A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
Damn - my lengthy reply has been killed by IE. Yes, I'm serious. We spend far too much time defending the rights of adults to be terrible parents, and not enough time worrying about the rights of children who are ( through no fault of their own ) born to idiots. And through environmental conditioning, they grow into people who offer nothing to society but a bill for their dole cheque. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Even if the problem you mention is real, I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered. First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. That remembers you something, right? There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
First I will say I believe interpretation of words between us is not as clear as we would like. I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. K(arl) wrote: Exactly. Everything is about education. I think we agree, just what is the scope of education? I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. K(arl) wrote: and not abandoning them when they are in need. When did any of us suggest abandoning people? Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? K(arl) wrote: "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. I never said or implied that at all. I do know some that would choose to live poor versus taking any responsibility. K(arl) wrote: but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Some bad apples? 100% of this example group is not some, it is an entire segement. But back to what is education. K(arl) wrote: In a perfect world Yes, but we do not. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. If we were entirely agreeing, we wouldn't be discussing together :-D "- Hey, what do you think of that? - Waoh, that's cool - So you agree with? - Yep, entirely. - hum...ok then, bye!" Not very interesting, isn't it? :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. I totally agree. Abusing the safety nets offered by the Nation is for me a serious offense because abusing the Nation is abusing all the individuals forming the Nation. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When did any of us suggest abandoning people? True, my apologies. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? There isn't always a family. There are cases where the family is heavily broken. There are cases where the family will be broken because of that. And the Nation is just another family. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I never said or implied that at all That's why I quoted the word "you". By "you", I meant people arguing against the Welfare State.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. If we were entirely agreeing, we wouldn't be discussing together :-D "- Hey, what do you think of that? - Waoh, that's cool - So you agree with? - Yep, entirely. - hum...ok then, bye!" Not very interesting, isn't it? :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. I totally agree. Abusing the safety nets offered by the Nation is for me a serious offense because abusing the Nation is abusing all the individuals forming the Nation. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When did any of us suggest abandoning people? True, my apologies. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? There isn't always a family. There are cases where the family is heavily broken. There are cases where the family will be broken because of that. And the Nation is just another family. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I never said or implied that at all That's why I quoted the word "you". By "you", I meant people arguing against the Welfare State.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
In general, fine. K(arl) wrote: There isn't always a family. There are cases where the family is heavily broken. There are cases where the family will be broken because of that. And the Nation is just another family. I agree with this trend. I can not be close to my parents and they have a neighbor who I know is there for them and appreciate it. By the same token, my elderly neighbors have limited family close (one second cousin) and we are happy to help them when in need. The family is and can be more than just parents and siblings. The spilt with us, is do we concentrate on a national family for the answer or local. To me the national family as the principle provider is just to distant to know what the local needs are, with out undue layers of regulations. Also the historical trend in the US to emphasie the individual, also applies imho, to individual to individual care. Need to go. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy. But in a 200+ year history we have not. Rather answers that question. No? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Thanks for your explanations. Mike Gaskey wrote: By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government, just raising the cost to hundreds of thousands people killed, and next, I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Even armed with an AK-47, what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: Opinions are like ...., oh, never mind. K(arl) wrote: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government That was not individuals or small militias versus an overbearing central government, it was 2 halves of a country, two armies at war. K(arl) wrote: I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Consider the overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Ever compare the size of a bee to the size of a human? Try getting stung by a swarm. K(arl) wrote: what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10? The same (well, similar) question could have been asked of a rag tag citizenry versus a well trained British army, could it not? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
K(arl) wrote: I ever see this argument as utterly stupid: Opinions are like ...., oh, never mind. K(arl) wrote: First, it didn't stop the South to be crushed by the Federal government That was not individuals or small militias versus an overbearing central government, it was 2 halves of a country, two armies at war. K(arl) wrote: I don't see what you could do with a gun or even an assault rifle if you had to face the US Army. Consider the overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Ever compare the size of a bee to the size of a human? Try getting stung by a swarm. K(arl) wrote: what would be your chance against a M1 or an A-10? The same (well, similar) question could have been asked of a rag tag citizenry versus a well trained British army, could it not? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: Consider the overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Ever compare the size of a bee to the size of a human? Try getting stung by a swarm So at best you could try a guerilla warfare. In case of a civil war I think it would degenerate to a blood bath at best. And anyway, guerilleros have no problem to find weapons, may they be legal or not. Mike Gaskey wrote: The same (well, similar) question could have been asked of a rag tag citizenry versus a well trained British army, could it not? Sorry to disturb your belief and national pride, but without the help of an organized army (the French one BTW), the insurgents would have been wiped out: "When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If you're a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters. Hell, most of you probably couldn't name three major battles from it, but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where we bottled up Cornwallis's army, forced the Brits' surrender and pretty much won the war. Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won Yorktown for us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the shit out of the British navy when they tried to break the siege. Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid."[^]. Et toc. Also, the firepower, mobility and capacity to strike of a 18th century army can't be compared to today capacities. A flight of F-16 would disband any "civilian" troop within a minute.
-
K(arl) wrote: Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy. But in a 200+ year history we have not. Rather answers that question. No? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
"You" just had a civil war to avoid implosion. The big chance of the US is to have no neighbouring country having the power or the will to invade it. If the US had known a military defeat on its soil, I'm not sure the Republic would have survived. Ok, ok, that's pure speculation.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems Quiet true, but "you" can fall in another pitfall: anarchy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
The U.S. can be considered an 'experiment' in controlled anarchy. The threat of anarchy was not lost on those who designed our federal system. They merely thought the risk was worth it. But, that is what is so important about the encouragement of religious sentiment at a grass roots social level. As long as there are strongly held religious sentiments amoung the people, as long as the people bind themselves to well defined moral beliefs, than there is not too much to worry about. Those who are inclined to adher to religion are not inclined to adher to anarchy. But, as you are correct to observe, certainly, as we the people become less inclined to police our own behavior, the closer we come to a choice between anarchy or a much more centralized definition of federalism. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Even if the problem you mention is real, I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered. First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. That remembers you something, right? There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Even if the problem you mention is real It is. You should live where I live ( good area, but right next to the single mother capital of Tasmania ) K(arl) wrote: I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered Who said anything about mutilating people. I'm talking about making it impossible for people to breed, for a time. Forcing people to have an injection every six months or so that makes them sterile. By forcing, I mean, if you're on benefits, and you want to keep them, you line up. K(arl) wrote: First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? This is the sort of pussy talk I am on about. Why is it that some deliberately uneducated, unemployed by choice bum has the right to push my standard of living down by increasing the welfare bill of my government, and to make kids they obviously are not in a state to care for ? Why does no-one care about the rights of kids born into this sort of environment ? K(arl) wrote: Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity. There's no dignity in being a dole bludger, there's no dignity in popping out kids you don't want because the government will pay you. K(arl) wrote: The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. This is just plain idiocy. Discuss what I said, not your own hang ups. K(arl) wrote: There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education. In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
K(arl) wrote: Even if the problem you mention is real It is. You should live where I live ( good area, but right next to the single mother capital of Tasmania ) K(arl) wrote: I don't see how mutilating people can even be considered Who said anything about mutilating people. I'm talking about making it impossible for people to breed, for a time. Forcing people to have an injection every six months or so that makes them sterile. By forcing, I mean, if you're on benefits, and you want to keep them, you line up. K(arl) wrote: First, are you some kind of God to decide who has the right to procreate and who hasn't? This is the sort of pussy talk I am on about. Why is it that some deliberately uneducated, unemployed by choice bum has the right to push my standard of living down by increasing the welfare bill of my government, and to make kids they obviously are not in a state to care for ? Why does no-one care about the rights of kids born into this sort of environment ? K(arl) wrote: Next, your suggestion is in total violation of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity. There's no dignity in being a dole bludger, there's no dignity in popping out kids you don't want because the government will pay you. K(arl) wrote: The next step after eugenism would be to gas people you consider as not fitting your vision. This is just plain idiocy. Discuss what I said, not your own hang ups. K(arl) wrote: There's a "simple" solution to the problem: give to all children a public education teaching them what behaviour is acceptable in society. All is about education. In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Who said anything about mutilating people. Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles [^] Christian Graus wrote: No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity Yes, also. We have the right to make mistakes. What the heck, that could even be a good definition for "Freedom" Christian Graus wrote: This is just plain idiocy Nonetheless, the concepts of eugenics and purification of the race are far too close for me. Christian Graus wrote: In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Waoh, your society really sucks! And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. Make a revolution.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
jan larsen wrote: Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? The US federal income tax system (for individuals) calculates your "taxable income" by summing all of your income (with a few exceptons) then subtracting specific deductions. Deductions can vary but in nearly all cases the deductions are smaller or not available to the rich. The amount of "payable taxes" is determined by calculating a percentage of "taxable income" (percentages are higher for the rich [approx 36%] than they are for middle class [approx 28% to %15]) then subtracting any tax credits. Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. jan larsen wrote: And what should poor people pay and why? I don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. jan larsen wrote: I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states Touche' :-O I suppose I deserved that. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Thanks for the explanation. From your reply, and Brian and Richards replies, I can see that the system isn't much different from the Danish model. The percentages are higher here though, our tax is combined by a state tax, church tax, county tax and some additionaæ percentages that, for some reason, are separated from the state tax. This compound tax percentage varies from about 51% to 54%. Now, if the income is more than about 300.000,00 DKK per year, there is an extra percentage added to the sum that exceeds that number. I can't remember exactly how much it is, but I believe it is a 10% add. The weird thing is, that this extra tax was meant for the rich, it's called top tax, but it hits the entire middle class. Mike Mullikin wrote: don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. I agree on giving jobs to the unemployed, but I don't think its an uncomplicated issue: 1. To give the unemployed jobs, there have to be jobs to employ. 2. While unemployed should accept that they have to move to get a job, there have to be exceptions like: One parent is unemployed, but could get a job if he moved to another city, but the other parent allready got a job. 3. A person has just finished her studies. The jobs she can get with her education, are all based in the two major cities (this is actually the situation for my girlfriend). She knows she can get a relevant job within 3 months, should she have to chase jobs around the country those three months? Ok, #3 is a bit silly, but #2 is actually quite common. And it all depends on #1. When a state is created, and its laws forced upon the citizens, the state is responsible for making up for the flaws of the system. If a citizen loses his job and there are no jobs to get, he can't just move out to the woods, he can't pick a piece of land somewhere and grow his own food. Historically, the problem was sometimes helped by shipping of the unemployed to far away places like USA, but that's not possible today :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleanin
-
Christian Graus wrote: Who said anything about mutilating people. Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles [^] Christian Graus wrote: No, you're saying that people are free to have NO dignity Yes, also. We have the right to make mistakes. What the heck, that could even be a good definition for "Freedom" Christian Graus wrote: This is just plain idiocy Nonetheless, the concepts of eugenics and purification of the race are far too close for me. Christian Graus wrote: In the poor areas, the majority of the kids are 'diagnosed' with ADHD, and are zonked out on kiddy speed. The example they get from their parents is that school is a waste of time, most don't show up regularly, and few pay attention in school. It's all about environment, the values kids get from their brain dead parents. Besides that ,we're all too politically correct to have schools telling the kids that most of their parents are bums. Waoh, your society really sucks! And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. Make a revolution.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles *sigh* You need to accept my definition as being what I mean by the term 'chemical castration'. I obviously used the term in error, because I believe that this process actually stops people having sex. Like I said, I want to stop them giving birth if they cannot care for a child. K(arl) wrote: We have the right to make mistakes. Make your own mistakes, but don't inflict them on others, especially children. K(arl) wrote: your society really sucks! Hell, yes. K(arl) wrote: And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. The basic problem is that the majority are living off the government in one form or another. Once you have a state where most people are ignorant, the politicians must pander to that ignorance to get votes. I am ALL for society helping the poor, the better off helping those who need it. I am against people looking for a free ride, and more than that, people having children simply so they can get paid more money, then providing only minimal care and less love to kids they never wanted in the first place. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
K(arl) wrote: Definitions of castration on the Web: neutering a male animal by removing the testicles *sigh* You need to accept my definition as being what I mean by the term 'chemical castration'. I obviously used the term in error, because I believe that this process actually stops people having sex. Like I said, I want to stop them giving birth if they cannot care for a child. K(arl) wrote: We have the right to make mistakes. Make your own mistakes, but don't inflict them on others, especially children. K(arl) wrote: your society really sucks! Hell, yes. K(arl) wrote: And that's not just about the poors, it's also your medical system, your educational system, and by extension your political system too. The basic problem is that the majority are living off the government in one form or another. Once you have a state where most people are ignorant, the politicians must pander to that ignorance to get votes. I am ALL for society helping the poor, the better off helping those who need it. I am against people looking for a free ride, and more than that, people having children simply so they can get paid more money, then providing only minimal care and less love to kids they never wanted in the first place. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Christian Graus wrote: I believe that this process actually stops people having sex Ah, ok! In fact I agree with most of what you said and are saying, except the solution I thought you were proposing. Christian Graus wrote: I am against people looking for a free ride, and more than that, people having children simply so they can get paid more money, then providing only minimal care and less love to kids they never wanted in the first place. So am I. A french revolutionist, Saint-Just, proposed a concept which would avoid what you're describing: "Children shall belong to their mother, provided she has suckled them herself, until they are five years old; after that they shall belong to the Republic until death. The mother who does not suckle her children ceases to be a mother in the eyes of the country. Child and citizen belong to the country, and a common instruction is essential. Children shall be brought up in the love of silence and scorn for fine talkers. They shall be trained in laconic speech. Games shall be prohibited in which they declaim, and they shall be habituated to simple truth The boys shall be educated, from the age of five to sixteen, by the country, from five to ten they shall learn to read, write, and swim. No one shall strike or caress a child. They shall be taught what is good and left to nature. He who strikes a child shall be banished. The children shall eat together and shall live on roots, fruit, vegetables, milk, cheese, bread, and water. The teachers of children from five to ten years old shall not be less than sixty years of age. . . . The education of children from ten to sixteen shall be military and agricultural." Saint-Just was a little bit extremist :)
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Christian Graus wrote: I believe that this process actually stops people having sex Ah, ok! In fact I agree with most of what you said and are saying, except the solution I thought you were proposing. Christian Graus wrote: I am against people looking for a free ride, and more than that, people having children simply so they can get paid more money, then providing only minimal care and less love to kids they never wanted in the first place. So am I. A french revolutionist, Saint-Just, proposed a concept which would avoid what you're describing: "Children shall belong to their mother, provided she has suckled them herself, until they are five years old; after that they shall belong to the Republic until death. The mother who does not suckle her children ceases to be a mother in the eyes of the country. Child and citizen belong to the country, and a common instruction is essential. Children shall be brought up in the love of silence and scorn for fine talkers. They shall be trained in laconic speech. Games shall be prohibited in which they declaim, and they shall be habituated to simple truth The boys shall be educated, from the age of five to sixteen, by the country, from five to ten they shall learn to read, write, and swim. No one shall strike or caress a child. They shall be taught what is good and left to nature. He who strikes a child shall be banished. The children shall eat together and shall live on roots, fruit, vegetables, milk, cheese, bread, and water. The teachers of children from five to ten years old shall not be less than sixty years of age. . . . The education of children from ten to sixteen shall be military and agricultural." Saint-Just was a little bit extremist :)
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Saint-Just was a little bit extremist Indeed :omg: "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
K(arl) wrote: Saint-Just was a little bit extremist Indeed :omg: "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
When I write in French I use hyperbole, and when I write in English I use understatement. How strange is that? :-D
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."