Voting Rights in America

Sharky wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

I'd like to think that if we didn't have politicians who cater to the radicals on either side, the stupidity of the masses wouldn't be a problem.

The stupid masses are generally centrist, or impartial.. They're bien pensantes who go along with the status quo without thinking.

Here's a solution:

I used to think I paid so much tax in order to support the stupid people.

Now I'm old enough to realise that paying so much tax means I'm the stupid one.

Erica Ambler wrote:

I used to think I paid so much tax in order to support the stupid people.

Now I'm old enough to realise that paying so much tax means I'm the stupid one.

I somewhat agree. I dislike them spending my taxmoney on all matters concerning fighting silly wars far away. I'd rather see my money go to wellfare, which is pend on my own country.

Yeah, I can understand why you think I should work sixteen hours a day so you can put your feet up.

saint mark wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

I used to think I paid so much tax in order to support the stupid people.

Now I'm old enough to realise that paying so much tax means I'm the stupid one.

I somewhat agree. I dislike them spending my taxmoney on all matters concerning fighting silly wars far away. I'd rather see my money go to wellfare, which is pend on my own country.

Which 'silly war' are you referring to?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

I used to think I paid so much tax in order to support the stupid people.

Now I'm old enough to realise that paying so much tax means I'm the stupid one.

I somewhat agree. I dislike them spending my taxmoney on all matters concerning fighting silly wars far away. I'd rather see my money go to wellfare, which is pend on my own country.

Which 'silly war' are you referring to?

That silly war against climate change.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

I used to think I paid so much tax in order to support the stupid people.

Now I'm old enough to realise that paying so much tax means I'm the stupid one.

I somewhat agree. I dislike them spending my taxmoney on all matters concerning fighting silly wars far away. I'd rather see my money go to wellfare, which is spend on my own country.

Which 'silly war' are you referring to?

Any war is silly in my book. And the amount of money spend in such enterprises is really absurd. The recent wars in the middle east have not really solved anything but destabelising that area of the world.

In my country we get cuts in care and education but they never spoke about money when they went to Afghanistan.

saint mark wrote:

Any war is silly in my book. And the amount of money spend in such enterprises is really absurd.

Certainly Britain should never have expended so many lives liberating the Netherlands from the Germans. You're back in bed with them now.

I hear there are major cold spells in Europe this winter. I heard another expert on the radio, boldly predicting a coming ice age, based on failure of ice to melt in the Himalayas or something.

Whatever happened to global warming? Although I think the adjusted spin, is that any extreme weather is to be blamed on man-made emissions.

I'll have to check Al Gore's website for clarity.

tiffanywint wrote:

Whatever happened to global warming?

The taxers changed its name to 'climate change' precisely because so many people were asking that question.

Erica Ambler wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Any war is silly in my book. And the amount of money spend in such enterprises is really absurd.

Certainly Britain should never have expended so many lives liberating the Netherlands from the Germans. You're back in bed with them now.

That was originally what I was going to say before deciding just to ask him to clarify his "silly wars" comment.

The wars in the Middle East probably are a waste of time, since it's all they've ever known (and are unable to understand any concept other than violence), but if your country had to be rescued from the Nazis by those decadent, Imperialist Americans, perhaps you're not the most credible voice to be criticizing "silly wars". You know what I'm saying? I mean, if America had considered the idea of liberating Europe as a "silly war", The Netherlands would look a lot different than it does today, and probably not for the better.

The only thing violence solves is conflict.

I'll file this comment by Samuel L. Jackson under the category of: DUH!!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/samuel-l-jackson-i-voted-for-barack-obama-because-he-was-black/

Samuel L. Jackson: ‘I Voted For Barack Obama Because He Was Black’

In an interview with Ebony Magazine, actor Samuel L. Jackson spoke candidly about his support of President Obama in 2008, the New York Post reports. “I voted for Barack because he was black,” Jackson revealed. “‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them.”

That’s American politics, pure and simple,” Jackson added. “[Obama’s] message didn’t mean sh*t to me. In the end, he’s a politician. I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do. I know politicians say sh*t; they lie. ’Cuz they want to get elected.”

“When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a n*gga. Because, what’s a n*gga? A n*gga is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all. N*ggas don’t have beers at the White House. N*ggas don’t let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar. A n*gga would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the f*ck said that?’ I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ’cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.”

------------------------------

Uh, no. Millions of people who did not look like Obama voted for him in 2008. But thank you for confirming what we already knew: Barack Hussein Obama was elected president solely on the merit of his skin color. With no job experience to speak of, having spent most of his life being a student and a professional community activist , and having barely been in the U.S. Senate 6 months before starting a presidential exploration bid (Hillary Clinton had already served a full term by that point), Obama felt he was ready to be the president. :roll:

I'm sure Sam's not the only one. And I'm sure there were Americans who voted for McCain because he was white. Ridiculous. Although, both candidates weren't really qualified. :roll:

Should have voted Nader.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Any war is silly in my book. And the amount of money spend in such enterprises is really absurd.

Certainly Britain should never have expended so many lives liberating the Netherlands from the Germans. You're back in bed with them now.

That was originally what I was going to say before deciding just to ask him to clarify his "silly wars" comment.

The wars in the Middle East probably are a waste of time, since it's all they've ever known (and are unable to understand any concept other than violence), but if your country had to be rescued from the Nazis by those decadent, Imperialist Americans, perhaps you're not the most credible voice to be criticizing "silly wars". You know what I'm saying? I mean, if America had considered the idea of liberating Europe as a "silly war", The Netherlands would look a lot different than it does today, and probably not for the better.

The only thing violence solves is conflict.

Ah yes the great WOII, IF Adolf had played it better Europe would have been Germany (including Great Britain) and the world would be a different place. And perhaps better or worse. But with all the so-called saving which was done by the goodness of the US heart did they actually gain something?- Suddenly a crisis found its ending because the US industry started working overtime. After the war all European nations were made to pay economically through their noses, the dekolonisation which was required by the US so that they in turn could gain financial and political advantages did not quite work out so brilliantly these days. The US wasn't that interested in WOII but a person like Roosevelt, who would be cursed at today the bleedin'heart liberal he was, knew that an all powerfull Nazi-empire on the right and an strong Japanese empire on the left wasn't the best solution. Neither war was a surprise, but the way they tackled the US was.

Still we are gratefull for the support, but it isn't an argument you can keep using now almost 75 years later.

As for the remark that Germany is again the largest power in Europe I would say that is a fair remark, but they did not have a person like Thatcher that with her goverment gutted the infrastructure of Great Britain and gave nothing in return except more to the rich and the banks. Those same banks that are seemingly deciding the UK EU policies as long as they don't suffer for it. The EU is a great economical structure that has brought the european nations a great deal of wealth. Not all its ideas are great, but unless we work together we stand little of a chance against the great economical powerhouses in the world like the US & China.
What we need now more than ever are regulations for the banks to protect its customers against a repeat of what happened before. But it seems that the banking system has learned nothing and is already back to its old tricks.

With the silly wars currently going on which serve nothing at all and a crisis going on they are a waste of money and they are not being won by all the military might as we find out day by day. Those would be money better spend at home.

saint mark wrote:

IF Adolf had played it better Europe would have been Germany (including Great Britain)

No matter how well Hitler played his hand, Britain would never have fallen.

HJackson wrote:

saint mark wrote:

IF Adolf had played it better Europe would have been Germany (including Great Britain)

No matter how well Hitler played his hand, Britain would never have fallen.

Not so sure about that. Had the Jerries pulled their Sea Lion they might have not arrived, true. But if they had just waited patiently and had not attacked Russia? Different situation altogether, hard to predict how that might have ended. Fact is the Nazis loved Britain and had hopes the English would sooner or later join the black parade. And the British establishment had a definite affection for the Nazis. Mosley wasn't just an obscure boyscout figure, you know. One of the reasons Fleming got the position with the NID was exactly that he wasn't suspect of Nazi tendecies, despite his time spent in Germany and his command of the language. So one year of blockade together with continuous air raids could have tipped the balance in favour of the Jerries, who knows? Especially since they already had most of the Continent's ressources under their command.

However, the US didn't just decide to 'rescue' Europe with its silly little wars. The USA had good reason to expect a winning Nazi regime would aim for their own continent within a decade. Involvement wasn't a decision born out of 'humanity' or 'friendship' and least of all because of 'special relations'. It was plain and simple self-defence, nothing else. A significant part of American public obviously regrets the decision today, probably best illustrated right here. Strange given the fact it can hardly be argued chubby couch potatoes 70 years later would have anything to do with the people fighting in WWII, can it? Still, foreign feathers seem to have a particularly bright shine for some. I wouldn't wear them though...




Makes me wonder, how different would our world look today if things had gone a different path?

saint mark wrote:

Thatcher that with her goverment gutted the infrastructure of Great Britain and gave nothing in return except more to the rich and the banks. Those same banks that are seemingly deciding the UK EU policies as long as they don't suffer for it. The EU is a great economical structure that has brought the european nations a great deal of wealth. Not all its ideas are great, but unless we work together we stand little of a chance against the great economical powerhouses in the world like the US & China.
What we need now more than ever are regulations for the banks to protect its customers against a repeat of what happened before. But it seems that the banking system has learned nothing and is already back to its old tricks.

With the silly wars currently going on which serve nothing at all and a crisis going on they are a waste of money and they are not being won by all the military might as we find out day by day. Those would be money better spend at home.

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world. And don't forget the UK's banking crisis was partly caused by Scotland's purchase of the Netherland's ABN AMRO.

The Dutch. Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

TedHeath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

You can't blame Thatcher for that.

TedHeath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

When she took office in 1979 the UK was down to 27th.

Erica Ambler wrote:

TedHeath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

When she took office in 1979 the UK was down to 27th.

No small thanks to TedHeath.

Sharky wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

TedHeath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

When she took office in 1979 the UK was down to 27th.

No small thanks to TedHeath.

WOW, JERK. Actually, I have a question for you Sharky. Who do you think was worse; Harold Wilson or Ted Heath? I personally dislike both of them.

TedHeath wrote:

Actually, I have a question for you Sharky. Who do you think was worse; Harold Wilson or Ted Heath? I personally dislike both of them.

Ted Heath. At least Wilson had the honestly to stand for Labour and call himself a socialist. Heath was like Cameron, a red in blue clothing, plus five yachts.

Sharky wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

TedHeath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

When she took office in 1979 the UK was down to 27th.

No small thanks to TedHeath.

You're aware that Callaghan was in power prior to Thatcher?

Anyone who dislikes Heath is homophobic.

Erica Ambler wrote:

You're aware that Callaghan was in power prior to Thatcher?

Yeah, for like 3 years. And it wasn't even a term he won. He didn't do that much in terms of the economy, I wouldn't really blame him.