One big brainwashed mass... :confused:
we'll see after the mid-term election results.
Have the US people got the nerve to vote in the Democrats to split up the Republican stronghold and make Bush a lame president?
or are the US people going to follow the Republicans like sheep and therefore give the green light to more bloodshed and worldwide turmoil.

Note - Cindy, I brought your comment to a new thread as I am not one for hijacking threads (as you well know;) :D )

Col

Well, there are way more issues than Iraq.
So we will just have to see.

Have a question for you and the other Texans lurking about... I was listening to Dubbie go on one of his rants on NPR this morning and it seemed like he was a bit more...umm...brash? Found out later that he's campaigning for the repubs down in Texas:eek: They had some soundbytes from the locals and they were, mostly, aligned with Dubbie's ideas, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, to the point, what's the majority of the Texan opinion? I'm just kind of curious if it's a "Texans stick together" type thing or more of a "We think just like him" type thing. Or did they just manage to find the only three supporters he has in the state :eek:

GWB is not Texan though. He was born in Connecticut (I think). Thats another lie he goes on about, all this "I'm a Texan" stuff.

Its like saying Bob Hope, Cary Grant or Charlie Chaplin were American:rolleyes:

Col

we'll see after the mid-term election results.
Have the US people got the nerve to vote in the Democrats to split up the Republican stronghold and make Bush a lame president?
or are the US people going to follow the Republicans like sheep and therefore give the green light to more bloodshed and worldwide turmoil.

Note - Cindy, I brought your comment to a new thread as I am not one for hijacking threads (as you well know;) :D )

Col

Hahahahaha. Good one. ;)

Of course, you're probably missing the point that I know we're not all one big brainwashed mass, but I know that's what you think. :D

It is really hard to speak for all Texans, but if they were interviewing people at a Bush rally, of course they are going to agree with him.
I think what you are going to find, as far as President Bush is concerned, people are broken on his performance about as much as anywhere. There are even repubs. running here that don't mention they are repubs. to make that break from Bush. I think it will boil down to local issues more than what Bush thinks.

GWB is not Texan though. He was born in Connecticut (I think). Thats another lie he goes on about, all this "I'm a Texan" stuff.
Being a Texan is more a state of mind, than where you happen to be born.
Too hard to explain, you would have to live here to understand.

Being a Texan is more a state of mind, than where you happen to be born.
Too hard to explain, you would have to live here to understand.
A Texan has to be born in Texas. Its quite simple.

I've lived in Essex for 16 years but am not an Essex person, I was born in Bristol (the same city as Cary Grant actually) so I am Bristolian

Of course, you're probably missing the point that I know we're not all one big brainwashed mass
Lets hope you individuals prove it then:rolleyes: - you all failed when you voted that freak in power again in 2004, now's the chance to put the brakes on the killing

Col

A Texan has to be born in Texas. Its quite simple.


Col

You're realy hung up on that whole birth right thing aren't you?

There are even repubs. running here that don't mention they are repubs. to make that break from Bush.



It's not just Bush, it whole entire party, the master mind himself thought that one up.

The Republican signs are even blue in VA.

So if you can't baffle them with brilliance, go ahead and try to BS them.

Well it's quite simple, Chenny and co. will play the terrorist card and the flock will follow

Well it's quite simple, Chenny and co. will play the terrorist card and the flock will follow

As the UK has followed Blair? :eek:

As the UK has followed Blair? :eek:
We've already proven elsewhere on the forum Cindy that that's not the case;)

GWB is not Texan though. He was born in Connecticut (I think). Thats another lie he goes on about, all this "I'm a Texan" stuff.
Col
Bush used to live in Texas but now lives in a state of denial (Kerry) great quote;) :D

We've already proven elsewhere on the forum Cindy that that's not the case;)

Yet he was elected and is in power. ;)

Yet he was elected and is in power. ;)
Not by the majority vote he wasn't

Not by the majority vote he wasn't

Sounds to me like your system is broken and needs to be fixed. Maybe you should concentrate your energies on that rather than criticizing others. ;) :D

Not by the majority vote he wasn'tFunny how when we try to explain the same conundrum surrounding Dubbie's election you don't buy it...:confused:

Funny how when we try to explain the same conundrum surrounding Dubbie's election you don't buy it...:confused:
Actually it's already been pointed out to you umpteen times, Bush was elected with a majority vote, Bliar wasn't

Here's an extract from the BBC website about Bush's vist to god fearing Georgia yesterday - and if the rest of America thinks like this then god help us all. Georgia will vote republican because Bush says he believes in Jesus so sod the thousands being killed by the US actions.

Quote "The first thing you notice when you talk to these country Republicans is the importance of religion in their reasons for liking the president.
Several mention it, unprompted, and this is something you just do not hear elsewhere in the country.
"He believes in Jesus," they tell you, as if this fact were enough to clinch any political debate.
But the other overwhelming sense here is that much of the rest of the nation is regarded as hostile and alien, Godless.

And the president, they believe, shares this view.

Bounding onto the stage after a warm-up act lasting more than an hour, the president looks, well, local.
He is wearing a khaki shirt - neat and buttoned down but casual and manly as well. It is a shirt that gives him the right to ally himself with this crowd, although when I last looked his real address, the place he has called home for some time now, is in central Washington.

To campaign against Washington is an old trick - Carter did it, so did Reagan - but to do it having been president for some years is quite a feat. Yet that is what he is trying to do.

Now in Georgia - in front of a crowd of a few thousand well-wishers - it worked a treat. In the nation as a whole it might not wash.

Belief in miracles

The president's claim that under the Democrats "the terrorists win" in Iraq is rather at odds with what opinion polls suggest is the view of most Americans - that the terrorists have been doing rather well there under this president.

Recent news from Iraq has been particularly bleak

Similarly the idea that Mr Bush can somehow guide his party back to power by playing the gay marriage card, seems unlikely.

In Georgia, they loved the line about the threat to marriage posed by activist judges - even though those judges reside a million miles away in New Jersey and there will only be gay marriage in Georgia after all the peanuts have embraced communism.But I know from talking to Republicans in other states, conservative Pennsylvania among them, that it does not have the same traction this year. And yet - there is something appealing about a president so comfortable in his own skin.

Even his admirers would not claim he looks happy in starchy Washington settings. But in rural America he looks at home, and somehow less goofy, less jarring.

If he does manage to pull it off for his party it will be at this level - the level of image and style - where the contrast with the Democrats (John Kerry, for instance) is so marked.

In the car park after the Georgia event the locals drifted off to do whatever Georgians do at night (pray I guess), knowing that the Republicans have a fight on their hands but still confident that it can be turned round.

They have not given up and many really do believe in miracles..."

ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6108398.stm)

Col

I can firmly avow that the rest of the country does not share those sentiments. Unfortunately, there are a number who do. It seems like the Dems are preparing to retake control and the current Administration is petrified, so they're pulling out all of their trump cards (including trying to spin every sound-byte they can put their hands on, a la John Kerry:eek: ). While Dubbie is only campaigning in those places where he still retains some measure of support, I don't think it's going to be enough to prevent a power shift. When the Administration finally has some form of resistance and the government as a whole is forced to operate on a more even keel instead of the Dubbie-Adgenda, things should smooth out for us...but he'll be miserable:D

Its interesting that Georgia folk look on the rest of the USA as "Godless, hostile and alien"

Wonder if Ken was there?

I can just see all the Georgia folk listening to Bush with a bible in one hand and a US flag in the other - these days the flag and the bible don't exactly go together do they.

I also read that many cities have turned down a visit from Bush because they think it'll make matters worse if he turned up.:rolleyes:

Col

You know, if all these politicians spent more time coming up with policies and striving to meet them rather than spending money criticising their opponents, I may have more respect for them. On watching the news last night I saw that a woman (in Chicago, perhaps?) who lost her legs in Iraq was running on behalf of the Democrats in what was a majorly Republican area. Even more so since the Republicans redrew up the boundaries so that it included pro-Republican areas and excluded those in favour of the Democrats. The majorty of people interviewed said they were Republican but were switching to Democrat because of the war in Iraq.

Opinion polls were putting the woman head to head with the Republican for the first time, perhaps ever. I don't know much about her but I wonder if her campaign is purely based upon her image (i.e. two false legs) rather than any political nous. But her rivals were spending most of their time, it seemed, creating late night TV adverts disparaging her rather than having anything positive to say about themselves.

Its interesting that Georgia folk look on the rest of the USA as "Godless, hostile and alien"



Col

Your previous quote stated that a few thousand were at attendance. How do you go from a few thousand to Georgians in general?

Your previous quote stated that a few thousand were at attendance. How do you go from a few thousand to Georgians in general?
It doesn't say the rest of Georgia is excluded. Also there's no mention of protesters, so one concludes that Georgia is true republican.

I think the point here is that [it indicates that] Georgia is a Bush loving state purely because he "believes in Jesus" and all else is excluded.

101 US soldiers killed in October - who cares? not Georgia or Bush

Col

It doesn't say the rest of Georgia is excluded. Also there's no mention of protesters, so one concludes that Georgia is true republican.

I think the point here is that [it indicates that] Georgia is a Bush loving state purely because he "believes in Jesus" and all else is excluded.


Col

No Col, it sais the people there (at the convetion) support him becasue of his claming faith.

Georgia is a paradox.

I went to Atlanta a few years ago and I was shocked at the number of strip clubs there. All of the convenience stores I went to had porn freely displayed. And this is in strong contrast to their supposedly southern Baptist society.

Here in Northern Virginia we don’t have strip clubs (well maybe 1 or 2) and we don’t have as many religious zealots as well.

I prefer it here.

On watching the news last night I saw that a woman (in Chicago, perhaps?) who lost her legs in Iraq was running on behalf of the Democrats

I know I'm going to hell for this, but I smiled a bit when I read this. :eek:

I know I'm going to hell for this, but I smiled a bit when I read this. :eek:
of course you did...but I can't decide which is better...no legs/running or you going to hell with the rest of Georgia and the US:eek:

You'd be happy if I went to hell? :(

You'd be happy if I went to hell? :(

I think he was being sarcastic.

You'd be happy if I went to hell? :(
If you lived in Iraq since Bush went there looking for oil you'd be living in hell

You'd be happy if I went to hell? :(
That's not what I meant.(Bodi takes of Kerry mask)

I was referring to the puns and innuendo and which was making me smile more.

If you lived in Iraq since Bush went there looking for oil you'd be living in hell

There's more to life than blaming your missery on another countries leaders, you know.

Bodi, no worries. :D

There's more to life than blaming your missery on another countries leaders, you know.
If your country didn't cause the misery in the first place I wouldn't have to come here fighting for them

If your country didn't cause the misery in the first place I wouldn't have to come here fighting for them



Are you foolish enough to expect anyone to believe the US is responsible for the insanity of the Middle East?

The insanity is 5000 years old, at least.

But if you want to lay blame on a modern Western country then you really need to look to yourselves (British). After the fall of the Turkish Empire, the British (They were still a world power at the time) rearrange the borders to suit their national and economic interest. Certainly this is the real problem.

The people of Iraq never wanted to be united, only British tyranny than later a much worse Saddam kept them together.

But her rivals were spending most of their time, it seemed, creating late night TV adverts disparaging her rather than having anything positive to say about themselves.

My husband and I were laughing last night at all of the political commercials that were coming on one right after the other and how ridiculous they all were, on both sides. One candidate was implying that the person they were running against voted against keeping pornography out of the hands of children. I mean, come on. :rolleyes: Another one critized his opponent for making it too easy for illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses and use taxpayer money to get a college education. It had someone in an ET mask wearing a cap and gown. It so ridiculous it's funny.

They're all on a big push right now because the election is next week. :D

It doesn't say the rest of Georgia is excluded. Also there's no mention of protesters, so one concludes that Georgia is true republican.

Interesting the way you make that leap. Think of all the things we might surmise about the British using that kind of faulty logic. :rolleyes:

Are you foolish enough to expect anyone to believe the US is responsible for the insanity of the Middle East?

The insanity is 5000 years old, at least.

But if you want to lay blame on a modern Western country then you really need to look to yourselves (British). After the fall of the Turkish Empire, the British (They were still a world power at the time) rearrange the borders to suit their national and economic interest. Certainly this is the real problem.

The people of Iraq never wanted to be united, only British tyranny than later a much worse Saddam kept them together.
Jenny look, your history is appalling, The British actually united the arabs against a common enemy, ie the Turks, after WW1 the League of Nations carved up the Middle East, America was a part of that league at the time:rolleyes:

Think of all the things we might surmise about the British using that kind of faulty logic. :rolleyes:
Nothing springs to mind at the minute :cool: :p

Jenny look, your history is appalling, The British actually united the arabs against a common enemy, ie the Turks, after WW1 the League of Nations carved up the Middle East, America was a part of that league at the time:rolleyes:

The British did unite them. Then they taketh.

The British did unite them. Then they taketh.
No we didn't, the League Of Nations did, look Jenny if you want me to keep on educating you I'm gonna have to start charging you, PM me and we'll talk money

Actually you are both wrong the Middle East was handed to Britain and France, Lebanon and Syria, at the treaty of Versaille, which was attended by Woodrow Wilson.

brian

The treaty was ratified by the League of Nations on January 10, 1920.

The treaty was ratified by the League of Nations on January 10, 1920.

You think it had a choice?

Brian

You think it had a choice?

Brian
No, the Americans had taken over

I give up he's all yours joe

The British government, mandate holders in Iraq, were concerned at the unrest in the new country. They decided to step back from direct administration and create a monarchy to head Iraq while they maintained the mandate. Following a plebiscite showing 96% in favour, Faisal agreed to become king; so, in August 1921 he was made king of Iraq.

He was instrumental in making his country fully independent in 1932.

For christs sake don't vote in any more religious freaks:rolleyes:

Quote=BBC news

Polls revealed religion as a striking predictor of voting behaviour - the more often a voter attended church, the more likely they were to vote for President Bush, by a wide margin.

That is not a good thing in a nation where more than 90% believe in God.

ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6108170.stm)

Col

For christs sake don't vote in any more religious freaks:rolleyes:

Quote=BBC news

Polls revealed religion as a striking predictor of voting behaviour - the more often a voter attended church, the more likely they were to vote for President Bush, by a wide margin.

That is not a good thing in a nation where more than 90% believe in God.

ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6108170.stm)

Col




If you go back and read any number of my hundreds of accurate post on the subject, you would see that this is nothing new to people that can see.

Karl Rove is the architect of the current Republican party. He correctly predicted that the United States would be turned over to the Republicans by the use of the “Christian Right”

This all started with the abortion issue. And has since grown to encompass any “moral” issue.

The problem is that it defies US law. US tax law prohibits tax exempt organizations from endorsing any particular candidate or party.

But skirting this law is small potatoes for the new American Fascism.

We must get rid of these criminals before they drag the entire planet into either a depression or a global conflict.

You think it had a choice?

Brian

Of course not; during the 20s Britain was the world power, or close to it. So whatever was good for Father England was certainly good for the fledgling League

Hey Rich,

Does this sound familier?

In May 1901, William Knox D'Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to search for oil which he found in May 1908. This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. On 14 April 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was incorporated to exploit this find. The company grew slowly until World War I when its strategic importance led the British Government to acquire controlling interest in the company and it became the Royal Navy's chief source of fuel oil during World War I.

In 1917, the war allowed it to take the British arm of the German Europäische Union, which used the trade name British Petroleum. After the war ended, the company, in which the British Government now had a 51% interest, moved to secure outlets in Europe and elsewhere. However, its main concern was still Persia, following the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 the company continued to trade profitably in that country.

All this American Bashing, and it looks like we learned it from the Brits.

and it looks like we learned it from the Brits.

Pity you didn't keep listening and learning;) :D

Brian

The problem is that it defies US law. US tax law prohibits tax exempt organizations from endorsing any particular candidate or party.

Both parties have supporters in tax exempt organizations that unoffically support candidates of their choice, so it is really hard to seperate one from the other. The "right" does not have a "corner on the market" on this. So your statement is extremly misleading on that.

Both parties have supporters in tax exempt organizations that unoffically support candidates of their choice, so it is really hard to seperate one from the other. The "right" does not have a "corner on the market" on this. So your statement is extremly misleading on that.

Except that for the last 6 years the dominate player at the pulpit has been the Repubs.

I'ts time for a different flaver of poison.

Except that for the last 6 years the dominate player at the pulpit has been the Repubs.

I'ts time for a different flaver of poison.

It always switches back and forth. It seems like every 8-10 years the control gets switched to the opposite party. The problem is, they all do the same cr@p. :rolleyes:

It always switches back and forth. It seems like every 8-10 years the control gets switched to the opposite party. The problem is, they all do the same cr@p. :rolleyes:

I don't remember Bil or Jimmy geting us into 2 trillion dollar wars.

I don't remember Bil or Jimmy geting us into 2 trillion dollar wars.

They did other stupid stuff.

They did other stupid stuff.

Your absolutely correct but we face the end of America that we grew up in. And the politicians are diverting us with a war on islam.

Of course not; during the 20s Britain was the world power, or close to it. So whatever was good for Father England was certainly good for the fledgling League
Then by the same token the US was responsible for WW11

Then by the same token the US was responsible for WW11

:confused:
Anybody out there understand this?

Brian

:confused:
Anybody out there understand this?

Brian

Nope. Not a clue. :cool:

:confused:
Anybody out there understand this?

Brian
Well it's very simple Brian, if Britain is responsible for the current debacle in Iraq because of The Treaty of Versaile then the United States was guilty of forcing reparations from Germany because it demanded repayment of French War loans at the time. Britain was prepared to write off France's debt, America was not.

Well it's very simple Brian, if Britain is responsible for the current debacle in Iraq because of The Treaty of Versaile then the United States was guilty of forcing reparations from Germany because it demanded repayment of French War loans at the time. Britain was prepared to write off France's debt, America was not.


How do you equate the dividing up of the Middle East to enrich British Oil interest, with the calling in of a war debt?

You’re grasping at straws and are not even able to comprehend that your utopian Britain could have ever done wrong.

As I have on numerous occasions advised you.

If you persist in a completely one sided diatribe; you loose all semblance of credibility.

Interesting the way you make that leap. Think of all the things we might surmise about the British using that kind of faulty logic. :rolleyes:

argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) ;)

How do you equate the dividing up of the Middle East to enrich British Oil interest, with the calling in of a war debt?

You’re grasping at straws and are not even able to comprehend that your utopian Britain could have ever done wrong.

As I have on numerous occasions advised you.

If you persist in a completely one sided diatribe; you loose all semblance of credibility.

What the hell does the Bush war for oil have to do with the events of the 1920's. Like I said, by using your logic WW11 was the United States fault:rolleyes:

Someone may have commented on this already but I couldn't find it - The free and independent courts of Iraq have timed a death sentence on Saddam perfectly for the elections?

What the hell does the Bush war for oil have to do with the events of the 1920's. Like I said, by using your logic WW11 was the United States fault:rolleyes:

It has everything to do with the civil war in Iraq. Do you remember eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviets. Generations of racial and religious hatred was no longer contained by the CCCP.

It has everything to do with the civil war in Iraq. Do you remember eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviets. Generations of racial and religious hatred was no longer contained by the CCCP.
Jenny, your logic's flawed again, the Arabs in the area have been fighting each other for centuries, the current wave of unrest hass nothing to do with our search for oil in the 1920's. Try again

Jenny, your logic's flawed again, the Arabs in the area have been fighting each other for centuries, the current wave of unrest hass nothing to do with our search for oil in the 1920's. Try again


The civil war in Iraq is 100 proportional to the "unnatural coalescence” of the Iraqi nation. It was made up of several tribes that had no common culture or religion. It was held together by violence, now it will run it’s course.

The end result is chaos in the Middle East. It was coming if we had engaged that war or otherwise.

And the problem is not confined to Iraq. The entire region is a powder keg and contrary to what is being taught in their Mosque and terrorist camps, the United States is not responsible. The problem is in the fact that the Royal Family and a few others have siphoned off all of the oil revenues and kept them totally for themselves, leaving the rest destitute.

We’re just a convenient target.

Don’t think this in anyway is some kind of endorsement of this war, because it’s not.

Now that huge reserves of oil are being discovered around the globe, I say pull out, and let them play “last man standing” they have been wanting that since the Turks left anyway.

I'm suprised that you haven't played the "their jealous of the American way of life" card.

You know, if all these politicians spent more time coming up with policies and striving to meet them rather than spending money criticising their opponents, I may have more respect for them. On watching the news last night I saw that a woman (in Chicago, perhaps?) who lost her legs in Iraq was running on behalf of the Democrats in what was a majorly Republican area. Even more so since the Republicans redrew up the boundaries so that it included pro-Republican areas and excluded those in favour of the Democrats. The majorty of people interviewed said they were Republican but were switching to Democrat because of the war in Iraq.

Opinion polls were putting the woman head to head with the Republican for the first time, perhaps ever. I don't know much about her but I wonder if her campaign is purely based upon her image (i.e. two false legs) rather than any political nous. But her rivals were spending most of their time, it seemed, creating late night TV adverts disparaging her rather than having anything positive to say about themselves.

Once again, sorry for bumping old posts, but I am new and I wanted to say that I know that lady pretty well. Her name is Tammy, and she is campaigning (Yes, in Chicago) because she...like me and many other military, are sick of congress using the military, and wounded military as political platforms to get re-elected. She is a very smart lady, and I would vote for her in a second if I were in her state. Her campaign isnt purely based off her image, she has been active in her community for years, but now that she has the media looking at her...its a great opportunity to make a change. I can't wait to see how it works out for her, good or bad.

Once again, sorry for bumping old posts, but I am new and I wanted to say that I know that lady pretty well. Her name is Tammy, and she is campaigning (Yes, in Chicago) because she...like me and many other military, are sick of congress using the military, and wounded military as political platforms to get re-elected.

But isn't she using the fact that she's ex-military and wounded to get elected? :confused:

But isn't she using the fact that she's ex-military and wounded to get elected? :confused:

What's you point?

What's you point?
By going for the sympathy vote

Col

By going for the sympathy vote

Col

Why is that any worse than any other tactics employed for that purpose?

Why is that any worse than any other tactics employed for that purpose?
Who said it was any worse, even if it is?

Who said it was any worse, even if it is?

Then why bring it into question?

Then why bring it into question?
I didn't, the original poster did

Jenny, your logic's flawed again, the Arabs in the area have been fighting each other for centuries, the current wave of unrest hass nothing to do with our search for oil in the 1920's. Try again

They've been fighting the west for centuries too...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/raptorex/kingrichard.jpg

They've been fighting the west for centuries too...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/raptorex/kingrichard.jpg



Well its all clear now.

Richie Rich has delusion of grandeur; he pictures himself as his name sake.

Thank you, Dan.

The problem is that it defies US law. US tax law prohibits tax exempt organizations from endorsing any particular candidate or party.

That's not exactly correct. A political endorsement is nothing more than an opinion. Such a law would violate the First Amendment.

501(c)(3) organiztions are prohibited from engaging in a certain degree of political activity (i.e., they can only devote a small amount of their budget to political activities). They are certainly free to speak on behalf of whomever they choose; they just can't buy advertising or contribute to compaign funds, etc.

And just for clarity's sake: there are around two dozen tax-exempt classifications given by the IRS. Only 501(c)(3)s are allowed to accept tax-deductable donations and they are the most restrictive regarding political activity. Other tax-exempt organizations are allowed to engage in various degrees of political activity but donations to them are not tax-deductible.

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens with these elections. The predictions I have heard say the Democrats will take both the House and the Senate by a huge margin. Here's hoping. I almost feel irresponsible in taking the easy way out, since there are certainly Republican candidates who are superior to their opponents and there are issues I agree with the Republican platform on, but overall I am so disgusted with the Republican party right now I can't bring myself to vote for them unless the Democrat is really, really awful.

Hi Greg, welcome back, you seem to have been away for a wee while and we have missed your erudite explanations.

Brian

How kind! :) Thank you very much. I was on vacation for about a week and when I returned I was extremely busy at work, so I didn't have time for my usual chit-chat.

But isn't she using the fact that she's ex-military and wounded to get elected? :confused:

Lol, so simply because she is wounded, she should avoid public office? Its something she has been interested in since far before her injury. I picture Rich as the guy who, as a kid, tripped other kids when they walked in front of his desk. A real sweetheart.

Lol,
What's this all about:confused:


I picture Rich as the guy who, as a kid, tripped other kids when they walked in front of his desk. A real sweetheart.

What has this got to do with the thread?, You seem to be making personal attacks on other posters , Rich in his wildest anti American rants does not make personal attacks on others.

Brian

You seem to be making personal attacks on other posters , Rich in his wildest anti American rants does not make personal attacks on others.

Brian


Brian,

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Attacking our country, culture, way of life, our collective intelligence, and telling us we are obviously evil, is in ways, much more than a personal condemnation.

Hiding behind “I’m only telling the truth about your country” and ridiculing every post and poster, is completely unacceptable.

Furthermore if they never admit their wrong about even the slightest points, and totally ignore proof or questions that would show them to be fallible.

What is left; beside a personal jibe?

O K Joe I guess if you put all his posts together that's a reasonable outcome, I suppose not being the butt of them, though still annoyed and fed up with them, we don't see them as personal.

I don't retract my critiscim of Worley though.

Brian

Brian,

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Attacking our country, culture, way of life, our collective intelligence, and telling us we are obviously evil, is in ways, much more than a personal condemnation.

Hiding behind “I’m only telling the truth about your country” and ridiculing every post and poster, is completely unacceptable.


Have to agree with JS on this one. If someone has personally said or done something you take issue with, by all means call them on it. Don't slag off one person based on what somebody else, possibly thousands of miles away, has said or done.

If I say to someone that everyone who lives at a certain address is an idiot, knowing full well that they live at that address, I can hardly pretend to be shocked when they take offence at it purely because I didn't mention them by name. Likewise, saying that something or other they've said or done is 'typical' of people at that address is ridiculous (and rather pitiful, if it's the best response that the person can come up with. On a par with 'because I said so' as an answer).

Insulting an entire country, city, street, or whatever, based on the fact that certain members of that place acted in a way you don't like is hardly conducive to proper debate.

On a par with 'because I said so' as an answer).



Although with children that should be all you need to say.

When Ashley was little my favorite lines was…”All I need to here from you is, yes Dad”.

Lol, so simply because she is wounded, she should avoid public office? Its something she has been interested in since far before her injury. I picture Rich as the guy who, as a kid, tripped other kids when they walked in front of his desk. A real sweetheart.
Where the hell did I say or even imply that she should avoid public office?:mad:
If you can't answer a simple bloody question why bother answering at all!

Where the hell did I say or even imply that she should avoid public office?:mad:
If you can't answer a simple bloody question why bother answering at all!


Hey, that's exactly what I've wondered several times. ;) :D

Hey, that's exactly what I've wondered several times. ;) :D
But I answer the questions asked as honestly as possible, it's not my fault if those viewing don't like the answer:p