• US Election 2008 - Play Hoop for Democracy
    3,755 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FreDre] This is the future, America: "I don't have money to afford even a Wii.[/QUOTE] I prefer dying than to see this. Oh my god !
[QUOTE=Ickylevel]I prefer dying than to see this. Oh my god ![/QUOTE] Don't worry. In a few years, if everything continues that way, you'll be starving enough to forget about console fanboyism.
[QUOTE=FreDre]Read this please: [url]http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/AtheismKilled.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Here: [quote]Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[40] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. An Act of Canonical Communion was signed on May 17, 2007, followed immediately by a full restoration of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate; there remain some issues not fully healed to the present day. Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.[/quote] [quote]Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Communist Party, though, in theory, each successive Soviet constitution granted freedom of belief. As the founder of the Soviet state V. I. Lenin put it: Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6] Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated for the suppression, and, ultimately, the disappearance of religious beliefs, due to their unscientific and superstitious character. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless were active in anti-religious propaganda. Atheism was the norm in schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media.[/quote]
[QUOTE=TH89]Here:[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but nowhere in that quote from Wikipedia mentioned he killed in the name of atheism. He forced atheism on his people, that I'll agree, but he did it for his own purposes. He did it because of his political agenda, he didn't want to compete with other established religions so he outlawed them to be supreme and to make his people only believe in his ideology. Atheism is not a religion, nor a faith, belief, etc. It's just having common sense that you need to proof the veracity of things in a scientific manner, not with other way.
[QUOTE=FreDre]I'm sorry but nowhere in that quote from Wikipedia mentioned he killed in the name of atheism.[/QUOTE] I wasn't claiming he did it "in the name of atheism" whatever the hell that means. Beafman said atheists have never killed people because they were religious. Stalin most certainly did.
[QUOTE=TH89]I wasn't claiming he did it "in the name of atheism" whatever the hell that means. Beafman said atheists have never killed people because they were religious. Stalin most certainly did.[/QUOTE] All right, I agree that he killed and prosecuted others because of their religion. But also religious folks did the same thing to others. Humanity is just like that. [b]EDIT: [/b] I misread Beafman's quote. About the "in the name of atheism' reference, I made it in a older post referring to allegations made by some Christians that atheism is a cult/faith and a lot of them brings the "Stalin example" to try to prove their claims. Also the same thing with Hitler...
[QUOTE=TH89]I wasn't claiming he did it "in the name of atheism" whatever the hell that means. Beafman said atheists have never killed people because they were religious. Stalin most certainly did.[/QUOTE] Yea but the purpose behind that was politics, not religious conflict.
[QUOTE=Killuah]Yea but the purpose behind that was politics, not religious conflict.[/QUOTE] Politics are driven by religious and cultural conflict. The crusades were political. The spanish inquisition was political. There is no weaseling your way out of this--the statement that atheists have never killed someone because of that person's religion is categorically untrue, and to try to convince oneself otherwise is doing nothing but breeding false confidence in the infallibility of one's ideology, which is exactly what leads to the persecution of other people.
[QUOTE=FreDre]Wait, so Socialism is a [u][b]necessary[/b][/u] evil? But but... I heard all the time that Socialism is [b]BAD[/b], like, just plain evil! Why didn't they found another solution without recurring to the most feared thing ever? Oh, right, because Socialism made sense to save the market economy... So, suddenly, Socialism doesn't look that evil, it is needed for having an economical recovery... It all makes sense.... By the way, did you knew that the U.S. government doesn't even print their own money? All the pretty dollars bills you have in your wallet were printed by private owned banks, so if some of these big banks that lends money to the state don't play by the rules and cheats on the financial market, then all of the U.S. citizens has to pay for all the banks stupidities, forcing the government to nationalize them so the dollar doesn't collapse! But wait! How did that happened? Why didn't the banks got regularized on time before all hell broke loose? Because Republicans don't believe in such thing, they don't believe in regularization. That's why. You all created this mess by letting it happen. And now, you and your parents are gonna pay for all of this.[/QUOTE] There's so many false ideas about the average conservative stance here it isn't even funny. You're bitching about the wrongs of politicians as representing the wrongs of a group of people, and that's not too accurate. We'd have been fucked with Bush or Kerry in this instance, just like things will improve in '09 regardless of who gets elected. I'll come back to this in a minute, I'd just like to point out that your boner for Socialism is making you jump the shark a bit.
[QUOTE=TH89]Politics are driven by religious and cultural conflict. The crusades were political. The spanish inquisition was political. There is no weaseling your way out of this--the statement that atheists have never killed someone because of that person's religion is categorically untrue, and to try to convince oneself otherwise is doing nothing but breeding false confidence in the infallibility of one's ideology, which is exactly what leads to the persecution of other people.[/QUOTE] I agree completely. Atheists DID kill people for their religion,no doubt, but purpose and reason can be different, that's what I meant. Look, you give someone the death penalty. The reason: He raped 5 little girls. The purpose: Revenge, Determent, thousands of others.
[QUOTE=Roboticist]There's so many false ideas about the average conservative stance here it isn't even funny. You're bitching about the wrongs of politicians as representing the wrongs of a group of people, and that's not too accurate. We'd have been fucked with Bush or Kerry in this instance, just like things will improve in '09 regardless of who gets elected. I'll come back to this in a minute, I'd just like to point out that your boner for Socialism is making you jump the shark a bit.[/QUOTE] So to you Republican=Conservative? Yeah, because there aren't any conservative democrats.. I'm sorry, contrary to popular belief, I don't have a boner for Socialism, I just think the allegations made about that redistribution of wealth and taxes to rich profits is Communism are out of context. The use of the word "Socialism" made by McCain campaign is misleading. I don't live in a Marxism country, I live in one that has socialized the most basic needs of its people and I'm not starving, nor I have bad health. I don't believe in an absolute Socialist system, I believe in a mixed economy. USA is one, but they don't see it as one. The postal service, and libraries are nationalized, and I'm not hearing anyone crying about "OH NO, COMMUNISM INVADED OUR SYSTEM" because of that... The real job of the politicians is to serve the best interests of their people, not help some lobbyist and some banker friends, which is what they did with the bailout. How do you know things are going to be improved in '09? I don't think they will at the short time, the damage is already done. We'll have to suck it up for some years. McCain is only going to make it worse.
[QUOTE=FreDre]The real job of the politicians is to serve the best interests of their people, not help some lobbyist and some banker friends, which is what they did with the bailout.[/QUOTE] The bailout was in order to prevent total economic collapse, which is what happened in the Great Depression when people decided to let the banks eat it It's called learning from your mistakes [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=Killuah]I agree completely. Atheists DID kill people for their religion,no doubt, but purpose and reason can be different, that's what I meant.[/QUOTE] Generally there's a stated (religious) motivation and a real (political) one. In the Crusades, the stated motivation was that they were heretics and had to be killed. The real reason was that the Islamic civilization was prospering while the Europeans were living in the dark ages, with little food and less education. They needed to loot someone. In Soviet Russia, the stated motivation for suppressing religion was that it was unscientific and encouraged poor thinking. The practical reason for it was that churches are very useful tools for getting large groups of people to resist the government, which was too dangerous for Stalin to allow.
[QUOTE=TH89]The bailout was in order to prevent total economic collapse, which is what happened in the Great Depression when people decided to let the banks eat it It's called learning from your mistakes[/QUOTE] The problem is, they haven't learned anything. Did any of the CEOs from these failed banks got prosecuted or fined because of their incompetence and miscarriage of the whole affair? No... They actually were rewarded with cash parachutes... Politicians needed to regularize all those phony operations, they did not and so the market crashed... Excessive market speculation is bad, period.
[QUOTE=FreDre]The problem is, they haven't learned anything. Did any of the CEOs from these failed banks got prosecuted or fined because of their incompetence and miscarriage of the whole affair? No... They actually were rewarded with cash parachutes...[/QUOTE] No, you're confused here. The [i]government[/i] learned from their mistakes 80 years ago. Nobody's saying the bankers did. But what the bailout argument boils down to is whether it's worth punishing a few wrongdoers if you have to hurt a lot of innocent people to do it.
[QUOTE=FreDre]Wait, so Socialism is a [u][b]necessary[/b][/u] evil? But but... I heard all the time that Socialism is [b]BAD[/b], like, just plain evil! [/QUOTE] The idea of socialism being evil comes from the idea that the only person who should be allowed to lay claim to a man's works, effort and time is the man in question. This is extremely childish but gets the idea across. [url]http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf[/url] That's not to say it isn't compatible with socialism- but it would have to be willing. You would have to be voluntarily giving to the whole. A government doesn't work based on volunteers though, it operates on fear and force while providing benefits and services. I.E., you don't have a choice, because the government has weaponry and men in uniform, but you're compensated for what's taken from you to varying degrees. Here in the U.S., you get relatively low taxes, but less stuff, whereas, in say, Denmark I believe, taxes are higher, yet one gets better health care and education services. On the one hand, you let the government decide for you how your money is spent, on the other, you do it yourself. In an ideal world, everyone would live somewhere where the system they preferred was in place- people who want to take collective ownership to the extreme could live in a purely socialist state, people wanting to take capitalism to the next level would live in a free-market capitalist state. Everyone would be subject to the rules they wanted to be, and everyone would be happy. Now, to quote my grandfather, wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which fills faster. That is to say, it sounds lovely, but it isn't happening. One has to be realistic. Ideally, then, everyone tries to exert the own little bit of influence on their nation, bringing it to a moderate stance. If you don't, you piss off everyone on one end of the scale, which causes bad things to happen to you, Mr. Politician- you get overthrown, impeached, never get reelected, are assassinated, etc. So, while socialism may not necessarily be evil to [i]you[/i], there are several men and women like myself who can't stand the idea, and as such, we want someone to keep us closer to the right, and ideally this tug of war seats us comfortably in the middle, pissing off nobody or everybody a little, but not enough to do something insane. The majority of people hollering about "socialism" like it's a serious future for the country under Obama are joking. It's no different than you guys saying McCain's going to die midway through a term. Anybody who is treating it seriously is an idiot- you don't polarize a nation made up of several different groups of people without expecting backlash, not to mention the fact that you'd have a hell of a time getting it moving. So while we jest, and while some of us do believe it's evil, recall the fact that we also don't see it as happening so much as the issue with going to far left, and as such, we pull right. That's what keeps the system working. [QUOTE=FreDre]Why didn't they found another solution without recurring to the most feared thing ever? Oh, right, because Socialism made sense to save the market economy... So, suddenly, Socialism doesn't look that evil, it is needed for having an economical recovery... It all makes sense....[/QUOTE] Believe it or not, we would have been fine without the bailout. The economy fluctuates- it goes up, it goes down, like the value of all goods will at some point, and unless something catastrophic happens, it never really stops. The economic crisis was several rich fat white men wishing they could be richer, several average folk wishing they could have better houses than they could afford, and the unbalanced purchase of things versus the inability to pay for them broke the game. The bailout was several rich fat white men not wanting to lose their money, so they fucked with the rules of the game. All this does is prolong the inevitable hurt. It also passes it down to other people who weren't at fault. Not everyone who has money is evil. I don't mean to be that way, but I've lived with my folks most of my life, and it's been mostly shit until recently- now they make good money, live comfortably, I pay rent and go to school nearby, things go swimmingly. Now they have to tighten their belts again. Not so good. But at least [i]I'll[/i] get a tax cut. That makes it all fair, right? They struggled to get to this point, now I deserve a freebie because I'm just starting out? They didn't get any freebies... Try to remember that for every stereotypical republican fat asshole with money, there is a stereotypical democratic beast- the man who does not have something, and instead of working for it, wants the government to give it to him. Obama has as much appeal to the dregs of society that want something "the man" never owed them as McCain has with the McMillionares. [QUOTE=FreDre]By the way, did you knew that the U.S. government doesn't even print their own money? All the pretty dollars bills you have in your wallet were printed by private owned banks, so if some of these big banks that lends money to the state don't play by the rules and cheats on the financial market, then all of the U.S. citizens has to pay for all the banks stupidities, forcing the government to nationalize them so the dollar doesn't collapse! But wait! How did that happened? Why didn't the banks got regularized on time before all hell broke loose? Because Republicans don't believe in such thing, they don't believe in regularization. That's why. You all created this mess by letting it happen. And now, you and your parents are gonna pay for all of this.[/QUOTE] You don't understand the current economic crisis it would seem- and got the majority of your information from that other Zeitgeist movie. Young people and old people made this mess. This was not a political error- this was men and women, young and old, right and left, playing a game with money they didn't have. Now, to quote Mattias Nilsson- everybody pays. [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=TH89]No, you're confused here. The [i]government[/i] learned from their mistakes 80 years ago. Nobody's saying the bankers did. But what the bailout argument boils down to is whether it's worth punishing a few wrongdoers if you have to hurt a lot of innocent people to do it.[/QUOTE] Read the newer Forbes- you'll find a lot of "jobs" that a company could only pay people to do in the good times are being replaced with good old fashion work work. "The 'Other' Economy" I believe it was called.
[QUOTE=TH89]No, you're confused here. The [i]government[/i] learned from their mistakes 80 years ago. Nobody's saying the bankers did. But what the bailout argument boils down to is whether it's worth punishing a few wrongdoers if you have to hurt a lot of innocent people to do it.[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying that the bankers didn't learned from their mistakes, they don't give a fuck about that. I was saying politicians knew this was going to happen from years ago, everything pointed that way but they acted at the very last minute and they didn't even remotely fixed the problem. They made it worse. They could have made measures to regularize all this, but they didn't. They learned from their mistakes, yes, but those were mistakes from 80 years ago. Meanwhile they've created other problems with the new system. We need a reboot.
[QUOTE=FreDre]We need a reboot.[/QUOTE] Meaning?
CNN will be playing Obama's conversation with Joe The Plumber here in a minute, if you missed it like I did. [b]Edit:[/b] God damn Joe is pissed. And now the McCain campaign is accusing Obama of socialism.
I hope McCain wins (because obama really is a socialist)
(and therefore communist)
[QUOTE=TH89]Meaning?[/QUOTE] Meaning? We need to face another great depression. We need to rethink our economical system. We need to reinvent it. They already did in the '30, why not again? Oh, right, we are too conformable... @Roboticist I didn't saw the Zeitgeist movie. Props to you for typing all that. [b]BUT[/b], I was never in agreement with the bailout. The post I made about "saving the economy" with the "evil socialist" bailout was just to mock the Republican supporters who keeps saying that Socialism will never see the light of the day in America, even if their main party candidate supported the bailout and USA has already some nationalized services for quite some time... I was making fun about the common belief of Americans that Socialism is the worst taboo ever. [quote=Roboticist]The majority of people hollering about "socialism" like it's a serious future for the country under Obama are joking. It's no different than you guys saying McCain's going to die midway through a term. Anybody who is treating it seriously is an idiot- you don't polarize a nation made up of several different groups of people without expecting backlash, not to mention the fact that you'd have a hell of a time getting it moving.[/quote] The thing is, Obama never said anything about implementing Socialism in the country, he just said that he thinks taxing the profits of the very wealthy can recover the destroyed middle class, which is the one who consumes the most and make the industry working. [quote=Roboticist] Try to remember that for every stereotypical republican fat asshole with money, there is a stereotypical democratic beast- the man who does not have something, and instead of working for it, wants the government to give it to him. Obama has as much appeal to the dregs of society that want something "the man" never owed them as McCain has with the McMillionares.[/quote] Your stereotype of the democratic beast is hilarious. I'm sorry, but if you were poor and with no access to education nor good health, what will you do? What is wrong with giving the poor people a chance in their life? The poor doesn't merit the opportunity of being a prosper member of our society? That's not very humanist at all. Republicans supporters are making so much noise for that, Europe has a mixed economy and they don't bitch as much as Americans about nationalizing basic public services. Remember folks, money is not everything in life. Stop thinking about that.
[QUOTE=FreDre]I'm pretty certain McCain is going to win now, I have no hopes at all. But you know what? Fuck it. If more than half of America is retarded and really wants this, then let them be. I think the only way America can learn from this is by suffering more. The bad thing is that worldwide we also are going down with them.. We already are. I'm pretty sure in 1 year of 2 a lot of the so called Republican trolls kids here are going to cry "Fuck McCain! Palin is a moron", just like they were talking about Bush and Cheney... This is the future, America: "I don't have money to afford even a Wii. Now I need to get food stamps to be able to eat. But who cares, right? If the economy is bad it's because of God's willing! But also I think (no, I don't think, that's what mommy and daddy told me that they heard from :foxnews:) it's all the Democrats fault! GOD DAMN YOU COMMUNISM AND YOUR REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!! Wait, what? The Democrats didn't won? Then who's in charge of the economy? The Republicans??? What the hell? Nah, you've to be joking me... I'm pretty sure that the economy is shit now because of some dirty trick from the Democrats, they almost tried to stole us the elections for like 12 years! They never surrender! They are Liberals, afterall! Everybody knows that liberal means communism/satanism! (that's what my daddy told me). They governed during the 90s and that was the worst economic recession USA has ever suffered! Yes, it's true!! It was very shitty. The taxes made by Bill Clinton on profits for the excessively rich folks was a disaster! Thank God Bush was there to stop Clinton's pal Al Gore to win, I heard he hates America because he's against oil companies, which fuels my car with good cheap gas, so he's anti American! Bush legacy will lives on forever and ever on our beautiful intellectual president Palin. She's fucking hot! And smart because she wears glasses! That means she reads a LOT the bible, and that is good! I don't care if she doesn't have a clue about politics, she's a real person! She's not a Muslim (which means terrorism to me). She's not a religious zealot! By the way guys, women should not have a choice, if they get raped they should keep the bastard! Even if they're 16 years old without money nor education! That will teach them to not get raped! HA! Fucking whores... Sex education is stupid, in fact, education as a whole is dumb, it's just liberal propaganda. I don't need no History class! It's too biased! The only historical non fiction book I'm gonna read for the rest of my life is the All Mighty bible. Even if I fail at school, no problem! No child left behind is awesome! That will help me a lot to be a real citizen with knowledge on real issues and certainly I'll get a lot of good jobs! Thanks Republicans, I'll always trust you, as much as the Germans with the Nazis when they were under the Nazi regime."[/QUOTE] I don't see how you can think that. I've been in the mindset that there is no way at all that McCain can win.
[QUOTE=wind8ws]I don't see how you can think that. I've been in the mindset that there is no way at all that McCain can win.[/QUOTE] The 2004 elections killed my hopes on the American political system. Everyone was like "Kerry is going to win for sure!" "All the polls are indicating that Kerry is leading!" "There's no fucking way Bush is coming back!", etc. Then, it happened. And now I'm seeing history repeating itself. But this time there's much more bigotry going on, I see young children used by their parents to make racist jokes against their political party's opponent, misleading information, etc. It's just sad. But, that's how politics work! The end justifies the means, right?...
Karl Rove 08
I actually agree with you, FreDre. I too thought that Obama was pretty much definitely going to win, until I thought about the past two presidential elections. I'm pretty sure that McCain will win by a dramatic landslide for some retarded reason after several recounts, and then we'll have four more years of people saying how much they hate the republican leadership and complaining about how stupid McCain and Palin are. I honestly believe that the American people didn't elect president bush and that at the very least, the last election was totally rigged, if not both previous elections.
[QUOTE=FreDre]Remember folks, money is not everything in life. Stop thinking about that.[/QUOTE] Well, if you claim other people need it more than I do, you must think it's worth something. Perform the hobo-waitress tip experiment that just became popular and see what the average joe thinks of "humane" actions. Even the hobo tends to disagree. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, a few guys have written about it, and it's somewhat amusing- a guy (journalist if I recall, I'll try finding the name) paid for a meal at a diner, during which he determined the waitress serving him was voting Obama. He then paid the check, but told the waitress he was giving her tip to a nearby hobo. That's humane, kind, and got him chewed out by both the waitress and the hobo. That scum of society stereotype is more true than you'd think, lad. And, to defend the republican one, as you apparently feel the stereotypes need to be treated more like middle-of-the-road people- most of them worked hard for their money. Organized theft isn't exactly a humane way to repay their efforts. [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=FreDre]The 2004 elections killed my hopes on the American political system. Everyone was like "Kerry is going to win for sure!" "All the polls are indicating that Kerry is leading!" "There's no fucking way Bush is coming back!", etc. Then, it happened.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's not how it went down at all I think your memory went south (or you weren't of voting age at the time)
Are you all telling that Mcain is going to win ? That america is that stupid ?
[QUOTE=Roboticist] If you're wondering what I'm talking about, a few guys have written about it, and it's somewhat amusing- a guy (journalist if I recall, I'll try finding the name) paid for a meal at a diner, during which he determined the waitress serving him was voting Obama. He then paid the check, but told the waitress he was giving her tip to a nearby hobo. That's humane, kind, and got him chewed out by both the waitress and the hobo. That scum of society stereotype is more true than you'd think, lad. And, to defend the republican one, as you apparently feel the stereotypes need to be treated more like middle-of-the-road people- most of them worked hard for their money. Organized theft isn't exactly a humane way to repay their efforts. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Roboticist] [b]Edit:[/b] Yeah that's not how it went down at all I think your memory went south (or you weren't of voting age at the time)[/QUOTE] Two points about me: 1° I'm not American 2° I was 17 years old at the time. So, going back to the stereotypes: bringing public education and good universal health care to all the poor children that doesn't have the opportunity to access these things is ABSOLUTELY WRONG for you?? You label this as [b]organized theft[/b]? .... ... I'm gonna give you a tip, mate: Go travel around the world for a while, discover other cultures. Open your knowledge to other things. Learn their philosophies, how they live, how works their government, etc. Do that for 3-4 years and then come back to America. [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=Ickylevel]Are you all telling that Mcain is going to win ? That america is that stupid ?[/QUOTE] No, it's not wholly retarded. Only half retarded. And yes, they are some chances that McCain can win... Or maybe not... In 1 week we'll know.
[media]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/ELECTION/2008/calculator/version13.swf[/media] Test it out.
[QUOTE=Roboticist]Well, if you claim other people need it more than I do, you must think it's worth something. Perform the hobo-waitress tip experiment that just became popular and see what the average joe thinks of "humane" actions. Even the hobo tends to disagree. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, a few guys have written about it, and it's somewhat amusing- a guy (journalist if I recall, I'll try finding the name) paid for a meal at a diner, during which he determined the waitress serving him was voting Obama. He then paid the check, but told the waitress he was giving her tip to a nearby hobo. That's humane, kind, and got him chewed out by both the waitress and the hobo. That scum of society stereotype is more true than you'd think, lad. And, to defend the republican one, as you apparently feel the stereotypes need to be treated more like middle-of-the-road people- most of them worked hard for their money. Organized theft isn't exactly a humane way to repay their efforts. [b]Edit:[/b] Yeah that's not how it went down at all I think your memory went south (or you weren't of voting age at the time)[/QUOTE] Because obviously everyone who is poor is lazy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.