• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Bush just said goodbye!

Could you tell me which right of yours has been taken away? Name the right. Tell me where you denied it.

The USA PATRIOT Act
And this shows how incredibly simple and ignorant you are.

The Patriot Act did not remove any freedoms at all. As I pointed out in another thread, because I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about because I do this for a living, all the Patriot Act did was close loopholes that existed and put into statute law that was already on the books by court ruling.

This may be hard for you to understand because you're a Kool Aid drinker, but laws in this country are determined both by court ruling and by legislation (there are other methods too, but let's stick with the big ones) . When they are codified by legislation as they were in the Patriot Act, they have more teeth and less ambuguity for courts to deal with.

Uneducated people like you who are so obsessed with hating Bush spout off about the Patriot Act all the time and you don't even know what's in it. You just think it's bad because the people who think for you at Daily Kos, Move On and the ACLU tell you it's bad.

There was no fluke about 9/11 and if you think that there was you're naive as well as ignorant. As much I've come to appreciate Clinton, his Administration is what caused the failures that you refer to as being responsible (but since you are a Kool Aid drinker, you probably think that it was an inside job by the Bush Administration to begin so why should truth and reason affect your opinion) as it chose to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not an issue of National Security which is why the AG's Office put up the wall preventing the CIA and the FBI from communicating with each other and sharing information. But that's probably a conspiracy by the Bush Administration too, right?

The Radical Islamic is nothing new and we did nothing to bring it upon ourselves and their stated goals is the destruction of the Westen World in favor of ther own warped version of Islam. You and your freedoms are the target. I challenge you to read the many works of Bernard Lewis for an accurate history of these savages and the movement.

As for success since 9/11, again you're a Kool Aid drinker so you're obviously ignorant of the 19 terrorist plots have been thwarted specifically because of the US policies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

Now, since you're a flaming leftist, you'll probably choose to dismiss the article because of the source, the Heritage Foundation. Fine, look up the cases listed in the article on your own. It's all public information and it's not hard to find, but your logic and rhetoric tend to be lazy, so I'm not really expecting a lot.

As an aside, I normally use politically neutral sources when I cite, but this is the only article I could find that listed all of the thwarted terrorist attacks that were on the record. The only one that I wouldn't have included was the thwarted attack by Richard Reid because US policy had nothing to do with it, it was the result of alert passengers and crew on the airplane.

As for why Clinton doesn't get credit for any other attacks prevented post the 1993 WTC bombing, that's simple: because he didn't. In fact throughout the next 8 years his policies fostered the free movement of terrorists in this country to plan and carry out attacks against the US (see: 9/11 and OKC). I'm not going to blame the Clinton Administration exclusively for 9/11 as there is a lot of blame to go around and ultimately the terroirsts are the ones who are responsible for it but you just want to close your eyes to the historical truth because you hate Bush so much.

The reason I've let this thread continue without any input on my part is not because I can't defnd my position, it's because I don't need to and it doesn't matter anyway what I say to you Kool Aid drinkers suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. All you can see is your own hatred.

I say, "why bother?" At the end of the day, chances are that I make a lot more money than you, have a bigger house and am actually happy with myself and my family despite a crappy economy and the fact that the President-elect isn't a guy I wouldn't have picked.

You're miserable and it shows everytime you post.

I'm not and I don't need to spend four days proving to a bunch of left-wing fringe dopes I don't even know how right I am.

Good luck with you and your hatred. I hope it works out for you and I can't wait to see your posts in four years when you're still complaining about Bush.

-Shawn :borg:
 
Wow, is this like in elementary school when the girls punched the boys that you really liked?? ;)
 
Could you tell me which right of yours has been taken away? Name the right. Tell me where you denied it.

The USA PATRIOT Act
And this shows how incredibly simple and ignorant you are.

The Patriot Act did not remove any freedoms at all. As I pointed out in another thread, because I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about because I do this for a living, all the Patriot Act did was close loopholes that existed and put into statute law that was already on the books by court ruling.

This may be hard for you to understand because you're a Kool Aid drinker, but laws in this country are determined both by court ruling and by legislation (there are other methods too, but let's stick with the big ones) . When they are codified by legislation as they were in the Patriot Act, they have more teeth and less ambuguity for courts to deal with.

Uneducated people like you who are so obsessed with hating Bush spout off about the Patriot Act all the time and you don't even know what's in it. You just think it's bad because the people who think for you at Daily Kos, Move On and the ACLU tell you it's bad.

There was no fluke about 9/11 and if you think that there was you're naive as well as ignorant. As much I've come to appreciate Clinton, his Administration is what caused the failures that you refer to as being responsible (but since you are a Kool Aid drinker, you probably think that it was an inside job by the Bush Administration to begin so why should truth and reason affect your opinion) as it chose to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not an issue of National Security which is why the AG's Office put up the wall preventing the CIA and the FBI from communicating with each other and sharing information. But that's probably a conspiracy by the Bush Administration too, right?

The Radical Islamic is nothing new and we did nothing to bring it upon ourselves and their stated goals is the destruction of the Westen World in favor of ther own warped version of Islam. You and your freedoms are the target. I challenge you to read the many works of Bernard Lewis for an accurate history of these savages and the movement.

As for success since 9/11, again you're a Kool Aid drinker so you're obviously ignorant of the 19 terrorist plots have been thwarted specifically because of the US policies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

Now, since you're a flaming leftist, you'll probably choose to dismiss the article because of the source, the Heritage Foundation. Fine, look up the cases listed in the article on your own. It's all public information and it's not hard to find, but your logic and rhetoric tend to be lazy, so I'm not really expecting a lot.

As an aside, I normally use politically neutral sources when I cite, but this is the only article I could find that listed all of the thwarted terrorist attacks that were on the record. The only one that I wouldn't have included was the thwarted attack by Richard Reid because US policy had nothing to do with it, it was the result of alert passengers and crew on the airplane.

As for why Clinton doesn't get credit for any other attacks prevented post the 1993 WTC bombing, that's simple: because he didn't. In fact throughout the next 8 years his policies fostered the free movement of terrorists in this country to plan and carry out attacks against the US (see: 9/11 and OKC). I'm not going to blame the Clinton Administration exclusively for 9/11 as there is a lot of blame to go around and ultimately the terroirsts are the ones who are responsible for it but you just want to close your eyes to the historical truth because you hate Bush so much.

The reason I've let this thread continue without any input on my part is not because I can't defnd my position, it's because I don't need to and it doesn't matter anyway what I say to you Kool Aid drinkers suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. All you can see is your own hatred.

I say, "why bother?" At the end of the day, chances are that I make a lot more money than you, have a bigger house and am actually happy with myself and my family despite a crappy economy and the fact that the President-elect isn't a guy I wouldn't have picked.

You're miserable and it shows everytime you post.

I'm not and I don't need to spend four days proving to a bunch of left-wing fringe dopes I don't even know how right I am.

Good luck with you and your hatred. I hope it works out for you and I can't wait to see your posts in four years when you're still complaining about Bush.

-Shawn :borg:

Wow ... pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

--Ted
 
Could you tell me which right of yours has been taken away? Name the right. Tell me where you denied it.

The USA PATRIOT Act
And this shows how incredibly simple and ignorant you are.

The Patriot Act did not remove any freedoms at all. As I pointed out in another thread, because I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about because I do this for a living, all the Patriot Act did was close loopholes that existed and put into statute law that was already on the books by court ruling.

This may be hard for you to understand because you're a Kool Aid drinker, but laws in this country are determined both by court ruling and by legislation (there are other methods too, but let's stick with the big ones) . When they are codified by legislation as they were in the Patriot Act, they have more teeth and less ambuguity for courts to deal with.

Uneducated people like you who are so obsessed with hating Bush spout off about the Patriot Act all the time and you don't even know what's in it. You just think it's bad because the people who think for you at Daily Kos, Move On and the ACLU tell you it's bad.

There was no fluke about 9/11 and if you think that there was you're naive as well as ignorant. As much I've come to appreciate Clinton, his Administration is what caused the failures that you refer to as being responsible (but since you are a Kool Aid drinker, you probably think that it was an inside job by the Bush Administration to begin so why should truth and reason affect your opinion) as it chose to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not an issue of National Security which is why the AG's Office put up the wall preventing the CIA and the FBI from communicating with each other and sharing information. But that's probably a conspiracy by the Bush Administration too, right?

The Radical Islamic is nothing new and we did nothing to bring it upon ourselves and their stated goals is the destruction of the Westen World in favor of ther own warped version of Islam. You and your freedoms are the target. I challenge you to read the many works of Bernard Lewis for an accurate history of these savages and the movement.

As for success since 9/11, again you're a Kool Aid drinker so you're obviously ignorant of the 19 terrorist plots have been thwarted specifically because of the US policies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

Now, since you're a flaming leftist, you'll probably choose to dismiss the article because of the source, the Heritage Foundation. Fine, look up the cases listed in the article on your own. It's all public information and it's not hard to find, but your logic and rhetoric tend to be lazy, so I'm not really expecting a lot.

As an aside, I normally use politically neutral sources when I cite, but this is the only article I could find that listed all of the thwarted terrorist attacks that were on the record. The only one that I wouldn't have included was the thwarted attack by Richard Reid because US policy had nothing to do with it, it was the result of alert passengers and crew on the airplane.

As for why Clinton doesn't get credit for any other attacks prevented post the 1993 WTC bombing, that's simple: because he didn't. In fact throughout the next 8 years his policies fostered the free movement of terrorists in this country to plan and carry out attacks against the US (see: 9/11 and OKC). I'm not going to blame the Clinton Administration exclusively for 9/11 as there is a lot of blame to go around and ultimately the terroirsts are the ones who are responsible for it but you just want to close your eyes to the historical truth because you hate Bush so much.

The reason I've let this thread continue without any input on my part is not because I can't defnd my position, it's because I don't need to and it doesn't matter anyway what I say to you Kool Aid drinkers suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. All you can see is your own hatred.

I say, "why bother?" At the end of the day, chances are that I make a lot more money than you, have a bigger house and am actually happy with myself and my family despite a crappy economy and the fact that the President-elect isn't a guy I wouldn't have picked.

You're miserable and it shows everytime you post.

I'm not and I don't need to spend four days proving to a bunch of left-wing fringe dopes I don't even know how right I am.

Good luck with you and your hatred. I hope it works out for you and I can't wait to see your posts in four years when you're still complaining about Bush.

-Shawn :borg:

That was an absolutely fabulous post. Dead on. Thank you.

Where can I ship you a signed copy of "Bold Fresh Piece"? :techman:
 
The reason I've let this thread continue without any input on my part is not because I can't defnd my position, it's because I don't need to and it doesn't matter anyway what I say to you Kool Aid drinkers suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. All you can see is your own hatred.

I say, "why bother?" At the end of the day, chances are that I make a lot more money than you, have a bigger house and am actually happy with myself and my family despite a crappy economy and the fact that the President-elect isn't a guy I wouldn't have picked.

You're miserable and it shows everytime you post.

I'm not and I don't need to spend four days proving to a bunch of left-wing fringe dopes I don't even know how right I am.

Good luck with you and your hatred. I hope it works out for you and I can't wait to see your posts in four years when you're still complaining about Bush.



Okay, several point to be made. For one thing, I HATE KOOL AID!!!!!

But moving on, the Patroit Act did not remove freedoms it removed liberties. So you are correct in the technical definition.

Uneducated people aren't the only ones who dislike Bush, they are of all levels of education and walks of life, because as in peril as our education system is, we do not have 69% of the country not being able to read and write.

The Seeds of our Terrorism problems today go waaaaay back before Clinton to the Reagan era, when we were chummy and on speaking terms with Osama Bin Laden and Saadam Hussein. We supplied them and used the to achieve our aims against the communists.

As for the general unpopularity of George Bush, he had nearly the entire country behind him after 9/11. I disliked him at that point, but after 9/11 I would have saluted him if he were to cross my path. He blew it. America was united behind our government and our President at that time. We had faith and hope in him. Then, he decided to invade Iraq and it became that you were "either with us or against us." That was an unforgivebale mistake, dividing the country and proving his inability to lead everyone, only those who agreed with him. He could have been the most popular and effective President in decades, but he blew it and he has no one to blame but himself.

His Adminstration Committed Treason. Outting Valerie Plame, a CIA operative working against Nuclear Proliferation. Gathering crucial intelligence about Loose Nuclear weapons. Because her husband called them out on their shaky inteligence data, they effetively painted a bulls-eye on her head and said to the world, "Shoot her" That is treason and even if you don't think Bush had any part in it, he made himself a part of it by pardoning Scooter Libby.

So, let me be very clear, you don't have to drink the Kool-Aid to have very legitimate problems with George W. Bush. You don't have to be uneducated to have problems with George W. Bush. You don't have to be a manic to have problems with George W. Bush.

We probably will still be saying sour things about Bush for a time, because is negative impact on ou country is so extreme. We have gone from a stable economy to economic disaster. We have gone from peace to war. Our status in the world has collapsed.

The grade on this Presidents Report Card is and F. And as I said before, he has no one to blame but himself.

And Let me be the first to say, right now, us who have felt this way about Bush, are not miserable, we're overjoyed! Finally after 8 years of this leadership that has led our country that we do love by the way, into darkness and war, we will have a new President.

And one final note, remember don't call 69% of the people the fringe, when the people who agree with you are 26%. In this case you would be more along the line of a fringe.
 
I beg your pardon?
You don't have it. You appear to me to be a troll. Rather than taking the point that I have made very clearly, you have instead chosen to extend your illogical assumptions about Dayton3's motivations to me. If you are not intentionally trolling, I would suggest that a little more comprehension of what others are saying, and a little less typing to read yourself, might be in order.

To accuse me of being somehow anti-Britain is the very height of folly. I am a huge fan of many things and people from the U.K. - Monty Python, Doctor Who, Coupling, Fawlty Towers, Keeping Up Appearances, Are You Being Served?, Father Ted, Rick Astley, The Corrs, and on and on. T'Pau is my favorite musical act, period, and I have all of their albums, including the ones not released on this side of the pond. Douglas Adams was my favorite author. I have occasionally argued to friends that, upon winning the revolution, we should have used the win to gain fair representation in Parliament, rather than independence. After 9/11, when the Queen had our national anthem played for the changing of the guard as a sign of solidarity with us, I teared up. And after Katrina, when your military sent some of their rations over to the survivors, and our FDA threw them out as "unfit for human consumption", I wanted someone punished for the slight to our friends. I made phone calls, not that it did much good.

Also, don't preach to me about my country. I've been a patriot since before I could walk, and am well studied in the principles my country was founded on. I believe in them, wholeheartedly. And, I live here. I am far from being an isolationist, and I am very appreciative of the friendship offered to my country by yours and others. But I grow about as weary of your input in our internal matters as you would were I to give my opinion on allowing MPs to vote on building a third runway at Heathrow. For you, a lot of this is just some distant concept. "America as a notion is thrilling and awe inspiring." How nice for you. I work with an elderly black man whose family were sharecroppers for the family of the man who owns our company. We all call him "Uncle Will". One of the elementary schools I went to underwent desegregation while I was there. I believe I know a bit more about what constitutes racism and what doesn't in my country than you do.

I'm a troll am I?

I suggest you read your posts then before comitting them to posterity - you were offensive about the British and you were offensive about blacks and now you call me names.

You diatribe is utterly lacking in any form of meaningful detail and The Corrs and Father Ted are Irish.

In fact, with those glaring errors, it's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

I love America because they make Coca Cola - oh please - do me a favour. Thank you for beinging the debate down to your level.
 
Last edited:
I completely forgot about this farewell address. Looking back, I think that might have been a good thing.
 
The Patriot Act did not remove any freedoms at all.

The Patriot Act in a Nutshell
The Associated Press, Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:

* Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
* Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests. "Sensitive" information has been removed from government Web sites.
* Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
* Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
* Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
* Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
* Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. "Enemy combatants" have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-meta.html

As I pointed out in another thread, because I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about because I do this for a living, all the Patriot Act did was close loopholes that existed and put into statute law that was already on the books by court ruling.
No, what it did was take the wish list of investigative powers law enforcement agencies always wanted and were denied by the Constitution and lower statutes and made them reality. It was then abused for investigations into a wide variety of areas that had little or nothing to do with terrorism, at least until in some cases they threw a bogus terrorism-related charge at the case:

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-article.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act

There was no fluke about 9/11 and if you think that there was you're naive as well as ignorant. As much I've come to appreciate Clinton, his Administration is what caused the failures that you refer to as being responsible
Would that be the same Clinton Administration that caught 5 of the 6 planners of his WTC attack (including the mastermind), which by the way happened only 36 days into his administration so he had even less of a chance to prepare to deal with it than Bush did?

Would that be the same Clinton administration that made terrorism its top intelligence and law enforcement priority, proposed investing billions into anti-terrorist activities and suggested broad sweeping anti-terrorism policy changes (most of which were shot down by Congressional Republicans)?

The same Clinton who took action (without invading, imagine that) against Iraq for trying to assassinate Bush the elder? Who was accused of "wagging the dog" by Republicans for going after al-Qaida during the Lewinski hearings? Who drew up plans to remove the Taliban government and go after bin Laden which were summarily dismissed (along with an entire wealth of anti-terrorism data) by the incoming Bush administration, who had no interest in dealing with either terrorism or the suggestions of the Clinton team at that time? Terrorism wasn't even listed in the top seven prioties of the FBI during the Ashcroft years, UNTIL 9/11 (drug enforcement was considered a bigger problem). Under Clinton terrorism was priority number one at the FBI.

(Scroll down to "Counter-terrorism and Osama bin Laden." It includes links to outside articles, so don't dismiss it just because it's Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration#cite_note-34

Here's a good one regarding the Clinton administrations anti-terrorism directives and how they were ignored by the Bush administration:
http://www.truthout.org/article/clinton-911-and-facts

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

(but since you are a Kool Aid drinker, you probably think that it was an inside job by the Bush Administration to begin so why should truth and reason affect your opinion)
Oh, please. I think Bush is incompetent, I don't think he was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Don't be absurd.

As for success since 9/11, again you're a Kool Aid drinker so you're obviously ignorant of the 19 terrorist plots have been thwarted specifically because of the US policies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
Okay, let's first look at the title of the article:

U.S. Thwarts 19 Terrorist Attacks Against America Since 9/11

Seems, reasonable enough, until you look at some of the things they have included, many of which are dubious at best. They include things which weren't successes by or didn't even involve US law enforcement (suspects arrested in the UK and Pakistan), terrorist plots that never even got off the ground (just saying "we're going to kill the infidel with a dirty bomb" or "we're going to blow up the Sears Tower" doesn't mean you have the materials or ability), plots that could never have realistically succeeded (like blowtorching the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge until it collapsed), fake terrorist plots set up by the FBI to draw in potential terrorists, people who never actually plotted an attack but simply lied to investigators about their activities, and so on. When you cut out all the extraneous BS, you could find an equal number of terrorist arrests during the Clinton administration.

The worst example they provide however is the first, which set the tone for the rest of the article for me:

Richard Reid, December 2001
They are aware that Reid boarded the plane with the explosives in his shoe, right? Apparently they are, because they mentioned that while still including it in the list of successes by the US government, which is odd since him getting aboard a flight with explosives seems like a failure to me. Or are they suggesting that the flight attendants and passengers that stopped him were working for the US government at the time?

(Reading on, I see that you criticized the inclusion of Reid as well, so that's good at least.)

Now, since you're a flaming leftist, you'll probably choose to dismiss the article because of the source, the Heritage Foundation.
Well, the Heritage Foundation do have kind of a checkered history on the subject (read beyond the bolded part though, because there's some great stuff there):
_______________________________________________

Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."

In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.

According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.

In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

http://www.truthout.org/article/clinton-911-and-facts

As for why Clinton doesn't get credit for any other attacks prevented post the 1993 WTC bombing, that's simple: because he didn't. In fact throughout the next 8 years his policies fostered the free movement of terrorists in this country to plan and carry out attacks against the US.
What about the attempted LAX bombing in 2000, as part of Al-Qaida's three-fold "Millennium Attacks" plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_millennium_attack_plots

Good luck with you and your hatred. I hope it works out for you and I can't wait to see your posts in four years when you're still complaining about Bush.
What an odd thing for a person who just spent a large portion of this same post bitching about Clinton to say. :lol:
 
You diatribe is utterly lacking in any form of meaningful detail and The Corrs and Father Ted are Irish.
It doesn't matter that they are Irish, except insofar as I appreciate some of Ireland's contributions, too. (I almost had The Cranberries in that list - if you thought I was hilarious before, that might have made you hurt yourself. :rolleyes:) They're still part of the Empire, a part directly ruled by Britain, in fact. And, they are fairly considered British entertainment quite aside from that, since very few in the rest of the world would have heard of them if not for the Beeb.
I love America because they make Coca Cola - oh please - do me a favour. Thank you for beinging the debate down to your level.
Heck, if ya like McDonald's and The Pussycat Dolls, you could fit right in! :D And I believe I mentioned a bit more than just frivolities.

This isn't a debate. You've made blanket assertions that Dayton3 and I are apparently racists, and I am anti-Britain, without supporting those assertions at all. I have told you that you are incorrect about those assertions, and given reasons why. And I think that is quite enough of this. Good day.
 
You diatribe is utterly lacking in any form of meaningful detail and The Corrs and Father Ted are Irish.
It doesn't matter that they are Irish, except insofar as I appreciate some of Ireland's contributions, too. (I almost had The Cranberries in that list - if you thought I was hilarious before, that might have made you hurt yourself. :rolleyes:) They're still part of the Empire, a part directly ruled by Britain, in fact. And, they are fairly considered British entertainment quite aside from that, since very few in the rest of the world would have heard of them if not for the Beeb.
I love America because they make Coca Cola - oh please - do me a favour. Thank you for beinging the debate down to your level.
Heck, if ya like McDonald's and The Pussycat Dolls, you could fit right in! :D And I believe I mentioned a bit more than just frivolities.

This isn't a debate. You've made blanket assertions that Dayton3 and I are apparently racists, and I am anti-Britain, without supporting those assertions at all. I have told you that you are incorrect about those assertions, and given reasons why. And I think that is quite enough of this. Good day.

Your lack of geographical knowledge in addition to your lack of knowledge around the sensitivities of the Irish by calling them British are amusing in equal measure Sir. In some parts of these islands, the people you offend with that one might give you a slap actually. :guffaw:

You need to stop chatting - your hole is getting bigger by the moment.

And you derailed the thread by concentrating on me rather than the subject.

I'd call that trolling Sir.
 
Monitoring does not equal denial of rights.

And the Clinton Admin. actions against Saddam Hussein were a joke. Utterly ineffective by any standard.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top