[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].DeaconJohn. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].DeaconJohn. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME] ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Not to good at reading?[/QUOTE]
Not too good at grammar?[/QUOTE]
There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.[/QUOTE]
- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though.
So, with that in mind, I have to ask...
...not too good at reading?[/QUOTE]
More like: posted without checking.[/QUOTE]
No actually, from all the threads i have seen you post on, the question would be...
...not too good at thinking before speaking?
But you ARE thinking, that is the whole problem.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].DeaconJohn. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].DeaconJohn. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME] ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Not to good at reading?[/QUOTE]
Not too good at grammar?[/QUOTE]
There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.[/QUOTE]
- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though.
So, with that in mind, I have to ask...
...not too good at reading?[/QUOTE]
More like: posted without checking.[/QUOTE]
No actually, from all the threads i have seen you post on, the question would be...
...not too good at thinking before speaking?
But you ARE thinking, that is the whole problem.[/QUOTE]
End this discussion. Now.
Not too good at grammar?[/QUOTE]
There is a major difference between TYPO and GRAMMAR.[/QUOTE]
- Fair enough. I would presume you read posts once after you type them to check for such errors though.
So, with that in mind, I have to ask...
...not too good at reading?[/QUOTE]
More like: posted without checking.[/QUOTE]
No actually, from all the threads i have seen you post on, the question would be...
...not too good at thinking before speaking?
But you ARE thinking, that is the whole problem.[/QUOTE]
End this discussion. Now.
There is no sense in responding to such a post. In fact, I'm not going to respond to any other posts in this thread. Senseless nitpicking has made it stray from its original point: namely that the US leadership is a criminal bunch. Not to mention one with a daft leader, seeing how he is ignoring the recommendations a sensible study made, in sending 20 000 additional people to place themselves in harm's way just so he can pressure senate and house a bit more. For fuck's sake, even the Republicans are straying from his side! http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html
Fucking autocracy in the making!
Fucking autocracy in the making!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There is no sense in responding to such a post. In fact, I'm not going to respond to any other posts in this thread. Senseless nitpicking has made it stray from its original point: namely that the US leadership is a criminal bunch. Not to mention one with a daft leader, seeing how he is ignoring the recommendations a sensible study made, in sending 20 000 additional people to place themselves in harm's way just so he can pressure senate and house a bit more. For fuck's sake, even the Republicans are straying from his side! http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html
Fucking autocracy in the making![/QUOTE]
Bravo TQ! lol. Now if you would have started the thread in this manner, then there would have been alot less fighting and confusion. I totally agree with what you just said. I hate Bush, as i have always stated, but my problem was when you personally attacked the American people, we have no choice who our leader is. You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner. But anyways, i am not posting here anymore either. Good day
Fucking autocracy in the making![/QUOTE]
Bravo TQ! lol. Now if you would have started the thread in this manner, then there would have been alot less fighting and confusion. I totally agree with what you just said. I hate Bush, as i have always stated, but my problem was when you personally attacked the American people, we have no choice who our leader is. You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner. But anyways, i am not posting here anymore either. Good day
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner.[/QUOTE]
You mean...more people vote Republican, right? Aside from that one hassle in 2000, what could you mean?
You mean...more people vote Republican, right? Aside from that one hassle in 2000, what could you mean?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You are probably thinking 'yes you do, that is why you vote', ok, but it seems like there are always fraudulent voting and screw up to make the Republican's the winner.[/QUOTE]
You mean...more people vote Republican, right? Aside from that one hassle in 2000, what could you mean?[/QUOTE]
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.
You mean...more people vote Republican, right? Aside from that one hassle in 2000, what could you mean?[/QUOTE]
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America...
Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all.
The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.
I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please.
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America...
Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all.
The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.
I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America...
Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all.
The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.
I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please.[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol. Honestly, i do very well. And i have a Masters, so fuck off. I don't really care about the fucked up Bush shit, the sooner he is gone, the sooner the whole world will rejuvenate.
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America...
Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all.
The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.
I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please.[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck are you to question my education? lol. Honestly, i do very well. And i have a Masters, so fuck off. I don't really care about the fucked up Bush shit, the sooner he is gone, the sooner the whole world will rejuvenate.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.[/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.[/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway.
Ironic that a Netherlander should call someone else a Nazi sympathiser, mind you better than a collaborator eh TQ.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America...
Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all.
The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.
I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please.[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck are you to question my education?[/QUOTE]
I'm someone who read your entirely uninformed post. Isn't that enough? Not that I even questioned your education. I merely stated that I did not know what it was.
No i meant, even though we vote, we never get the person with the most popularity, the final decision is up to the Elect. College. so we it doesn't matter how many people did NOT vote for Bush, i am one of those, we still get stuck with whoever those elect. college assholes pick. Yeah the hassle you brought up, the hassle was in the state from where Bush's Brother was Governor, hmmm, maybe that was set up? lol.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking that you do not understand how elections work in the United States of America...
Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but I'd be cruel not to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Do you know what grave effects faithless electors have had on the course of our elections' history? None. At all.
The only thing that is close to an argument that you could possibly make (even though you didn't) is that it is possible for the electoral vote to belie the popular vote, if the vote is close enough. That has happened only three times in American history, so I dare say it's nothing to worry about.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence.
I don't know, Crezchi, I don't know...I don't know what your education is...but you might want to look some of this stuff up...ESPECIALLY before you formulate opinions on them. Please.[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck are you to question my education?[/QUOTE]
I'm someone who read your entirely uninformed post. Isn't that enough? Not that I even questioned your education. I merely stated that I did not know what it was.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir Archie Leach wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ironic that a Netherlander should call someone else a Nazi sympathiser, mind you better than a collaborator eh TQ.
[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the Underground? You know who set that up? The communists (and thus most of the working class) and some religious groups.
You know who collaborated most of all? The conservative middle class. That means *your* kind. The ones who liked the status quo. The racists. The cowards. All of those categories apply to you too.
[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the Underground? You know who set that up? The communists (and thus most of the working class) and some religious groups.
You know who collaborated most of all? The conservative middle class. That means *your* kind. The ones who liked the status quo. The racists. The cowards. All of those categories apply to you too.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. [/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. [/QUOTE]
It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. [/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. [/QUOTE]
It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. [/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. [/QUOTE]
It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?[/QUOTE]
It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. [/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. [/QUOTE]
It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?[/QUOTE]
It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. [/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. [/QUOTE]
It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?[/QUOTE]
It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.
Finally, "Bush's brother was governor of Florida. There was a voting dispute in Florida. Therefore, it was a setup," demonstrates some terrible logic, with a conclusion based on no evidence. [/QUOTE]
However, the *fact* that Bush got more votes in some constituencies than there were *people* living there is a dead giveaway. [/QUOTE]
It's actually not a dead giveaway, as vote counts which exceed voters is not uncommon. Do you really think it's within the abilities of a state governor to manipulate votes anyway?[/QUOTE]
It's within the abilities of anyone with enough cash.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, do you relize the power and money that the Bush family have? The fact that they are Oil Tycoon's, GB Sr. was the Director of the CIA, then Pres., GWB deserted his country in war time, ect, ect, ect.