[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>?Sasha wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME]sasha your a joke if your serious[/QUOTE]
That would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious.
Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
no im pretty sure its sasha
and im dead serious
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>?Sasha wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME]sasha your a joke if your serious[/QUOTE]
That would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious.
Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
no im pretty sure its sasha
and im dead serious[/QUOTE]
That's what I thought.
That would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious.
Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
no im pretty sure its sasha
and im dead serious[/QUOTE]
That's what I thought.
I'd say Sasha for president!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'd say Sasha for president!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
United Hooters of America?
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
United Hooters of America?
Pardon for my ignorance of American politics but wasn't there an African-American chap who was a candidate for Presidency? I can't recall his name but I'm hoping for someone to enlighten me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>?Sasha wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'd say Sasha for president!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
United Hooters of America?[/QUOTE]
LMAO! :D
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
United Hooters of America?[/QUOTE]
LMAO! :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]iGSM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Pardon for my ignorance of American politics but wasn't there an African-American chap who was a candidate for Presidency? I can't recall his name but I'm hoping for someone to enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
Rigth you are. Barack Obama.
http://www.barackobama.com/video/from_barack_transcript/index.php
Rigth you are. Barack Obama.
http://www.barackobama.com/video/from_barack_transcript/index.php
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>?Sasha wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'd say Sasha for president!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
United Hooters of America?[/QUOTE]
Yes ma'am!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
United Hooters of America?[/QUOTE]
Yes ma'am!
Thank you kindly.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote:[/QUOTENAME] That is not at all what he is saying....
It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces.
Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much.
So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical. [/QUOTE]
So basically, you are first defending him, then, when you see that you have lost that, you accuse us of attacking you over something you *haven't said*, because you only agree with *some of his ideas* as being good? Now that's the lowest of all low tricks in the book, switching positions mid-argument.[/QUOTE]
You are hopeless. I see that you also whitewash over your Nazi accusation.
You have problems. What have I lost? Nothing. I said that I agree with the premise of the posted statement, did I not?
There are other ideas of his that I do NOT agree with, but, let me ask you, do you agree lockstep with EVERYTHING that people say or think?
And, yes, you are the one here who constantly refers to name calling. This is at least half a dozen times that you have referred to me as a Nazi. Why? Because I don't agree with your ultra-liberalism?
With the education part that Zeni brought up, I would agree in part, but not totally. American history, depending on the political persuasion of the educator, can indeed be taught with a skewed revisionism, but I don't know if that is really a big issue.
And, no, Zeni, I was not referring to you before.
It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces.
Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much.
So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical. [/QUOTE]
So basically, you are first defending him, then, when you see that you have lost that, you accuse us of attacking you over something you *haven't said*, because you only agree with *some of his ideas* as being good? Now that's the lowest of all low tricks in the book, switching positions mid-argument.[/QUOTE]
You are hopeless. I see that you also whitewash over your Nazi accusation.
You have problems. What have I lost? Nothing. I said that I agree with the premise of the posted statement, did I not?
There are other ideas of his that I do NOT agree with, but, let me ask you, do you agree lockstep with EVERYTHING that people say or think?
And, yes, you are the one here who constantly refers to name calling. This is at least half a dozen times that you have referred to me as a Nazi. Why? Because I don't agree with your ultra-liberalism?
With the education part that Zeni brought up, I would agree in part, but not totally. American history, depending on the political persuasion of the educator, can indeed be taught with a skewed revisionism, but I don't know if that is really a big issue.
And, no, Zeni, I was not referring to you before.
Children. -.-'
Fair enough, Haystacks. My apologies, but it was unclear to me; thus, the testy response.
As for education, Newt seems to think it's a pretty important issue, at least in his rhetoric and from his stance as a former history professor. My concern, however, is twofold: first, that kind of education that he wants tends to ignore the plight and contributions of minorities; and second, how does that mentality influence his other ideas.
I've encountered students who think that way before. If you do not teach the "America: Fuck Yeah" approach, then you are a bleeding heart liberal one step from being a Red Commie Bastard. Unfortunately, US history is not as pretty as they want it to be.
As for education, Newt seems to think it's a pretty important issue, at least in his rhetoric and from his stance as a former history professor. My concern, however, is twofold: first, that kind of education that he wants tends to ignore the plight and contributions of minorities; and second, how does that mentality influence his other ideas.
I've encountered students who think that way before. If you do not teach the "America: Fuck Yeah" approach, then you are a bleeding heart liberal one step from being a Red Commie Bastard. Unfortunately, US history is not as pretty as they want it to be.
Hillary Clinton supports the War on Iraq. So vote wisely if you're against the war and you were rooting for her. I'm not American so I can't tell much about the other candidates but Hillary seems bad. I doubt she'll win...that's why the Republicans are supporting her nomination in a way; to ensure their victory in 2008. I think Barack Obama is a bad choice too. No, he hasn't done anything controversial. But America is, and probably never will be ready for a black president. Sorry, but most Americans are atleast subconsciously racist or would be very picky when it comes to a black candidate...so I have my doubts.
You have to have both sides, I think. The plight of minorities in the past in the US is crucial to our history, because if you do not learn from your past mistakes, you're bound to make them again.
There is also room for the America first thought as well. I don't think that it does anyone any good to have it all on one side of that argument or the other.
In other words, I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive.
This same thing holds true today, all across the world. Minorities have always been persecuted, if you will, look what is happening in places in Africa, look at Iraq, etc.
Give the US credit for doing what it has done to give minorities equal footing. The same cannot be said in other places.
There is also room for the America first thought as well. I don't think that it does anyone any good to have it all on one side of that argument or the other.
In other words, I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive.
This same thing holds true today, all across the world. Minorities have always been persecuted, if you will, look what is happening in places in Africa, look at Iraq, etc.
Give the US credit for doing what it has done to give minorities equal footing. The same cannot be said in other places.
I never said it happens "only in America" and I don't criticize Bush every chance I get. He has done his share of good. He has eliminated racial profiling in the US at all levels among other good deeds. But that doesn't make America ready for a black president. People wouldn't vote for a gay president either. Just like in India, I doubt that a Manipur or Mizoram native could ever front a ruling party...but it isn't true everywhere. Look at the Dutch, the Germans and the Belgians...they're doing very well, having foreign MPs. But that doesn't mean they're ready for an immigrant to assume power over the state. It just shows that they're progressive...