London tubes

I claim no omniscience - j2k4

I grant your claim - JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I claim no omniscience, but I reckon that if Mr. Twain were posting in this thread, you would be astounded at his opinions on the matters at hand.

---

wouldn't we all be astounded. not only because of the uniqueness and unpredictability of his views, but also because he'd be 170 years old. :P

Ok reading the last few replys i have no clue what you humans are doing.But i thought i would say something.I hope you guys arnt hatefull twards muslims.Here in Emerania muslems are not getting stoned but they arnt really qite seen as Emeranians.A great view from a muslims side is a show called 30Days on FX.
Name changes made for consilient...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Hoi! Boab!

This isn't the lounge, it's the pointless quotes thread in t'Drawing Room.

Please endeavour to remain on-topic :D

---

Meh, pointless...or inane enough to have rendered astute...the pointless?

Peace bd

Just pointless, plain and simple.

What confusing use of the sacred ellipsis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Just pointless, plain and simple.

What confusing use of the sacred ellipsis.

---

Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger - Abbie Hoffman

I don't feel that quotes are pointless. I believe that by using quotes, one
can sum up a situation in a few words. (especially...when one is tired.)

However, I respect the earnest gravity of the Drawling Room and the situation at hand, and will limit my use of the inane to The Lounge.

Levity is overrated anyway.

Peace bd

I didn't say that all quotes are pointless. Merely the ones posted so far in this thread.

In fact, I've just thought of an apt one:

You say it best, when you say nothing at all -- Boyzone (or maybe Withcheese).

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I didn't say that all quotes are pointless. Merely the ones posted so far in this thread.

In fact, I've just thought of an apt one:

You say it best, when you say nothing at all -- Boyzone (or maybe Withcheese).

;)

---

Hoi, my quotes are pure gold, rod boy.

£5,000 plus parts and labour. Sorry but that is the best I can quote.:blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

"My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office-holders."

Mark Twain

---

One must first have knowledge of that which begs one's loyalty; it helps also to know Loyalty, properly defined.

Mark Twain was possessed of a greater understanding of his country than most people today; he'd actually read the founding documents once or twice.

The institutions and office-holders have not, for the most part, changed.

BTW-

I claim no omniscience, but I reckon that if Mr. Twain were posting in this thread, you would be astounded at his opinions on the matters at hand.

---

Ah, Kev mate.. you knew this was aimed directly at yourself and Hank :P

In my explanations to those that dont know what i mean...

If one does not criticise those in power when its known they are breaking the laws/rules, just because they belong to the party that you support... that is being Loyal to your Political Party, not your country.

It is the responsibility of those loyal to their country to bring all transgressors to account, not just those politically opposed to them.

For example:

I hear many grumblings about "Food for Oil", but none about many more missing Billions in a much smaller space of time from a known personality...and explanations are not sought.

OR

A member of the administration leaks the personal details of a CIA operative, and is not criticised at all, despite this leak being illegal and the type of leak would be against ANY countries interest.

HOWEVER... the opposition gets a blow job, and its all hell breaks loose..

This is loyalty to a PARTY, not a COUNTRY.

I find myself thinking those that do raise hell about these things in the USA, and did against Clinton too... to be the real US patriots. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

One must first have knowledge of that which begs one's loyalty; it helps also to know Loyalty, properly defined.

Mark Twain was possessed of a greater understanding of his country than most people today; he'd actually read the founding documents once or twice.

The institutions and office-holders have not, for the most part, changed.

BTW-

I claim no omniscience, but I reckon that if Mr. Twain were posting in this thread, you would be astounded at his opinions on the matters at hand.

---

Ah, Kev mate.. you knew this was aimed directly at yourself and Hank :P

In my explanations to those that dont know what i mean...

If one does not criticise those in power when its known they are breaking the laws/rules, just because they belong to the party that you support... that is being Loyal to your Political Party, not your country.

It is the responsibility of those loyal to their country to bring all transgressors to account, not just those politically opposed to them.

For example:

I hear many grumblings about "Food for Oil", but none about many more missing Billions in a much smaller space of time from a known personality...and explanations are not sought.

OR

A member of the administration leaks the personal details of a CIA operative, and is not criticised at all, despite this leak being illegal and the type of leak would be against ANY countries interest.

HOWEVER... the opposition gets a blow job, and its all hell breaks loose..

This is loyalty to a PARTY, not a COUNTRY.

I find myself thinking those that do raise hell about these things in the USA, and did against Clinton too... to be the real US patriots. :P

---

RF! You give the the 'Right To Bear Arms' lobby a reason for existence.:rolleyes:

Why would anyone want a pair of bear arms?

And who's thinking of the bears?


That's what I want to know :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Why would anyone want a pair of bear arms?

And who's thinking of the bears?


That's what I want to know :dry:

---

:lol:

Is that not the reason why they go out and shoot them? Or anything else that moves.:( They must get burnt in this hot weather.:cry:

I dont think that any country can stand up to close scrutiny of it finances and those that control them. Sadly lying and corruption are essential in order to succeed in the political arena. The use of words like excoriate early on a Monday morning I also find deplorable.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I've brought this up before, many times-with the limited time I have for this board, and the overwhelming time required to entertain all the negative commentary about the U.S., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Rice, and wharever else you people come up with, there is precious little time to devote exclusively to the negative subjects upon which you'd prefer.

It is not that I'm blind; I am not, it's just that coming here is, most of the time, a fire-fighting exercise-nobody here ever says anything positive about the U.S., it is just not done.

If the commentary were anything but one-sided, there might be time for me to discuss the negatives in-depth, but I have a job and a rather extensive honey-do list, along with trying to squeeze in anything else that I might want to do.

---

I share the same sentiment, besides the honey do list.

There is so much negativity towards the President and every little thing that the administration does that I don’t have the time or the energy defend every crack pot accusation. During the lead up to the election I didn’t mind because I thought that it was an important time. But anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side and criticize Bush.

This board is entertainment and I sure as hell don’t feel like fighting tooth and nail every single time that I log on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

After all, it is not as if this board is lacking the numbers to properly excoriate the U.S. for it's shortcomings; even amongst it's U.S. contingent, I can count the pro-U.S. cohort on one hand.

---

What do you count as domestically being "pro-U.S."? I have seen the word "patriotic" re-defined in recent years.
I consider myself pro-U.S. I love this country, I love the people (but not all of them) and I think we do many things better than other nations. This does not mean I think we do ALL things better. Some nations do many things better than we do.

People on message boards tend to talk about things that they dislike more than things they like. It doesn't make them anti (insert nation here), it makes them anti that particular "thing" (edit: although I do agree some people are just anti US)

When the Tsunami came the US excelled in humanitarian aid...this aspect of foreign policy I agree with.... there are other aspects I disagree with and I can see where we create problems for ourselves because of these parts. It is not anti-U.S. to believe in a different approach and changes cannot be made if one keeps quiet when one disagrees.

You wouldn't run your company the way our country is run and if you had shares in a company you would be vocal at the company meetings if you didn't agree with how the board was running your investment....that doesn't make you anti-that company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

But anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side and criticize Bush.

---

I can't recollect much support from the right for anything Clinton did ;)

What is the point of a multi party system if there is no opposition?

Hey, i've gave credit where its due :P

Some of the States are more than very good on environmental issues for example.

However, i would like to see you state that you agree when you do.. even if it is against a particular policy/situation. To not do so, gives the impression that you are a republican 1st, an American 2nd..

A little like what Hank just implied he is with his post.. (however i dont think he realises it reads that way ;) )

Hank, you either miss the point or are deliberatly misunderstanding...

Are you saying you agree that the missing Billions from Iraq should be investigated, and that the person that released the CIA agents details should be prosecuted... or are you saying its "All a Democrat accusation that should be ignored"..


J2, quite clearly stated that he was bothered by the shoddy accounting.. which is the thing i was trying to discover.

You just say: "anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side "...

In this particualr case it isnt the Democrats as much as the rest of the world btw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I've brought this up before, many times-with the limited time I have for this board, and the overwhelming time required to entertain all the negative commentary about the U.S., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Rice, and wharever else you people come up with, there is precious little time to devote exclusively to the negative subjects upon which you'd prefer.

It is not that I'm blind; I am not, it's just that coming here is, most of the time, a fire-fighting exercise-nobody here ever says anything positive about the U.S., it is just not done.

If the commentary were anything but one-sided, there might be time for me to discuss the negatives in-depth, but I have a job and a rather extensive honey-do list, along with trying to squeeze in anything else that I might want to do.

---

I share the same sentiment, besides the honey do list.

There is so much negativity towards the President and every little thing that the administration does that I don’t have the time or the energy defend every crack pot accusation. During the lead up to the election I didn’t mind because I thought that it was an important time. But anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side and criticize Bush.

This board is entertainment and I sure as hell don’t feel like fighting tooth and nail every single time that I log on.

---

Have you ever thought that maybe it's because Bush does many things ass-backward? :1eye:

Even when there was an honest-to-goodness thread about his accomplishments as President there were crickets chirping and tumbleweed blowing about.

No one cried foul of Afghanistan but did on Iraq. Why do you think that is?
It ain't rocket science.

Bush doesn't even share some of the more conservative ideals that I liked such as small government.

He's a shit liberal as well as a shit conservative. :snooty: .....and that's pretty fucking bad.

Oh but he's a Christian. :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Hank, you either miss the point or are deliberatly misunderstanding...

---

Did you read what I said? Just in case you missed it:

Quote:

---

This board is entertainment and I sure as hell don’t feel like fighting tooth and nail every single time that I log on.

---

I come on hear to read and to enjoy the time I spend while on the board. I don’t want to spend every free second that I have criticizing or defending ever little thing the government does like you.

Just because I didn’t post anything about Bremmer doesn’t automatically mean that I support him. Hell I don’t even know the accusations, which is why I didn’t post anything about it.

Rat you really need a hobby.

Rat,

I live by my motto "most people are idiutz, don't be one of them."

Most people of the world are like sheep or just evil fucks. They are the father from Pet Sematary (where his son and wife were zombified and he was stupid enough to ask for a hug) or they make unfair decisions for selfish reasons.

I am guilty in the "unfair decisions" department. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Just because I didn’t post anything about Bremmer doesn’t automatically mean that I support him. Hell I don’t even know the accusations, which is why I didn’t post anything about it.

---

This troubles me because I feel that one huge problem we have is that people just don't know or don't want to know. So they only watch a certain news station or listen to certain radio stations or read certain newspapers/web sites.

Of course this goes for both "sides"


@ All

Listening to the extremely right wing Rush Limbaugh this morning (I find extremists hilarious in their rants) It's nice to know that he appreciates the British standing with the US on Iraq... he appreciated it so much he called the British cowards "because they don't stand up to terrorists and don't have a patriot act such as the USA has"...... Way to say thanks Rush

"because they don't stand up to terrorists and don't have a patriot act such as the USA has"

@ Rush..

Its because we prefer to have our freedoms thanks.

You go ahead and make your police state, i hope it bites you in the ass, like its already started biting your ex-diplomats and congressmen.

We will stand up to terrorists because that is what we do. We will do it within our legal framework, not someone else's.

We have been doing it for decades, when there were constant news reports of terrorist bombs, or shootings, or whatever sort of attrocity. I remember when I was younger there seemed to be a report every night on some sort of IRA or UDA attack.

We do not do it to stand side by side with anyone. We do it because it is the right way to deal with these things. Well done to the people of London for going back about your business, by getting on with your life.

We accept that we will be attacked again, however that was a way of life for a long time. We will trust our Police to protect us as best they can and to make every effort possible to catch those who did it.

That is the cost of our freedom, it is a price we are willing to pay.

Rat.

I only touched on his comments..... He ranted about how the British are now "begging the US to help them with intelligence".... He is a right wing idol and one of the things I consider to be "bad" about certain factions of US beliefs.

@RF

Jinx again, this is getting to be a habit.

Mine are better than your tho' :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

We will stand up to terrorists because that is what we do. We will do it within our legal framework, not someone else's.

We have been doing it for decades, when there were constant news reports of terrorist bombs, or shootings, or whatever sort of attrocity. I remember when I was younger there seemed to be a report every night on some sort of IRA or UDA attack.

We do not do it to stand side by side with anyone. We do it because it is the right way to deal with these things. Well done to the people of London for going back about your business, by getting on with your life.

We accept that we will be attacked again, however that was a way of life for a long time. We will trust our Police to protect us as best they can and to make every effort possible to catch those who did it.

That is the cost of our freedom, it is a price we are willing to pay.

---

Very well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

We will stand up to terrorists because that is what we do. We will do it within our legal framework, not someone else's.

We have been doing it for decades, when there were constant news reports of terrorist bombs, or shootings, or whatever sort of attrocity. I remember when I was younger there seemed to be a report every night on some sort of IRA or UDA attack.

We do not do it to stand side by side with anyone. We do it because it is the right way to deal with these things. Well done to the people of London for going back about your business, by getting on with your life.

We accept that we will be attacked again, however that was a way of life for a long time. We will trust our Police to protect us as best they can and to make every effort possible to catch those who did it.

That is the cost of our freedom, it is a price we are willing to pay.

---

Very well said

---

;)

I dont think we are begging the US for intelligence, as i think its believed they're home grown atm... which is why they gave the 3000 figure for suspected sympathisers in the UK due to Iraq..

@ JPaul..

Not better, just more diplomatic :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

@ JPaul..

Not better, just more diplomatic :P

---

I'm famous for it :naughty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Just because I didn’t post anything about Bremmer doesn’t automatically mean that I support him. Hell I don’t even know the accusations, which is why I didn’t post anything about it.

---

This troubles me because I feel that one huge problem we have is that people just don't know or don't want to know. So they only watch a certain news station or listen to certain radio stations or read certain newspapers/web sites.

Of course this goes for both "sides"


@ All

Listening to the extremely right wing Rush Limbaugh this morning (I find extremists hilarious in their rants) It's nice to know that he appreciates the British standing with the US on Iraq... he appreciated it so much he called the British cowards "because they don't stand up to terrorists and don't have a patriot act such as the USA has"...... Way to say thanks Rush

---

It is sometimes painful to believe that Rush has a willing audience that actually agrees with him.

They are sheep. Rush is an evil sheep.

The Patriot Act is purely unconstitutional. Chalk another thing up for the Bush administration. :dry:

:) Just wanted to say hats off to the poms for the mass attendance at the anniversary celebration in London Yesterday? our time. It must have been awful to go anywhere near where the slaughter took place but many, many did.

I also have to give kudos to the queen, I generally think the monarchs are a bit of a waste of space and much money, but to defiantly ride thru the streets with no obvious extra security seemed like a big 'up yours' to the animals that attacked England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

The Patriot Act is purely unconstitutional. Chalk another thing up for the Bush administration. :dry:

---

Seems to have had some effect, nonetheless (or has it?)...it also seems that, since the U.S. is still "Leader of the Pack", Al Qaeda (or whatever offshoot is responsible) would rather be smiting the the States than the U.K., wouldn't they?

Or so reason would dictate.

Maybe we should drop the entire Patriot Act, apart from the efforts to improve intelligence, and have a default policy of overt profiling and zero immigration, which would also be very effective, and much simpler, yes?

It is precisely for reasons of having to steer clear of any semblance of "unfairness" or "bias" or offense that the Patriot Act is such a cumbersome piece-of-shit....it's like the tax code-it should fit on a 3x5 card and be able to be understood even by those who wear pointy hats and stand in corners.

---

Good man!!! ;)

I'm sorry but overt profiling is going to happen.

I hate when airport security pulls an old white lady out of the line but leaves the Arab fella JUST to appear fair. Get real.

We need to tighten our borders, profile as needed without harassment (it's part of INTELLIGENCE ffs), and give due process...especially to American citizens, Muslim or not. I was Muslim before and even then was a true patriot of this country. If I was wisked away for months on suspicion I would probably really hurt someone.

Whatever happened to tailing somoene to actually get useful information?

When is the Patriot Act set to expire btw? I know Bush wants to extend it.

We don't have to have zero immigration, but we could at least tighten it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

The Patriot Act is purely unconstitutional. Chalk another thing up for the Bush administration. :dry:

---

Seems to have had some effect, nonetheless (or has it?)...it also seems that, since the U.S. is still "Leader of the Pack", Al Qaeda (or whatever offshoot is responsible) would rather be smiting the the States than the U.K., wouldn't they?

Or so reason would dictate.

Maybe we should drop the entire Patriot Act, apart from the efforts to improve intelligence, and have a default policy of overt profiling and zero immigration, which would also be very effective, and much simpler, yes?

It is precisely for reasons of having to steer clear of any semblance of "unfairness" or "bias" or offense that the Patriot Act is such a cumbersome piece-of-shit....it's like the tax code-it should fit on a 3x5 card and be able to be understood even by those who wear pointy hats and stand in corners.

---

the madrid and london bombings are against america in a way. they're trying to single you out. i reckon that it would be more effective in the long run. thinking of the long run like that is kind of worrying :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

We don't have to have zero immigration, but we could at least tighten it.

---

I uttered a dirty word a few years back, and was called a Nazi for my trouble, but I will use it again to illustrate more clearly the point I tried to make then:

Immigration without assimilation will never work, period.

The people who come here should come here to join us, not just to collect benefits by virtue of their proximity.

There has to be more to it than that.

---

An official language of English is a start. :rolleyes:

Our country is used like Tampax. Much of our money leaves the country.

A Spanish fella in my crew sent money regularly to Guatemala. He then took a buyout at 27 years (3 yrs. shy of retirement), sold his house and moved back there.

In Langley Park, MD on payday, the Western Union is filled with Hispanics.
Call center (like tech support) for various companies are routinely using Indian companies.
.........and our own labor costs are too high.

I recently bought a stone top table from Giant (grocery store) for $100. The matching bitro table, $60.....made in China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

An official language of English is a start. :rolleyes:

---

Do you think the individual states would accept it if the feds decided to make English the official language or do you think there would be the "state rights" argument ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

An official language of English is a start. :rolleyes:

---

Do you think the individual states would accept it if the feds decided to make English the official language or do you think there would be the "state rights" argument ?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Do you think the individual states would accept it if the feds decided to make English the official language or do you think there would be the "state rights" argument ?

---

Yes

---

You are the Scott McClellan of the board :rolleyes:

Latest news, 1 arrest made.
4 suspects thought to have died with the bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Latest news, 1 arrest made.
4 suspects thought to have died with the bombs.

---

All UK born and hailing from from West Yorks.

The four suspects.