Us presidential election 2004

[denoir 0]

@ July 03 2004,10:02)]I love this. Nothing like celebrating the 4th by watching the single greatest threat to my country get trounced by a  Swede  

That better be a polar bear or some other dangerous animal, you modiolus<s>*</s>!

Quote[/b] ](you're still wrong about the constitution though )

Of course I'm right. You have the oldest active consitution in the world, which is not a badge of honor. It needs to be reviewed and modernized to work. It ain't the 1790's any more.

Anyhow, what you need to work most on as a nation is your overt nationalism and its consequences. I have never heard anybody call somebody "anti-Swedish", but I hear every day Americans calling other Americans and others "anti-American". Skip the "patriotism" bs, the allegiance, the flag-waving etc Do a proper separation of church and state and if you want to honor your veterans, give them proper social security, not ten parades. But we have discussed all this earlier - you know my opinions

* roman military term for catapult washer, I shit you not.

[Balschoiw 0]

The word "undeutsch" was used in germany and it took us to gassing people. It was not used before or after these unholy times. It was a Nazi expression.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ] May I suggest you follow the requirements of your oath of fealty and accept as legal any of the requirements of the constitution's duly democratically elected representatives.

  I'll have to decline once again. I have no respect or loyalty to politicians. The constitution always takes precedence over any thing one of our "leaders" may say. If a politician says  stop and the constitution says go, then go it is.

    I do not swear fealty to any man or woman on this planet, I swear allegiance to the laws and ideas that are the US constitution.

    Where as you will change to follow the commands of who ever is in charge, I will  stay true to myself for I follow an idea not who ever is in charge that day.

    I stand by my assertion that any one who would bring enemies of their nation into their countries election process is a traitor.

[sputnik monroe 102]

The more I reread your "accept as legal any action of your leaders", the more it sounds like Sig heil to me.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] I'll have to decline once again. I have no respect or loyalty to politicians. The constitution always takes precedence over any thing one of our "leaders" may say. If a politician says stop and the constitution says go, then go it is.

Classic....since in that case, women and blacks shouldn't be able to vote, those that hold no "property" shouldn't be able to vote either, we'd still have slavery, 18 year olds couldn't vote (but still die for their country), to name only a few of the changes our "leaders" made to the Constitution.

Quote[/b] ]The politicians who are asking the UN to meddle in our nation's political system should be tried for treason.

Or maybe the politicians that dis-enfranchised 16000+ mostly black voters should be tried for treason?

Or maybe you should be tried for treason, for advocating the dis-enfranchisement of legal voters and their voice?

Quote[/b] ] Any one who swears fealty and allegiance to the United Nations rather than the land of their birth is a whore and a traitor. I have nothing but contempt and loathing for them.

Your less than intelligent view is the reason why A) we are in a war that in all honesty we are losing and B) the majority of the world hates us.

Again, maybe you should be tried for treason since what you are advocating is against the Constitution and what America is suppose to stand for?

Quote[/b] ] I don't trust the UN. Letting a club that is made of villains and rogues many of which are out and out enemies get their foot in on your nation's election? Sorry I'll pass.

As soon as you come out of your mountain compound and take a look around at the world, then maybe you will have a view that is the least bit interesting.

Quote[/b] ]The same goes for all the fools out there who don't understand the electoral college system. Yes it does work, the popular vote is nothing more than mob rule. The electoral college keeps California, Texas, and New York from making all the decisions.

That would be swell and dandy had the voices of citizens of this nation had not been silenced.

Mob rule? So now you are against democracy? The electoral college was designed in the 1700s for a nation that had no instantanous communication and a population that was viewed as unable to understand the political process and issues. In your case I see that is true.

Quote[/b] ]Where as you will change to follow the commands of who ever is in charge, I will stay true to myself for I follow an idea not who ever is in charge that day.

So far your "idea" is for an authoritative dictatorsip. Congrats. You have that under TBA right now.

And in case you were absent for that day in American History, thats exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Quote[/b] ]Every single one "proves" the side who commissioned the study won.

Actually they prove thousands of voters were denied their right to vote. In that case history would be very different now.

I've wasted enough of my time on your dribble.

You remind me of the woman in F9/11 that tried to interrupt Lila in Washington DC. Uninformed and a mindless sheep.

Quote[/b] ]Bush's outreach program...

Discussed last page....keep up Ralph

hehe

[Scrub 0]

Wow, I've just found and read about 20 of the 44 or so pages.  Most are talking around the same point, but with only hopes that their party/'side'/view is in that point.. And all the point is, is 'the truth'.  From any politician, we get a lot of half-truths, polite lies (sometimes outright bold-faced ones too) that aren't about anything important-so we let it go. and go and go.  We're now to a point that it is a freekin undertone.. Totally constant.  Now, if you are a businessman (I am) and you say something in business that can even be misconstrued as an untruth, with the laws as they are, you seem to end up liable, and ultimately responsible (I have).  It adds up to building a firm economy, not surprising as money is now more important than ANYTHING to our government, has been for the past 45 or so years.

 Our leaders have a far more important position than your run of the mill businessman.  I'd like to think if there are "truth in business" laws, and "truth in advertising" laws - surely those with the most power, the most 'responsibility' , and absolutely the most sway over a people should be bound by "truth in politics" laws.  It would afford at least a slim protection for the people from those who simply have enough money to afford an 'amendment'. (and to give some of those Poli-Sci students something to do   ).  Imagine that.  A politician that would have to THINK if he could use the terms IS, WILL BE, NOT.. All the states of being, as they convey finite terms, bolean terms, inscrutable terms that cannot be danced around.  Clean and Clear just as business has to be done by law - with full accountability to the people, as it should be.  I'd be the happiest man on earth if people started passing that around and pushing it onto their congressmen and senators.  Hell, 'We the People' might actually take back the government under those rules. It IS ours, you know

BTW, isn't political bickering interesting?  So many neat names.  So many ways to put someone in a labeled box and have expectations of knowing 'who' they really are.   (speaking primarily about TV and Radio)

It's wild.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Midwest Theaters Ban 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Associated Press

DECORAH, Iowa - The president of a company that owns movie theaters in Iowa and Nebraska is refusing to show director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

R.L. Fridley, owner of Des Moines-based Fridley Theatres, says the controversial documentary incites terrorism.

Fridley said in an e-mail message to company managers that the company does not "play political propaganda films from either the right or the left."

"Our country is in a war against an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our culture and kill our people," Fridley wrote. "These barbarians have shown through (the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and the recent beheadings that they will stop at nothing. I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won best picture at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival and has grossed millions of dollars at the box office. Moore won an Academy Award for an earlier work, "Bowling for Columbine."

Critics accuse the film of being an unfair and inaccurate portrayal about President Bush's policies before and after Sept. 11, 2001.

Asshatery continues...

Oh I just wanna beat the livin' hell outta some people...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Asshatery continues...

Oh I just wanna beat the livin' hell outta some people...

Hezbollah officials just released a statement saying that they support your kicking the shit out of him...

[ralphwiggum 6]

and just because something has same position does not mean they are same.

[theavonlady 2]

That reminds me:

[Schoeler 0]

Wow, I've just found and read about 20 of the 44 or so pages.  Most are talking around the same point, but with only hopes that their party/'side'/view is in that point.. And all the point is, is 'the truth'.  From any politician, we get a lot of half-truths, polite lies (sometimes outright bold-faced ones too) that aren't about anything important-so we let it go. and go and go.  We're now to a point that it is a freekin undertone.. Totally constant.  Now, if you are a businessman (I am) and you say something in business that can even be misconstrued as an untruth, with the laws as they are, you seem to end up liable, and ultimately responsible (I have).  It adds up to building a firm economy, not surprising as money is now more important than ANYTHING to our government, has been for the past 45 or so years.

 Our leaders have a far more important position than your run of the mill businessman.  I'd like to think if there are "truth in business" laws, and "truth in advertising" laws - surely those with the most power, the most 'responsibility' , and absolutely the most sway over a people should be bound by "truth in politics" laws.  It would afford at least a slim protection for the people from those who simply have enough money to afford an 'amendment'. (and to give some of those Poli-Sci students something to do   ).  Imagine that.  A politician that would have to THINK if he could use the terms IS, WILL BE, NOT.. All the states of being, as they convey finite terms, bolean terms, inscrutable terms that cannot be danced around.  Clean and Clear just as business has to be done by law - with full accountability to the people, as it should be.  I'd be the happiest man on earth if people started passing that around and pushing it onto their congressmen and senators.  Hell, 'We the People' might actually take back the government under those rules. It IS ours, you know

BTW, isn't political bickering interesting?  So many neat names.  So many ways to put someone in a labeled box and have expectations of knowing 'who' they really are.   (speaking primarily about TV and Radio)

It's wild.

Hey as a Poli-Sci major I take offense!

Remember, once the amendment process is open, any amendment can be proposed and enacted.

Do you realy want to see an amendment against homosexuality, or an amendment against islam or an amendment that requires prayer in school or eliminated separation between church and state? How about an amendment banning certain forms of free speech or criticizing the government?

There are a lot of right and left wing nut jobs out there just itching to get the Constitution amended. Look at prohibition for an example. I say the Constitution works just fine, IF we actually followed what it says instead of just ignoring it as usual.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ] Quote

I'll have to decline once again. I have no respect or loyalty to politicians. The constitution always takes precedence over any thing one of our "leaders" may say. If a politician says stop and the constitution says go, then go it is.

Classic....since in that case, women and blacks shouldn't be able to vote, those that hold no "property" shouldn't be able to vote either, we'd still have slavery, 18 year olds couldn't vote (but still die for their country), to name only a few of the changes our "leaders" made to the Constitution.

Ok some good points. Though prohibition was a constitutional amendment also. Luckily that one was later done away with by another amendment.

As for those with no property not being able to vote I actually can see good in that one... sort of. I'd rather explain my point of view on that one in another thread I'm thinking about starting, Just not tonight because I'm going to bed after this post.

Quote[/b] ] Or maybe the politicians that dis-enfranchised 16000+ mostly black voters should be tried for treason?

Or maybe you should be tried for treason, for advocating the dis-enfranchisement of legal voters and their voice?

I've heard it all before . Most of the evidence I've seen has been discounted though. Like I said though each report only proves what the side who commissioned it said was right. You get a left report Bush stole get a right report Bush won fair and square.

As for me advocating peoples dis-enfranchisement? Your the one advocating them pouting not I.

Quote[/b] ] Your less than intelligent view is the reason why A) we are in a war that in all honesty we are losing and B) the majority of the world hates us.

A: Actually it's way to soon to say if we are losing.

B: I seriously doubt they hate us because a few people in the US despise the UN. They majority of the world hates us for all kinds of reasons, to try to tie it all to my resistance to the UN is giving me way to much credit.

Quote[/b] ] Quote

Any one who swears fealty and allegiance to the United Nations rather than the land of their birth is a whore and a traitor. I have nothing but contempt and loathing for them. ...end quote

Again, maybe you should be tried for treason since what you are advocating is against the Constitution and what America is suppose to stand for?

I'm a little confused. How is advocating being loyal to your flag and not the UN's going against the constitution? Is there some part I over looked that says " All citizens are UN members first, Americans second"?

Quote[/b] ]

mob rule? So now you are against democracy? The electoral college was designed in the 1700s for a nation that had no instantanous communication and a population that was viewed as unable to understand the political process and issues. In your case I see that is true.

Yes I am against pure democracy, I am for "constitutional democracy". Please read the next three paragraphs start to finish and pay very close attention.

Pure democracy is mob rule. In a pure democracy the majority rules. It's simple there is 9 of us and 1 of you we are in control. So what stops a referendum such as "all in favor of Akira giving us all his money?" and then you and 9 other people vote. They all vote yes you vote no. Say good bye to your money the majority has spoken. That's pure democracy baby.

A constitutional democracy is set up so the minority is protected from the majority. That's where the electoral college comes in. If we went by mob rules popular vote California, New York and Texas would decide every election. There is way more people in those three states, so you might as well forget about voting if you live any where else. With the electoral college each state is divided up into sections. Each section is worth a point. So some little county in the sticks is worth just as much as a big city. See that way the little guy in a rural area gets his voice heard, not just the cities.

Is it really that hard to understand? Personally I think it could be improved. For example I think each state should be worth one point total. That way every state is totally equal no more population centers deciding the course for the entire nation.

Quote[/b] ]So far your "idea" is for an authoritative dictatorsip. Congrats. You have that under TBA right now.

And in case you were absent for that day in American History, thats exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Please quote where I advocated an "authoritative dictatorship". All I've advocated is keeping foreign nations out of our electoral process. Something I know for a fact the founding fathers would approve of.

You know nothing of the founding fathers.

Further more you know nothing of authoritative dictatorships. Dictatorships don't have term limits Einstein.

Well I'll admit you did have one or two good points when you brought up about womens sufferage and lowering hte voting age. I'm not above rethinking things or telling some one when I was off base (unlike every one else).

On a final note: people you really should learn to read a post point by point and decide if you agree or disagree with each point. You all seem to look at a post and just decide before hand " I hate this guy" and then go in trying to figure out how to disprove each point.

Any how I am so damn tired. I'm done for the night.

I still can't believe I posted here, I try to keep out of politics on the net.

[denoir 0]

That reminds me:

http://www.theavonlady.org/images/oblty.jpg

That's funny. Especially considering that Osama is endorsing Bush according to reports. As would I if I were him.

All reports so far seem to show that the "war on terror" is a blatant failure. AQ has expanded exponentially. From being a fairly small organization they're everywhere now. Bush did a good job of provide a solid recruitement base for the terrorists.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Ok one more post for the night. Just read your post you typed up while I was typing my last one Shoeler. All I can say is amen.

Any how that's it.

[denoir 0]

It's so cute the way you talk about your old and dusty constitution. Too bad you didn't get better along with the Soviets, you are so much alike.

Trivia: Do you know the words "under God" were added because the original was nearly identical to the Soviet pledge?

Blind devotion and loyalty to the state has seldom brought anything good... Children in schools being indoctrinated, dictating an oath of loyalty - that's just perverted.

Edit: Perhaps not the best day of the year to debate this

[Schoeler 0]

Who said anything about blind devotion and loyalty Denoir?

I believe in Locke's theory of the social contract and so should you, if you aren't an anarchist. Our social contract is written down. I don't know about you, but I'll take a written guarantee over a breakable promise every time.

[theavonlady 2]

Who said anything about blind devotion and loyalty Denoir?

Denior believes we're like the Soviets.

We have parasites that we weed out of our work places and schools.

We have gulags to toss all our prisoners in.

We can't say or write what we want.

We cannot leave the country as we please.

Sounds to me like Sweden is like North Korea.

[denoir 0]

Who said anything about blind devotion and loyalty Denoir?

I believe in Locke's theory of the social contract and so should you, if you aren't an anarchist.  Our social contract is written down.  I don't know about you, but I'll take a written guarantee over a breakable promise every time.

Ours is too, but we don't pledge any loyalty to it.

As you said, it's a social contract. I'll follow it as long as I like it, if I don't, I can get elected and form a new one. Or I can move to another country that has a better one.

[denoir 0]

We have gulags to toss all our prisoners in.

Gitmo?

Quote[/b] ]We can't say or write what we want.

Patriot act.

Quote[/b] ]We cannot leave the country as we please.

Like the ban on all travel to Cuba?

Quote[/b] ]Sounds to me like Sweden is like North Korea.

Because we have more rights and freedoms?

[theavonlady 2]

We have gulags to toss all our prisoners in.

Gitmo?

LOL! Yes! A direct equation between the USSR and America!

So convincing!

And how many hundreds of thousands of people have been tossed into there for merely contemplating thoughts against "The State"?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We can't say or write what we want.

Patriot act.

And how many of the tens of thousands of American newspaper and magazine editors and reporters have been fined or imprisoned? Or are they all amazingly walking a tightrope to avoid being tossed into a besement torture chamber.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We cannot leave the country as we please.

Like the ban on all travel to Cuba?

Gasp! What imposing limitations!

You forgot Syria and a few other juicy vacation spots.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Sounds to me like Sweden is like North Korea.

Because we have more rights and freedoms?

Having "more" doesn't make someone who has "less" the equivalent of a ruthless dictatorship.

Your comparisons are nonsense.

[denoir 0]

LOL! Yes! A direct equation between the USSR and America!

So convincing!

And how many hundreds of thousands of people have been tossed into there for merely contemplating thoughts against "The State"?

Right now the US holds 12,400 prisoners that have not been given any legal counsel and have not been charged with a crime. Doesn't have that minty-fresh smell of a modern fair society.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We cannot leave the country as we please.

Like the ban on all travel to Cuba?

Gasp! What imposing limitations!

You forgot Syria and a few other juicy vacation spots.

You can dismiss it with jokes, but the state is imposing travel limitations on its citizens based on the state's perception of those countries. It would be unconstitutional here in Sweden.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Sounds to me like Sweden is like North Korea.

Because we have more rights and freedoms?

Having "more" doesn't make someone who has "less" the equivalent of a ruthless dictatorship.

Your comparisons are nonsense.

I'm not saying that America is like the Soviet Union. America is largely still a fairly solid western-style democracy, and it's citizens, press etc have plenty of rights. There are worrying tendencies with the Bush government though. But that's not what I'm talking about.

What I mean is that America has some style and form traditions that were modern circa 1930's. The "strong nation state" model. And that is where its similarities are to the authoritarian regimes of that time. The nationalism; the flag fetish, the constitution fetish; children being politically indoctrinated by having to recite the pledge of allegiance.

In most other western coutries that disappeared with the social revolution in the late sixties. For one reason or another America did not take that step and its style and form is very outdated. A speech by a US president today does not sound at all that very different from a 1950's speech by a Soviet secretary general. As with the pledge of allegiance, exchange a few keywords and you have the same content.

This is also combined with a religious <s>fanaticism</s> tone (real or pro forma) that disappeared in Europe around the time of the French revolution.

So when Europeans hear American politicians (and not too seldom citizens) talk the way they talk, it sounds first of all extremely backwards and second it gives negative connotations with past regimes that used a similar style.

[theavonlady 2]

LOL! Yes! A direct equation between the USSR and America!

So convincing!

And how many hundreds of thousands of people have been tossed into there for merely contemplating thoughts against "The State"?

Right now the US holds 12,400 prisoners that have not been given any legal counsel and have not been charged with a crime. Doesn't have that minty-fresh smell of a modern fair society.

One wonders whether Sweden would or would not enact similar wartime wars if your country were in a similar predicament.

Many a free country take emergency measures in such times. Some more and some less.

Many would say that the US is not restrictive enough in its emergency laws during these times.

I don't wish it upon anyone else and I don't know of any countable group of Americans who would want these restrictions in place during peace time.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We cannot leave the country as we please.

Like the ban on all travel to Cuba?

Gasp! What imposing limitations!

You forgot Syria and a few other juicy vacation spots.

You can dismiss it with jokes, but the state is imposing travel limitations on its citizens based on the state's perception of those countries. It would be unconstitutional here in Sweden.

But we're not Sweden. And one could argue about the moral laxes of a country like Sweden. Sorry, not everyone wants to immitate Sweden.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Sounds to me like Sweden is like North Korea.

Because we have more rights and freedoms?

Having "more" doesn't make someone who has "less" the equivalent of a ruthless dictatorship.

Your comparisons are nonsense.

I'm not saying that America is like the Soviet Union.

*cough*

"Too bad you didn't get better along with the Soviets, you are so much alike."

Quote[/b] ]America is largely still a fairly solid western-style democracy, and it's citizens, press etc have plenty of rights. There are worrying tendencies with the Bush government though. But that's not what I'm talking about.

What I mean is that America has some style and form traditions that were modern circa 1930's. The "strong nation state" model. And that is where its similarities are to the authoritarian regimes of that time. The nationalism; the flag fetish, the constitution fetish; children being politically indoctrinated by having to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Gasp (again)! Loyalty! Patriotism!

Excuse me. Now I have to wash my mouth out with soap.

Quote[/b] ]In most other western coutries that disappeared with the social revolution in the late sixties. For one reason or another America did not take that step and its style and form is very outdated.

Poor antiquated American. Some of us don't believe that new is always better.

Quote[/b] ]A speech by a US president today does not sound at all that very different from a 1950's speech by a Soviet secretary general. As with the pledge of allegiance, exchange a few keywords and you have the same content.

Yes. Liberty and justice for all. Very Soviet.

Quote[/b] ]This is also combined with a religious fanaticism (real or pro forma) that disappeared in Europe around the time of the French revolution.

Some would say Europe is fanatically secular.

To each his own. Shockingly, many people don't gawk at Europe with envy.

Quote[/b] ]So when Europeans hear American politicians (and not too seldom citizens) talk the way they talk, it sounds first of all extremely backwards and second it gives negative connotations with past regimes that used a similar style.

How patronizing.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Gasp (again)! Loyalty! Patriotism!

Greece is one of the most patriotic countries in Europe, and we have none of that "swearing allegiance to flag and constitution" rubbish.

FFS, I have seen people cry just because they see beautiful sunrises on a Greek island. This sort of patriotism and love for one's country is real patriotism. It is grown, just by living there.

It is not force-fed through nationalistic propaganda, allegiance swearing and other rubbish that Europe got rid of 60 years (With America's help, fairly enough).

In fact, if someone were to try the American approach to nationalism, he would get hounded out of the country as a fascist. And quite rightly so.

Quote[/b] ]How patronizing

Quite rightly so, America is living in the past.

[denoir 0]

One wonders whether Sweden would or would not enact similar wartime wars if your country were in a similar predicament.

Nope. It would require a change to the constitution, which in turn would require 2/3 of majority in parliament, twice, with at least five years apart and at least one parliamentary election. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but freedoms should not be traded so lightly.

Quote[/b] ]But we're not Sweden. And one could argue about the moral laxes of a country like Sweden.

What moral would that be? I'm curious.

Quote[/b] ]Gasp (again)! Loyalty! Patriotism!

Excuse me. Now I have to wash my mouth out with soap.

Indeed. Loyalty to the state. Jahwol mein comrade secretary Füherer. And patriotism,  which in America is another word for nationalism - one of the most primitive tribal impulses.

Quote[/b] ]Poor antiquated American. Some of us don't believe that new is always better.

It's called development. Or evolution if you wish.

Quote[/b] ]Yes. Liberty and justice for all. Very Soviet.

Yes, "Svoboda" and "Pravda" in Russian and part of the Soviet pledge of allegiance.

Quote[/b] ]Some would say Europe is fanatically secular.

Secularism is the common basis for all people, including the religious ones. Religion is built upon a secular base. Now we in Europe have in general a separation of church and state, which means no church in government business.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]So when Europeans hear American politicians (and not too seldom citizens) talk the way they talk, it sounds first of all extremely backwards and second it gives negative connotations with past regimes that used a similar style.

How patronizing.

I think you'll find it justifiable patronization as America has existed for what? Less than 230 years? The European countries have a history of more than 2,300 years. Been there, done that. Listen to the experienced ones.

[theavonlady 2]

Gasp (again)! Loyalty! Patriotism!

Greece is one of the most patriotic countries in Europe, and we have none of that "swearing allegiance to flag and constitution" rubbish.

It's a pledge of allegiance. No one forces you to say it. This discussion is becoming absurd.

Quote[/b] ]FFS, I have seen people cry just because they see beautiful sunrises on a Greek island. This sort of patriotism and love for one's country is real patriotism. It is grown, just by living there.

You don't have a monopoly on this. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Quote[/b] ]It is not force-fed through nationalistic propaganda, allegiance swearing and other rubbish that Europe got rid of 60 years (With America's help, fairly enough).

Whatever.

Quote[/b] ]In fact, if someone were to try the American approach to nationalism, he would get hounded out of the country as a fascist.

So much for Euopean freedom and tollerance!

Quote[/b] ]And quite rightly so.

Quite.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]How patronizing

Quite rightly so, America is living in the past.

Tsk. Such a backwards country the US is.