secession and the Civil War in several quick posts-

Too messy for me; I only have high boots for forum duty, not waders. ;)

Slog to your heart&#39;s content, y&#39;all&#33; :)
actually it was the first post of the thread that went to the extremes[/b][/quote]
The creator of the thread may take it wherever he likes, vid. :D

In any case, political affiliation is spread more-or-less evenly across the spectrum of social standing and class; Republicans and Democrats are split almost 1 for 1 in the U.S. (makes me wonder why the same proportion doesn&#39;t exist among the Americans on this board-there is an easily discernable fact to be gleaned, but, never mind that.)

Blacks no longer uniformly vote Democrat, even though the Dems still attract a strong majority of the black vote.

Hispanics vote similarly, although the majority is not quite so strong for the Dems as it is with blacks.

Oddly, Cuban refugees have a curiously strong Republican streak.

Just as oddly, Jews vote Democrat in large numbers, even though they are better represented, especially internationally (Israel) by Republicans.

Here&#39;s the kicker, though:

The Hollywood crowd is, statistically, almost 100% Liberal Democrat; I can count the Conservatives on two hands, if I look real hard.

Hollywood-probably the densest population of wealth outside NYC proper (another bastion of wealth and liberalism), and liberal to the total exclusion, almost, of any other political discipline.

Famous folks like Barbra Streisand, who back Kerry to the hilt, equate Bush to Hitler and Stalin, and twist the arms of the local gendarmes to keep the likes of you and I off a public beach near her home.

Barbra Streisand, who flouts zoning laws, and demands a "no-fly" zone over her estate.

Barbra Streisand, whose website advocates stringent environmental standards for you, but not her.*

She and Kerry have much in common, and more in common with Michael Moore tham Michael Moore does with any of us.

Why, pray tell, do you think this is the case?

*Sounds kind of extreme to me.

[vidcc]

J2 i can honestly say i have no idea why anyone supports a particular party because i can&#39;t read minds. Perhaps the Hollywood group being more cosmopolitan than most Americans can see the merrits of middle thinking...who knows.

I haven&#39;t thought of visiting the streisand website before now but i get the feeling my firewall would block it :lol: .... anyway i was wondering how you came to the conclusion that she was for stringent enviroment controls for all "except herself". Perhaps you could link to the evidence that brought you to this conclusion.
i don&#39;t think that to be a democrat you have to allow everyone in your personal space so to speek, perhaps babs is guilty of having a big head to match the nose, If she flouts the law hopefully she will pay the price. But regardless of the "do you know who i am" habit of the hollywood stars perhaps they vote democrat because they do care about issues that affect many less well off Americans and feel that the Democrats will help more than the republicans...this is of course a matter of opinion.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@1 July 2004 - 21:40
Perhaps the Hollywood group being more cosmopolitan than most Americans can see the merrits of middle thinking...who knows.

perhaps they vote democrat because they do care about issues that affect many less well off Americans and feel that the Democrats will help more than the republicans...this is of course a matter of opinion.
I&#39;d love to have it explained to me how being "cosmopolitan" relates to "enlightenment", and how that, in turn, translates into effective and logical reasoning .

I care about issues that affect "less-well-off" Americans too, vid, because (at the moment, anyway) I am one.

I guess I define the issues differently, eh?

Good night. :)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 20:16

I&#39;d love to have it explained to me how being "cosmopolitan" relates to "enlightenment", and how that, in turn, translates into effective and logical reasoning .



it doesn&#39;t translate to "enlightenment" it just means that they may have seen different ways of doing things and may feel that those ways would be beneficial to us...it&#39;s opinion and it has as much relevence to logical reasoning as yours and my opinions have.

I care about issues that affect "less-well-off" Americans too, vid, because (at the moment, anyway) I am one.

I guess I define the issues differently, eh?

Oh i have no doubt which is why i said it&#39;s a matter of opinion that the democrats would help more.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 18:13

Famous folks like Barbra Streisand, who back Kerry to the hilt, equate Bush to Hitler and Stalin, and twist the arms of the local gendarmes to keep the likes of you and I off a public beach near her home.

Barbra Streisand, who flouts zoning laws, and demands a "no-fly" zone over her estate.

Barbra Streisand, whose website advocates stringent environmental standards for you, but not her.*


Oh really, j2.

This particular debating trick is way beneath you.

You really want to pick a single person and use her to personify Democrats in general?
Or even the much maligned "Hollywood liberals"?

Shall I spend a few minutes with our good buddy Google and find an equally despicable Bush supporter to personify Republicans?

We can stage our very own Celebrity Death Match.

[protak]

A quote from a recently sworn in Canadian citizen..(It&#39;s Canada day here)
"The American dream is to become rich" " The Canadian dream is to live a better life". Just my thought&#39;s shared openly, between friend&#39;s. :lol:
Tim :)

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by rollwave@1 July 2004 - 12:22
The problem with liberals is that most have zero knowledge of history. Ever hear of the Civil War? Abraham Lincoln? Who was the president during the Civil War? Answer: A. Lincoln, the first Republican president. What was major cause of the Civil War? Ever hear of slavery? The Great Society? Civil Rights Act of 1965? Try going to the library and reading some history books instead of relying in Al Frankin, Michael Moore, and the Nation for information.
if the repulicans have their way no one will, for lack of lack of funds.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+2 July 2004 - 00:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 July 2004 - 00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2004 - 18:13

Famous folks like Barbra Streisand, who back Kerry to the hilt, equate Bush to Hitler and Stalin, and twist the arms of the local gendarmes to keep the likes of you and I off a public beach near her home.

Barbra Streisand, who flouts zoning laws, and demands a "no-fly" zone over her estate.

Barbra Streisand, whose website advocates stringent environmental standards for you, but not her.*


Oh really, j2.

This particular debating trick is way beneath you.

You really want to pick a single person and use her to personify Democrats in general?
Or even the much maligned "Hollywood liberals"?

Shall I spend a few minutes with our good buddy Google and find an equally despicable Bush supporter to personify Republicans?

We can stage our very own Celebrity Death Match. [/b][/quote]
Took the words right out of my mouth.

j2 should be a politician.

How does pointing out a campaign contributor&#39;s eccentricities make a point?

Well....it doesn&#39;t. <_<

The password is: Spin Doctor

[BigBank_Hank]

One small detail that your leaving out Clocker is that conservative celebrities don’t attack Kerry. As apposed to all the liberal celebrities that attack Bush constantly. Howard Stern in another example of a liberal celebrity that is dedicated to removing Bush from office. He constantly hammers Bush on his radio show that isn’t even a political talk show. You don’t see anything like that from Conservatives.

Another example is the people of this board. The majority of the people here are liberal and do nothing but put down the President, and some even have the President doing or saying stupid things in their sig/avatar. J2, rollwave, and myself don’t like Kerry but you don’t see us doing things like that.

[clocker]

Isn&#39;t Rush L. a "conservative celebrity"?

Besides, do you attribute the relative silence of "conservative celebrities" ( a phenomonon that you have posited, not I, BTW) to good manners or a moral highground?

I have noticed that ALL of the Bush campaign ads do NOTHING EXCEPT attack Kerry.
Nary a word about Bush&#39;s accomplishments, they are unremittingly negative ads.
Perhaps your silent celebrities are content that the GOP is doing a better job of Kerry bashing than they could.

[BigBank_Hank]

Yes Rush is a conservative celebrity, its also Rush’s job to talk about politics. Barbra Streisand, Steven Speilberg, Howard Stern aren’t political commentaries but they continue to attack everyday.

And you must have never seen a Kerry ad if you think the GOP is in attack mode. Kerry has nothing to run on and does nothing but attack the President. All he ever does is criticize the President for the things that he does wrong but he never talks about what he’s going to do. BTW incase you didn’t know John Kerry served in Vietnam.

[clocker]

Barbra Streisand, Steven Speilberg, Howard Stern aren’t political commentaries but they continue to attack everyday.
As is their right and indeed, duty, as participants in the democratic process.

And you must have never seen a Kerry ad if you think the GOP is in attack mode.
Kerry was just in CO recently and as a result the ad campaign was in high gear.
The ads they were showing here ( and it&#39;s possible that ads are regionally targeted) never even mentioned Bush or the GOP.

BTW incase you didn’t know John Kerry served in Vietnam.
?
What lead you to believe that I was unaware of that little factoid?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@2 July 2004 - 10:03
. Kerry has nothing to run on and does nothing but attack the President.
The personality attacks are a 2 way street so i won&#39;t debate them as you know i look at policy not personality and i find this character assasination tactic beneath contempt whoever the target.

you say Kerry has nothing to run on. Have you read his manifesto and compared it to Bush&#39;s point for point? If you could debate the merrits of each issue for us so we can assertain why you feel this way it would be appreciated....well i would appreciate it :D

What exactly are you looking for that is missing from the Kerry manifesto that Bush has in his?

The issues are the same for all candidates so could we have a reason why you feel the candidate lacks on their stance not just say they lack.

[Rat Faced]

Wasnt Ronald Reagon a Celebrity?

Isnt Arnie?

A question for you....

If the people that know them, didnt support them for office....why should anyone else?


Anyway..Celebrities... how about Rachel Hunter, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer... These people arent silent on attacking Democrats and supporting Bush.

Im sure your looking through tinted Glasses...



@ Hank


President doing or saying stupid things in their sig/avatar

Glad you finally accept he does and says stupid things... even if you still have trouble believing the USA would vote a moron into office...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2004 - 16:00
Glad you finally accept he does and says stupid things... even if you still have trouble believing the USA would vote a moron into office...
....and we probably are again this November, whether it&#39;s the Dem or the Repub. <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+1 July 2004 - 23:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 1 July 2004 - 23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2004 - 18:13

Famous folks like Barbra Streisand, who back Kerry to the hilt, equate Bush to Hitler and Stalin, and twist the arms of the local gendarmes to keep the likes of you and I off a public beach near her home.

Barbra Streisand, who flouts zoning laws, and demands a "no-fly" zone over her estate.

Barbra Streisand, whose website advocates stringent environmental standards for you, but not her.*


Oh really, j2.

This particular debating trick is way beneath you.

You really want to pick a single person and use her to personify Democrats in general?
Or even the much maligned "Hollywood liberals"?

Shall I spend a few minutes with our good buddy Google and find an equally despicable Bush supporter to personify Republicans?

We can stage our very own Celebrity Death Match.[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s relevance is only that it&#39;s an interesting phenomenon; if, as you say (and I agree), she does not typify Democrats (very true&#33;), it is beyond doubt that she typifies a liberal, and especially liberal power-players: actors and entertainers, liberal politicians, etc., who think throwing more of your money at problems they perceive is just fine.

Liberal politicians are notorious for promoting a non-productive public school system to the exclusion of any other; vouchers for private options are viewed askance, because they do not foment the "system".

They short-circuit all private options (because their election campaigns are under-written by the N.E.A.), stating that such institutions undercut the public system.

Then they send their own children to private schools.

This fact somehow escapes people.

Why do the Democrats allow someone like Barbra Streisand to define them?

Why do blacks continue to put up with that greasy, extortionist weasel Jesse Jackson?

Why are Bill Cosby&#39;s recent statements discounted as the rantings of an "out-of-touch old black man"?

Remember when we had the go &#39;round about Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and their "Freedom-of-Speech" issues?

Odd that they had no problem using their right to criticize Bush, et.al., but felt their rights were being impinged when others exercised that same right in criticizing them.

I&#39;m still waiting for someone to explain the logic of their "contention".

Clocker, I&#39;m glad you phrased your post as you did; it reminds me to say something I should probably lead with:

I have nothing whatsoever against Democrats; it&#39;s just that I haven&#39;t even seen one for about 25 years, and all the true Democrats I have ever known have become Conservatives.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Busyman+2 July 2004 - 20:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 July 2004 - 20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@2 July 2004 - 16:00
Glad you finally accept he does and says stupid things... even if you still have trouble believing the USA would vote a moron into office...
....and we probably are again this November, whether it&#39;s the Dem or the Repub. <_< [/b][/quote]
You lot really need to take control of your country back (and so do we, however we arent quite as far along as you, theres still hope for us)......


.... Unfortunatly, I have no idea how we are gonna achieve this :(

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2004 - 15:48
You lot really need to take control of your country back
This is true; the people need to properly address such things as abortion and gay marriage, among many, many others.

I am very glad, Rat, that you feel the U.K. is so much closer to salvation than are we Americans; if it&#39;s a race you describe, I&#39;d say that currently France is in the lead, followed closely by Germany-the U.K. is running a poor third, with the U.S. limping along in a distant fourth.

Please-When you reach nirvana, won&#39;t you send us a post card? ;)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2004 - 21:09
I am very glad, Rat, that you feel the U.K. is so much closer to salvation than are we Americans.........



......
Please-When you reach nirvana, won&#39;t you send us a post card? ;)
1/ I do...

2/ Unfortunatly we&#39;re both heading in the wrong direction :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2004 - 16:22

2/ Unfortunatly we&#39;re both heading in the wrong direction :ph34r:
I think logic would easily refute this supposition, assuming you think we are both headed....oh, nevermind; I wouldn&#39;t want to complicate things further by interjecting trigonometry. :P

[clocker]

Oh, go ahead.
A good slice of trigonometry never hurt a debate.
While you&#39;re at it, got any electrical formulae you&#39;d like to interject?
They can be VERY convincing.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2004 - 13:00
@ Hank


President doing or saying stupid things in their sig/avatar

Glad you finally accept he does and says stupid things... even if you still have trouble believing the USA would vote a moron into office...
gosh i wish i thought of saying that instead of changing my avatar :lol: :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@2 July 2004 - 18:51
Oh, go ahead.
A good slice of trigonometry never hurt a debate.
While you&#39;re at it, got any electrical formulae you&#39;d like to interject?
They can be VERY convincing.
I have it on good authority you aren&#39;t too well-versed in "book learnin&#39;", and have, therefore, no urge to unduly provoke.

As well you know.

I have no recollection whatsoever of any beyond the most basic trig anyway. :D

[protak]

Sine=
Opposite/
Hypotenuse
C
A
H
T
O
A

220 gives a more riveting shock than 110..... :blink:

Tim :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2004 - 20:48

I have it on good authority you aren&#39;t too well-versed in "book learnin&#39;", and have, therefore, no urge to unduly provoke.


That is so true.

A simple man am I, real "salt o the earth".

It&#39;s tough to provoke me...most of the time I can&#39;t understand a word you are saying.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+3 July 2004 - 00:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 3 July 2004 - 00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@2 July 2004 - 20:48

I have it on good authority you aren&#39;t too well-versed in "book learnin&#39;", and have, therefore, no urge to unduly provoke.


That is so true.

A simple man am I, real "salt o the earth".

It&#39;s tough to provoke me...most of the time I can&#39;t understand a word you are saying.[/b][/quote]
Then we are feathers, are we not, even though from different birds? :lol:

I am as uneducated as I can be; at this point in my life, I find myself enjoying my mental regression and expanding my practical capabilities instead. ;)

Protak-

It is well that lesson is already ingrained; I fear I could not bear to learn it anew.

[protak]

Oh come on j2 some trig to keep the mind sharp... :D
Tim :)

[j2k4]

No-

I meant the shock part; last time I got zapped, it was 480.

Took me a while to collect my few remaining thoughts after that. :huh: