Just because you feel sorry for the mangy lil critter doesn't mean you should open your door and let the varment crap all over the place. :)
BINGO.
If he were somewhat intellectually honest, then you might have a point. Even rat-boy, Mister "how DARE you censor my idiotic responses, I'm LEAVING!" eventually came back with his tail between his legs.... and is now being *somewhat* civil, though intellectual honesty is still beyond his capabilities...
Let's be blunt; dummy DwarF doesn't just crap all over the place... he makes the whole forum look like shit.
You spend 99 percent of your time in here trying to enforce your version of a line between alleged righties and lefties, and you like to try to knock people out of the forum as a part of the game of parading your bloated ego.
Which is why no one pays much attention to your game. It is boringly obvious to most in here.
In any event, I don't care what you think "my game" is. I have consistently posted on forums for many years. I post articles correctly, and I comment or engage in lively debate and put up with baitful idiots like you all the time. That in short is "my game."
Thanks for sharing, buttercup. I don't worry about little word games you and she want to play. That is your problem, not mine.
"Libby believes a deeply divided America is a strong America."
He's bored and doesn't have much to say unless it involves trying to put people in little boxes and keeping them there.
He doesn't bother me, though I know he would love it if I would lower myself to the level of a Hapless Q or him in the role of Q's little dog trying to breed on my pants leg.
He's bored and doesn't have much to say unless it involves trying to put people in little boxes and keeping them there.
You are both put in the box you belong. You are both Commies, pro-anarchists who hate Christians, Conservatives and ANYTHING traditional. That is because both of you have always felt like you were outliers of society (for whatever personal reasons from your respective past.)
NOTHING I've stated about the traits of your "box" are untrue.
"You are both put in the box you belong. You are both Commies, pro-anarchists who hate Christians, Conservatives and ANYTHING traditional. That is because both of you have always felt like you were outliers of society (for whatever personal reasons from your respective past.)"
I served in the U.S. Armed forces nine years and did four more as a part timer. I have no wish to dignify your slander with a denial, so all I say is whatever delusion makes you happy.
I also defend people's right to their religion, including Christians. So, imagine hated coming from me on that point if you want to, but I am not responsible for your lack of accuracy on that bit of posturing.
He should spend more time trying to come up with an original name for his own party instead of just plagiarizing it from history and hoping no one will notice.
He should spend more time trying to come up with an original name for his own party instead of just plagiarizing it from history and hoping no one will notice.
Since the theme of the modern Tea Party is largely the same as that of the 1700's, it would seem quite appropriate.
Compare that to your ideology, which has been tried many times, and has failed 100% of the time... an ideology which leads to death and destruction. Your SOCIALIST party cannot create anything. It can only destroy.
And THAT is what you stand for. You and all your ilk.
You're scum, and I have no inclination to treat you and your ilk with kid gloves... Everything you stand for, has already been tried, and failed. So don't expect us to welcome your bullshit with open arms, and willing hearts... Because we're not willing to give up our lives for your fucked-up political agenda.
If we're forced to sacrifice lives to save the country, I'll be happy to sacrifice the lives of those that want to tear my country down.
It is important to understand that the Tea Act actually placed no new tax on tea. Instead it simply gave a tax break to the East India Tea company.
With the existing tax still on the books from the Townshend Duties, East India Tea company was loosing money because its legitimately imported tea could not compete with the tea being illegally smuggled by the colonial merchants. Obviously the British government preferred to help the struggling East India Co. than to see colonial smugglers profiting and using their newly gained financial power to sponsor anti-British protests.
Boston Tea Party - Tea Act, 1773
The new measure was also supposed to win the minds of tea consumers in America by driving down the market price of tea. But in the situation already aggrevated by the previous heavy-handed tax measures, this obvious economic benefit was overlooked by the population and the new law was regarded at “Taxation without representation”.
Below is the detailed description of how the Tea Act actually worked for the East India Tea Co. trade with the colonies.
In 1770, Lord North had repealed four of the five Townshend Duties, keeping only the tax on tea. The American colonists had refused to buy the commodity, which had resulted in financial difficulties for the East India Company.
In 1773 Lord North's ministry had passed the Regulating Act for India to control the activities of the Company. The government also took measures to help the East India Company to increase its sales by passing the Tea Act.
Initially the East India Company had suggested that the 3d per lb tax should be removed to encourage the colonists to buy the tea. North could not do this on principle, since the Declaratory Act passed by Rockingham's ministry did say that the British government could legislate for the colonies, and Britain needed (in his eyes) to maintain the right to legislate.
The Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.
In addition the government made a loan of £1.4 million to the East India Company which was to be allowed to ship tea directly and on its own account to America. The Company would pay the 3d duty on the tea's entry into the colonies but was exempt from reimbursing the English customs for the 1/- English duty which would previously have fallen on it. The consequence was that tea would sell at 10/- per lb in America, not the £1 which it had fetched recently. This would increase its consumption and so the Company would be helped out of its financial difficulties. Furthermore, the Company aided the government by taking measures against smuggling now that it was delivering direct to America. The tea was consigned in known quantities and to authorized merchants acting as Company agents. However, by that time, the colonists were suspicious of British motives and the Tea Act led directly to the Boston Tea Party."
Too bad you foreigners don't know your US history. I'll give you a hint: East India Company which controlled the tea trade.
(((((sigh)))))
It's too bad you never looked beyond the propaganda the government taught you... but, hey, as an Amurkin, you have every right to display how brain-washed you truly are...
It's too bad you never looked beyond the propaganda the government taught you... but, hey, as an Amurkin, you have every right to display how brain-washed you truly are...
Try to think....
And then read HERE.
You might learn something....
Then again, you're a leftist, so probably not.
Too bad with your attempt to distract, you can't dispute my premise, AGAIN.
Ben Franklin was actually hoping things would get settled without a war, oh..... and from your article he showed that he had learned the folly of the metal based currency system which YOU advocate returning to.
