Re: Ya gotta love Socialism.
philo
> Motorists face new ￜ15 'victims levy'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8437440.stm
>
> Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
> caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
> crime?
>
> It's the only fair thing to do.
>
>
it figures
and yes , might as well fine the victims too
§nühw¤£f
> Motorists face new £15 'victims levy'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8437440.stm
>
> Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
> caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
> crime?
>
> It's the only fair thing to do.
>
read the fucking article and get a non-retarded adult to help you with
the "big words". So that would require you to ask someone who isn't
related to you.
--
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/22-10
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Falco
> Motorists face new �15 'victims levy'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8437440.stm
>
> Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
> caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
> crime?
>
> It's the only fair thing to do.
Steve
One would suggest that you are from that great land of the ambulance
chasers, gunslingers and healthcare for the rich only - yankee land btw -
(and if that is the case, well your land ain't all that great) - if not, and
you are from the UK,then you really should know better.
The 15 British Pounds Stirling (the Euro is *NOT* the currency of the UK)
'bonus' is added on to any fine given to a *CONVICTED* [1] person by the
courts to help the victims of crime [2] (and has been invoked for a number
of years now).
[1] You know, those that have been found guilty of *certain* offences only -
and it is only being 'mooted' at the moment as to whether this will be
expanded to motoring and anti-social offences.
And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
land of the un-free.
[2] And (presuming that your are in wankeeland) just how does your justice
system help the victims of crime?
chuckcar
news:SJ-dndy2CswuIKLW...@ntd.net:
> Steve wrote:
>> Motorists face new �15 'victims levy'
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8437440.stm
>>
>> Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
>> caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
>> crime?
>>
>> It's the only fair thing to do.
>>
>>
>
>
> it figures
>
> and yes , might as well fine the victims too
>
Don't even bother, it's just another sock puppet of Tony.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
NormanM
> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
> land of the un-free.
A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion (aka,
"Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But what makes
you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is less freedom).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
NormanM
> Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
> caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
> crime?
>
> It's the only fair thing to do.
Odd thing to say. Where did the article mention Euros? I read it as �15.
Where did the article mention tax? I read it as a surcharge. Which means it
was being added to some fee already being collected. The article states that
this surcharge is already collected with other fines being collected, and
that their version of Godvernment just wants to collect it with motoring
fines, as well.
§nühw¤£f
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>
>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
>> land of the un-free.
>
> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion (aka,
> "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
>
^_^
> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But what makes
> you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is less freedom).
>
Well said, robot.
Falco
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>
>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in
>> that great land of the un-free.
>
> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion
> (aka, "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
You really can have "socialism" without "state compulsion" and still be free
you know - and still make more money than you can spend in a lifetime! We
are talking about *SOCIALISM* not pseudo communism or totalitarian state btw
(there is a difference and try googling for the definitions)!
> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But
> what makes you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is
> less freedom).
Are you really "free" as a capitalist country where only those with money
can get care - or bankers can almost bring the worlds economy to its knees
in the pursuit of greed?
No, I believe that yankee land has somewhat lost the plot with many of its
capitalist citizens saying "fuck you Jack, I'm alright and then have the
cheek to try and impose that will on the rest of world.
You have one of the worst health systems in world for the number of people
treated (60% are unable to afford treatment) along with one of the highest
violent crime figures.
If that is pure capitalism, give me the peace of mind with a socialist state
any day - at least if I need help at some stage, I know that I will get it,
free at point of use - and I have paid for that with a state insurance and
taxes - and *FUCK* the USA.
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
>>> land of the un-free.
>> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
>> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion (aka,
>> "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
> You've got that well memorized. Where'd ye get your training?
> ^_^
I don't think anybody taught me that phrase. It is a pretty decent summary
of what the U.S. Constitution was about (before it was tossed by the
Dumbocrats).
>> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But what makes
>> you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is less freedom).
> Well said, robot.
You are better at ad hominem quips than thinking.
Bucky Breeder
news:MPG.25a95bda8...@news.supernews.com:
> Motorists face new �15 'victims levy'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8437440.stm
>
> Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
> caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
> crime?
>
> It's the only fair thing to do.
> > > > > >
> s
Peeples who ues teh cell-thrones whilst they're driving along
in teh traffics SHOULD pay a big nasty fine, and perhaps be
publically flogged as well. Thank the Baby Jesus that it's
Socialism and not teh Radical Muslim Jihadism because they'd
probably cut yer junk off and put out yer eyes for cell-throning
whilst yer riding the camels in traffic. Or draft you into
suicide-bomber skool... How 'bout that guy who failed the
crotch-bomber final exams? I'm not a racist so I'm not gonna
say "Stoopid N-word" - but the darker ones, including those
Asians, should have to have a license to drive and separate
one to use the cell-thrones too. And stay in their own countries
whilst their doing it. Statistics show that Mexicans driving
while talking on their cell thrones kill more Americans than
the Cubans running into leisure boats with their rafts. So they
should have a big old fine on *their* fines too.
*And* they should QUIT calling it a "fine" and start calling
it a "not fine at all" then maybe the stoopid ones would get
the general idea and just cut that crap out!
--
I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; ;
and on the 'AWESOMENESS METER'
I am about two clicks better than 'TOTALLY';
and by-the-by, I hope you can excuse me, ma'am,
but I'm going to have to inspect your crotch now -
purely in the interest of national security, of course...
You should not view the world in terms
of things which you do - or do not - "like";
rather, you should view the world in terms
of how things "actually are", recognizing
and finding acceptance of them as such.
This would immeasurably bring *much* more
stability, peace and tranquility into your life.
I could help you with that... but...
I really just don't like you that much.
Repent! The end is near.... So, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Bucky Breeder
news:MPG.25ab002f3...@news.supernews.com:
> In article <hhoi9g$lse$1...@news.albasani.net>, titan@runnny-
> honney......invalid.com says...
> The old fisherman said,"The best bait for carp is stink bait."
> > > > > >
> s
And Yogi Berra said something like "You can not have true Socialism
until you have 50% Mexicans, 50% Cubans, 50% A-rahbs, 50% Niggers,
50% Latinos, 50% Scientologists, 50% Asians and only the other 50%
are the superior-race white folks."
Somebody's got to pay the fines so us whitees can have the tax breaks
or we'd just end up fining ourselves and what's the fun in that?!?!?
(For the Euro-undereducated: Yogi Berra was a famous baseball player
back in the olden days before they invented steriods which makes 'em
all so stupid and materialistic in these troubled times of today.)
§nühw¤£f
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:18:29 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>
>>>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
>>>> land of the un-free.
>
>>> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
>>> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion (aka,
>>> "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
>
>> You've got that well memorized. Where'd ye get your training?
>> ^_^
>
> I don't think anybody taught me that phrase. It is a pretty decent summary
> of what the U.S. Constitution was about (before it was tossed by the
> Dumbocrats).
>
on the constitution yet.
>>> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But what makes
>>> you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is less freedom).
>
>> Well said, robot.
>
> You are better at ad hominem quips than thinking.
>
Suck my nuts.
What did Mussolini define fascism as, dimmy?
^_^
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in
>>> that great land of the un-free.
>> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
>> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion
>> (aka, "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
> You really can have "socialism" without "state compulsion" and still be free
> you know ...
Indeed. What I said about doing the "right thing" for the "right reason"; of
my own free will. What made you think I didn't know that?
> We are talking about *SOCIALISM* not pseudo communism or totalitarian state btw
> (there is a difference and try googling for the definitions)!
I was talking about state compulsion; whatever name you wish to use. There
is definitely a compulsory socialism in this nation. Start with the Social
Security Administration; and tell me how a compulsory tax is paid out of
"free will".
>> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But
>> what makes you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is
>> less freedom).
> Are you really "free" as a capitalist country where only those with money
> can get care - or bankers can almost bring the worlds economy to its knees
> in the pursuit of greed?
It isn't "greed" which is being pursued, but wealth and power. And both
sides of the spectrum are party to it. It is a human pursuit, a human
characteristic. You will never be able to constrain it through government
power, because those who seek government power to constrain are
demonstrating the very characteristic that they rail against.
Nor did I claim some absolute state of freedom. Might want to re-evaluate
your apparent misunderstanding of "unfree".
> No, I believe that yankee land has somewhat lost the plot with many of its
> capitalist citizens saying "fuck you Jack, I'm alright and then have the
> cheek to try and impose that will on the rest of world.
Not just the Capitalists, the secular hedonists are also in that crowd. I
don't really see any self-imposed constraints attendant to either
Capitalism, or secular hedonism. Again, just raw human nature.
> You have one of the worst health systems in world for the number of people
> treated (60% are unable to afford treatment) along with one of the highest
> violent crime figures.
Not sure why you are dragging violence into this; has jack all to do with
"Capitalism" vs. "Socialism".
> If that is pure capitalism, give me the peace of mind with a socialist state
> any day - at least if I need help at some stage, I know that I will get it,
> free at point of use - and I have paid for that with a state insurance and
> taxes - and *FUCK* the USA.
Oh, dear. I see you have given up reason in favor of provocation. And you
call yourself, "civilized". I'll just bite my tongue and ignore the source.
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:18:29 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>>> NormanM wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>>>>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
>>>>> land of the un-free.
>>>> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
>>>> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion (aka,
>>>> "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
>>> You've got that well memorized. Where'd ye get your training?
>> I don't think anybody taught me that phrase. It is a pretty decent summary
>> of what the U.S. Constitution was about (before it was tossed by the
>> Dumbocrats).
> BushCo gave us the Patriot Act, fucky. Thats the single biggest attack
> on the constitution yet.
Any "attack" on the Constitution is wrong. Both sides do it for their own
ends. Incrementally ignoring those parts you don't like will accumulate,
until people wake up one day, and ask, "What happened?" The Dumbocrats
aren't your friend, they are just more inclined than the opposition to
pretend that they are.
>>>> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But what makes
>>>> you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is less freedom).
>>> Well said, robot.
>> You are better at ad hominem quips than thinking.
> Suck my nuts.
> What did Mussolini define fascism as, dimmy?
Does it really matter? He was a "statist"; as are most current U.S.
politicians. In the mind of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., were are just their
chattel, to do with as the please.
Maybe you can get her to suck your nuts? ;)
§nühw¤£f
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:02:30 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:18:29 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>>>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:45:31 -0000, Falco wrote:
>
>>>>>> And that has to be better than some off the so-called justice in that great
>>>>>> land of the un-free.
>
>>>>> A person who does the right thing, out of his own free will, is a free
>>>>> person. A person who does the right thing, out of State compulsion (aka,
>>>>> "Socialism"), is a slave to the State.
>
>>>> You've got that well memorized. Where'd ye get your training?
>
>>> I don't think anybody taught me that phrase. It is a pretty decent summary
>>> of what the U.S. Constitution was about (before it was tossed by the
>>> Dumbocrats).
>
>> BushCo gave us the Patriot Act, fucky. Thats the single biggest attack
>> on the constitution yet.
>
> Any "attack" on the Constitution is wrong. Both sides do it for their own
> ends. Incrementally ignoring those parts you don't like will accumulate,
> until people wake up one day, and ask, "What happened?"
So since "everybody does it" it becomes ok?
More like when the Rethugs do it, its "ok" in your veiw.
> The Dumbocrats
> aren't your friend, they are just more inclined than the opposition to
> pretend that they are.
>
All corporatists are beholden to the corporations they serve. Some
people in government are not-yet-corrupted. Kucinitch, Dean are a couple
of the FEW who dont bow to big buisness.
Wheres the Repugs that resist the bribe money?
There arn't any.
>>>>> I don't deny we are unfree (we have State compulsory giving). But what makes
>>>>> you think you are more free than we (more Socialism is less freedom).
>
>>>> Well said, robot.
>
>>> You are better at ad hominem quips than thinking.
>
>> Suck my nuts.
>> What did Mussolini define fascism as, dimmy?
>
> Does it really matter? He was a "statist"; as are most current U.S.
> politicians.
Nope. They are corporatists laboring under an oligarchy.
Mussolini defined fascism as the blending of buisness and government so
that government SERVES the interests of buisness, not the interests of
CITIZENS.
> In the mind of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., were are just their
> chattel, to do with as the please.
>
> Maybe you can get her to suck your nuts? ;)
>
ITs your fantasy, you live it out.
--
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:02:30 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>>> NormanM wrote:
>> Any "attack" on the Constitution is wrong. Both sides do it for their own
>> ends. Incrementally ignoring those parts you don't like will accumulate,
>> until people wake up one day, and ask, "What happened?"
> So since "everybody does it" it becomes ok?
> More like when the Rethugs do it, its "ok" in your veiw.
Unwarranted assumption on your part; putting words in my mouth which I never
uttered (so to speak).
>> The Dumbocrats aren't your friend, they are just more inclined than the
>> opposition to pretend that they are.
> All corporatists are beholden to the corporations they serve. Some
> people in government are not-yet-corrupted. Kucinitch, Dean are a couple
> of the FEW who dont bow to big buisness.
> Wheres the Repugs that resist the bribe money?
> There arn't any.
So you say.
<snip>
>> Does it really matter? He was a "statist"; as are most current U.S.
>> politicians.
> Nope. They are corporatists laboring under an oligarchy.
> Mussolini defined fascism as the blending of buisness and government so
> that government SERVES the interests of buisness, not the interests of
> CITIZENS.
From my perspective, as state "chattel", they are "statists".
>> In the mind of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., were are just their
>> chattel, to do with as the please.
>>
>> Maybe you can get her to suck your nuts? ;)
> ITs your fantasy, you live it out.
I am not the one who brought it up. It was your fantasy to have your nuts
sucked.
§nühw¤£f
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:10:37 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:02:30 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>>>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>> Any "attack" on the Constitution is wrong. Both sides do it for their own
>>> ends. Incrementally ignoring those parts you don't like will accumulate,
>>> until people wake up one day, and ask, "What happened?"
>
>> So since "everybody does it" it becomes ok?
>> More like when the Rethugs do it, its "ok" in your veiw.
>
> Unwarranted assumption on your part; putting words in my mouth which I never
> uttered (so to speak).
>
^_^
Gee, then why'd you use the term "Dubocrats"?
Fucking hypocrites...
>>> The Dumbocrats aren't your friend, they are just more inclined than the
>>> opposition to pretend that they are.
>
>> All corporatists are beholden to the corporations they serve. Some
>> people in government are not-yet-corrupted. Kucinitch, Dean are a couple
>> of the FEW who dont bow to big buisness.
>> Wheres the Repugs that resist the bribe money?
>> There arn't any.
>
> So you say.
>
And your counter argument is?
And your proof is?
LOL!
> <snip>
>
>>> Does it really matter? He was a "statist"; as are most current U.S.
>>> politicians.
>
>> Nope. They are corporatists laboring under an oligarchy.
>> Mussolini defined fascism as the blending of buisness and government so
>> that government SERVES the interests of buisness, not the interests of
>> CITIZENS.
>
> From my perspective, as state "chattel", they are "statists".
>
ZOMGZ!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWARE OF TEH MARXISTS!!!!!!
Be sure and check under your bed, might be a commie hiding there,
fEaRfUl oNe.
>>> In the mind of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., were are just their
>>> chattel, to do with as the please.
>>>
>>> Maybe you can get her to suck your nuts? ;)
>
>> ITs your fantasy, you live it out.
>
> I am not the one who brought it up. It was your fantasy to have your nuts
> sucked.
>
By you, bitch.
Get suckin...
^_^
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:10:37 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
>>> So since "everybody does it" it becomes ok?
>>> More like when the Rethugs do it, its "ok" in your veiw.
>> Unwarranted assumption on your part; putting words in my mouth which I never
>> uttered (so to speak).
> So you deny having a bias, left or right?
> ^_^
> Gee, then why'd you use the term "Dubocrats"?
> Fucking hypocrites...
May I recommend a course in comprehensive reading? It seems that you need
it.
I called them, "Dumbocrats" because I have a specific, and undeniable bias.
I am calling you on your unwarranted assumption that I, somehow, believe
that it is OK to do something because everybody else is doing it. That, sir,
is your unwarranted assumption. Which, of course, is a product of your bias.
>>>> The Dumbocrats aren't your friend, they are just more inclined than the
>>>> opposition to pretend that they are.
>>> All corporatists are beholden to the corporations they serve. Some
>>> people in government are not-yet-corrupted. Kucinitch, Dean are a couple
>>> of the FEW who dont bow to big buisness.
>>> Wheres the Repugs that resist the bribe money?
>>> There arn't any.
>> So you say.
> And your counter argument is?
> And your proof is?
> LOL!
Proof requires research. I am too lazy to do it. But I am also too feisty to
let you get away with an assertion that you aren't willing to verify for
yourself.
<snip>
>> From my perspective, as state "chattel", they are "statists".
> ZOMGZ!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!
> BWARE OF TEH MARXISTS!!!!!!
> Be sure and check under your bed, might be a commie hiding there,
> fEaRfUl oNe.
I guess that QEII; HRH, the emperor of Japan; King Saud; Sarkozy; Köhler,
et. al. are Marxists, or Communists. For that is the implication of your
utterly inane comment.
Again, your presumptuous bias leads you down the wrong path.
One need not be a Marxist, or a Communist (or even a Fascist, for that
matter), to be a "statist". One need only believe that the subjects of rule
are property of the state. Some of the earliest "statists" include:
Germanicus Julius Caesar (15 B.C.- A.D. 19)
Alexander of Macedon (336–323 BC)
Amenhotep II (1427–1401 BC)
So tell me, oh Enlightened Fool: Which of those statists was either a
Marxist, or a Communist?
For that matter, what aspect of the great fascist rulers of the mid
Twentieth Century was not statist? (I.e., treating the subjects of their
rule as chattel)?
>>>> In the mind of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., were are just their
>>>> chattel, to do with as the please.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you can get her to suck your nuts? ;)
>>> ITs your fantasy, you live it out.
>> I am not the one who brought it up. It was your fantasy to have your nuts
>> sucked.
> By you, bitch.
> Get suckin...
You were the first to mention sucking nuts; you invited me to such yours.
At this point, you are clearly unable to reason, resorting to crude
invectives in your disability to present rational rebuttal. So just go pound
sand. Preferably in the vicinity of Mecca.
DevilsPGD
<iva...@invalid.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Motorists face new �15 'victims levy'
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8437440.stm
>
>Since everybody is a criminal, it's just that not everybody gets
>caught, why not a 15 Euro tax on everybody to support victims of
>crime?
>
>It's the only fair thing to do.
Indeed.
In Canada we have a similar levy imposed by the music industry, and as a
result the music industry has found itself unable to sue for casual
copyright infringement since it has already accepted payment in exchange
for such behaviour.
I, for one, am all in favour of paying a reasonable upfront fee in
exchange for unlimited access to a particular type of licensed work.
§nühw¤£f
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:06:30 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:10:37 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:
>
>>>> So since "everybody does it" it becomes ok?
>>>> More like when the Rethugs do it, its "ok" in your veiw.
>
>>> Unwarranted assumption on your part; putting words in my mouth which I never
>>> uttered (so to speak).
>
>> So you deny having a bias, left or right?
>> ^_^
>> Gee, then why'd you use the term "Dubocrats"?
>> Fucking hypocrites...
>
> May I recommend a course in comprehensive reading? It seems that you need
> it.
>
> I called them, "Dumbocrats" because I have a specific, and undeniable bias.
>
So you admit it. Thus negating your denial of me "putting words in your
mouth".
Try again, k00k.
> I am calling you on your unwarranted assumption that I, somehow, believe
> that it is OK to do something because everybody else is doing it. That, sir,
> is your unwarranted assumption. Which, of course, is a product of your bias.
>
Your denial is noted and laughed at, wingnut.
>>>>> The Dumbocrats aren't your friend, they are just more inclined than the
>>>>> opposition to pretend that they are.
>
>>>> All corporatists are beholden to the corporations they serve. Some
>>>> people in government are not-yet-corrupted. Kucinitch, Dean are a couple
>>>> of the FEW who dont bow to big buisness.
>>>> Wheres the Repugs that resist the bribe money?
>>>> There arn't any.
>
>>> So you say.
>
>> And your counter argument is?
>> And your proof is?
>> LOL!
>
> Proof requires research. I am too lazy to do it. But I am also too feisty to
> let you get away with an assertion that you aren't willing to verify for
> yourself.
>
Your lack of ability to come up with a single un-corrupted Rethug
legislator is noted.
> <snip>
>
>>> From my perspective, as state "chattel", they are "statists".
>
>> ZOMGZ!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> BWARE OF TEH MARXISTS!!!!!!
>> Be sure and check under your bed, might be a commie hiding there,
>> fEaRfUl oNe.
>
> I guess that QEII; HRH, the emperor of Japan; King Saud; Sarkozy; Köhler,
> et. al. are Marxists, or Communists. For that is the implication of your
> utterly inane comment.
>
You think America is ruled by a king?
BUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
Moron.
> Again, your presumptuous bias leads you down the wrong path.
>
Its working on you, dimmy.
> One need not be a Marxist, or a Communist (or even a Fascist, for that
> matter), to be a "statist". One need only believe that the subjects of rule
> are property of the state. Some of the earliest "statists" include:
>
> Germanicus Julius Caesar (15 B.C.- A.D. 19)
> Alexander of Macedon (336–323 BC)
> Amenhotep II (1427–1401 BC)
>
> So tell me, oh Enlightened Fool: Which of those statists was either a
> Marxist, or a Communist?
>
What makes you think we have a Ruler here in America, dimmy?
^_^
> For that matter, what aspect of the great fascist rulers of the mid
> Twentieth Century was not statist? (I.e., treating the subjects of their
> rule as chattel)?
>
Wtf does that have to do with your assertion that America is ruled by a
king.
>>>>> In the mind of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., were are just their
>>>>> chattel, to do with as the please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can get her to suck your nuts? ;)
>
>>>> ITs your fantasy, you live it out.
>
>>> I am not the one who brought it up. It was your fantasy to have your nuts
>>> sucked.
>
>> By you, bitch.
>> Get suckin...
>
> You were the first to mention sucking nuts; you invited me to such yours.
>
Thats right, ShortBus.
> At this point, you are clearly unable to reason, resorting to crude
> invectives in your disability to present rational rebuttal. So just go pound
> sand. Preferably in the vicinity of Mecca.
>
Heh, and a racist christofascist retort is the best you can do?
No suprises.
NormanM
> What makes you think we have a Ruler here in America, dimmy?
> ^_^
We have a Caesar, Barackius Obamus.
> You were the first to mention sucking nuts; you invited me to such yours.
Thats right, ShortBus.
Thanks for admitting that I am right.
>> At this point, you are clearly unable to reason, resorting to crude
>> invectives in your disability to present rational rebuttal. So just go pound
>> sand. Preferably in the vicinity of Mecca.
> Heh, and a racist christofascist retort is the best you can do?
> No suprises.
Again, making unwarranted claims, by reading into my words what I did not
say.
You are not worth the trouble of a debate, as you can't hold a rational
thought to save your sorry life.
I'll leave you to your irrational fantasy that you actually have anything to
contribute, beside insult and offense.
Lookout
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:52:43 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>> What makes you think we have a Ruler here in America, dimmy?
>> ^_^
>
>We have a Caesar, Barackius Obamus.
Nope. Wrong again. We have a democratically elected president.
>
>> You were the first to mention sucking nuts; you invited me to such yours.
>
>Thats right, ShortBus.
Ahhh..right to the 3rd grade insult.
§nühw¤£f
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:52:43 -0700, �n�hw��f wrote:
>
>> What makes you think we have a Ruler here in America, dimmy?
>> ^_^
>
> We have a Caesar, Barackius Obamus.
>
>> You were the first to mention sucking nuts; you invited me to such yours.
>
> Thats right, ShortBus.
>
> Thanks for admitting that I am right.
>
So when will you?
>>> At this point, you are clearly unable to reason, resorting to crude
>>> invectives in your disability to present rational rebuttal. So just go pound
>>> sand. Preferably in the vicinity of Mecca.
>
>> Heh, and a racist christofascist retort is the best you can do?
>> No suprises.
>
> Again, making unwarranted claims, by reading into my words what I did not
> say.
>
Your backpeddaling is noted, LIAR.
> You are not worth the trouble of a debate, as you can't hold a rational
> thought to save your sorry life.
>
See you tomorrow, kookfart.
^_^
> I'll leave you to your irrational fantasy that you actually have anything to
> contribute, beside insult and offense.
>
Run! Away! Brave sir Robin...