PDA

View Full Version : WTF?! A tax on soda?!?!


Pages : [1] 2

rockdawg21
09-10-2009, 11:42 PM
I'm a huge advocate that Americans should change their lifestyles, but this is the United States of America, not the United States of Taxation by Obama. Next thing you know, we're going to have the United States Soda Party the same as Boston had the Tea Party. You gotta be f'ing kidding me that he actually supports this!

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&conitem=cf2237c26ab93210VgnVCM10000030281eac____&cm_mmc=DailyDoseNL-_-2009_10_09-_-MainBlk-_-body1

Sweet on a Soda Tax?

In late July, Men's Health Editor Peter Moore sat down with President Obama in the Oval Office to talk health care reform. The most controversial part of the interview was on the subject of sin taxes--that is, taxing soda and other sugar-laden products, or on activities that sabotage the health of the masses.

Here's what the President told us: "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring. There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else. Obviously it's not the only factor, but it is a major factor.

"Obviously there is resistance on Capitol Hill to those kinds of sin taxes," he continued. "Legislators from certain states that produce sugar or corn syrup are sensitive to anything that might reduce demand for those products. And look, people's attitude is that they don't necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that. It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people's health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful."

MattHughesRocks
09-11-2009, 12:14 AM
I've had two Diet Cokes today :blink: If it costs more I wouldnt be buying it.I won't be complaining when they tax it :unsure:

atomdanger
09-11-2009, 12:16 AM
"Here's what the President told us: "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring. There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else. Obviously it's not the only factor, but it is a major factor."

That wouldn't have anything to do with that HF Corn Syrup :wink:

Chris F
09-11-2009, 03:00 AM
So they(Gov) protect a womens right to slaughter their baby, but want to invade our houses by excessive taxes on items that are deemed unhealthy. If a person is stupid enough to do anything in excess they should expect the results. It is not the Govs job to dictate what is or is not a sin in my house.

Buzzard
09-11-2009, 03:13 AM
So they(Gov) protect a womens right to slaughter their baby, but want to invade our houses by excessive taxes on items that are deemed unhealthy. If a person is stupid enough to do anything in excess they should expect the results. It is not the Govs job to dictate what is or is not a sin in my house.

Are you also as opposed to the taxes on cigarettes?

NateR
09-11-2009, 03:21 AM
So they(Gov) protect a womens right to slaughter their baby, but want to invade our houses by excessive taxes on items that are deemed unhealthy. If a person is stupid enough to do anything in excess they should expect the results. It is not the Govs job to dictate what is or is not a sin in my house.

I find it interesting that it's referred to as a "sin tax." It's a very bizarre form of morality being formed in America today. It's legal to murder a fully viable fetus in the womb, but you better not be drinking too much soda.:huh:

bradwright
09-11-2009, 03:25 AM
I find it interesting that it's referred to as a "sin tax." It's a very bizarre form of morality being formed in America today. It's legal to murder a fully viable fetus in the womb, but you better not be drinking too much soda.:huh:

actually calling it a sin tax would be wrong...its more like a luxury tax.:laugh:

MattHughesRocks
09-11-2009, 03:27 AM
How did abortions get in with drinking too much soda? Did I miss something?:unsure-1:
Was it actually called a sin tax...the drinking of the soda that is???:huh:

NateR
09-11-2009, 03:29 AM
The most controversial part of the interview was on the subject of sin taxes--that is, taxing soda and other sugar-laden products, or on activities that sabotage the health of the masses.

They should just call it a sugar tax.

But this wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers have proposed some bizarre taxes. I once read that Benjamin Franklin proposed a tax on curtains and window-blinds to prevent people from sleeping when the sun was up.

rockdawg21
09-11-2009, 03:37 AM
Are you also as opposed to the taxes on cigarettes?
Keep in mind here, I'm a non-smoker. I think it's disgusting and I haven't any idea why people do it, but it's not for myself or the government to impose a tax simply to heckle smokers.

If they are going to allow cigarettes, which are linked to more deaths than marijuana and several other street drugs, then they shouldn't tax them so heavily. It's basically a right to smoke cigarettes, but they are simply picking on smokers, it's crap.

Same with cities that make smoking indoors illegal. I'm with the South Park guys on this, they basically said, "If I own a bar, I should have every right to allow people to smoke in my bar."

This is America, Land of the Free, but it's quickly becoming, Land of the Free, well, kinda. I can see our new slogan in 2 years, "Hey, at least we're not China." 5 years, "Hey, at least we're not China, yet..." 10 years, "Hey, we're the Western China."

Chuck
09-11-2009, 03:39 AM
They should just call it a sugar tax.

But this wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers have proposed some bizarre taxes. I once read that Benjamin Franklin proposed a tax on curtains and window-blinds to prevent people from sleeping when the sun was up.

Oh my wife would be pissed!!!!! :laugh:

MattHughesRocks
09-11-2009, 04:09 AM
Oh I would have hated him :laugh:

They should just call it a sugar tax.

But this wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers have proposed some bizarre taxes. I once read that Benjamin Franklin proposed a tax on curtains and window-blinds to prevent people from sleeping when the sun was up.

Buzzard
09-11-2009, 06:58 AM
Keep in mind here, I'm a non-smoker. I think it's disgusting and I haven't any idea why people do it, but it's not for myself or the government to impose a tax simply to heckle smokers.

If they are going to allow cigarettes, which are linked to more deaths than marijuana and several other street drugs, then they shouldn't tax them so heavily. It's basically a right to smoke cigarettes, but they are simply picking on smokers, it's crap.

Same with cities that make smoking indoors illegal. I'm with the South Park guys on this, they basically said, "If I own a bar, I should have every right to allow people to smoke in my bar."

This is America, Land of the Free, but it's quickly becoming, Land of the Free, well, kinda. I can see our new slogan in 2 years, "Hey, at least we're not China." 5 years, "Hey, at least we're not China, yet..." 10 years, "Hey, we're the Western China."



How am I supposed to argue with you when you come up with this stuff? :)

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-11-2009, 07:55 AM
I find it interesting that it's referred to as a "sin tax." It's a very bizarre form of morality being formed in America today. It's legal to murder a fully viable fetus in the womb, but you better not be drinking too much soda.:huh:

Now that is an excellent point! Personally I resent anybody telling me what to eat!

rockdawg21
09-11-2009, 10:19 AM
How am I supposed to argue with you when you come up with this stuff? :)
LOL, sorry man. Jump elsewhere into the politics and I'm sure you'll find something we can argue about. Simply put, we have the right to live our lives how we want (within reason) without the government trying to impose BS legislation on us. Nobody here really wants this country to no longer be free. :sad:

County Mike
09-11-2009, 11:26 AM
Soda's horrible for you anyway. :)

Crisco
09-11-2009, 12:46 PM
Soda's horrible for you anyway. :)

So is socialism :tongue0011:


People will still drink it. They will just have less money to spend on other stuff. GG government.. GG.

Twinsmama
09-11-2009, 12:53 PM
If they would stop taxing everything so much maybe people would have more money to spend on my insurance!! :tongue0011::laugh::laugh:

Crisco
09-11-2009, 01:00 PM
If they would stop taxing everything so much maybe people would have more money to spend on my insurance!! :tongue0011::laugh::laugh:

Pfft socialist :tongue0011:

rearnakedchoke
09-11-2009, 01:56 PM
it's not a bad idea ... if the gov't is going to pay for universal health care, than they are going to want to ensure people are taking better care of themselves ... taxing things like soda, cigs, alcohol is a good idea .. they are not saying you can't consume them, you are just gonna pay extra ......

NateR
09-11-2009, 03:51 PM
it's not a bad idea ... if the gov't is going to pay for universal health care, than they are going to want to ensure people are taking better care of themselves ... taxing things like soda, cigs, alcohol is a good idea .. they are not saying you can't consume them, you are just gonna pay extra ......

So, you don't believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit and instead should have their lifestyles dictated to them by the government? Because that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me, not a free society.

If the government thinks that socialized medicine gives it the right to tell it's citizens what they are or are not allowed to eat, then I think that's one of the greatest arguments against socialized medicine.

I've lived in a free country my whole life, so just the notion that someone out there thinks this is a good idea is kind of frightening. Personally, I prefer freedom to a nanny state.

bradwright
09-11-2009, 03:54 PM
So, you don't believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit and instead should have their lifestyles dictated to them by the government? Because that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me, not a free society.

If the government thinks that socialized medicine gives it the right to tell it's citizens what they are or are not allowed to eat, then I think that's one of the greatest arguments against socialized medicine.

I've lived in a free country my whole life, so just the notion that someone out there thinks this is a good idea is kind of frightening. Personally, I prefer freedom to a nanny state.

so you are saying this is the very first thing any government has ever taxed?

NateR
09-11-2009, 03:58 PM
so you are saying this is the very first thing any government has ever taxed?

Clearly that's not what I'm saying at all:

But this wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers have proposed some bizarre taxes. I once read that Benjamin Franklin proposed a tax on curtains and window-blinds to prevent people from sleeping when the sun was up.

:rolleyes:

bradwright
09-11-2009, 04:15 PM
Clearly that's not what I'm saying at all:



:rolleyes:

well it sure seems like it:rolleyes:...governments from all over the world are constantly trying to increase tax revenue in anyway they can and as far as taxes go this one is not bad at all,
and besides they aren't telling you not to drink soda they are just taking advantage of the fact that you do drink soda,

NateR
09-11-2009, 04:25 PM
well it sure seems like it:rolleyes:...

That's only because you aren't paying attention.

bradwright
09-11-2009, 04:35 PM
That's only because you aren't paying attention.

oh I'm paying attention all right...:laugh:

NateR
09-11-2009, 04:44 PM
oh I'm paying attention all right...:laugh:

So, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I say in order to goad me into a fight.

bradwright
09-11-2009, 04:48 PM
So, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I say in order to goad me into a fight.

you dont need any goading,besides i didn't miss represent anything you said..
i was just looking for some clarification.

Neezar
09-11-2009, 04:50 PM
So, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I say in order to goad me into a fight.


Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.


:laugh:

bradwright
09-11-2009, 04:54 PM
Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.


:laugh:

i'm amazed Nate that some people around here think you cant discuss things with someone without their help.

Neezar
09-11-2009, 04:57 PM
i'm amazed Nate that some people around here think you cant discuss things with someone without their help.

If you chose to have a private conversation with Nate then I suggest you use your private message option. Otherwise, don't be rude. :)

bradwright
09-11-2009, 04:58 PM
If you chose to have a private conversation with Nate then I suggest you use your private message option. Otherwise, don't be rude. :)

who is being rude ?

rearnakedchoke
09-11-2009, 05:22 PM
So, you don't believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit and instead should have their lifestyles dictated to them by the government? Because that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me, not a free society.

If the government thinks that socialized medicine gives it the right to tell it's citizens what they are or are not allowed to eat, then I think that's one of the greatest arguments against socialized medicine.

I've lived in a free country my whole life, so just the notion that someone out there thinks this is a good idea is kind of frightening. Personally, I prefer freedom to a nanny state.

Nope, I don't see what is so wrong about it .. i mean, the US Gift tax is even more ridiculous and people are worried about this? there have been excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol .. i don't see why the government wouldn't "consider" lumping soda in there .. for years we have known the results of tobacco and alcohol use in excess, that is a part of the reason it is taxed .. we now know, and have known the effects of excess sugar or hfcs and the effects are huge, especially with children ... with the already growing obesity rate, what else do you expect ... i say tax the soda, get it out of schools .. if parents want to give it to their kids, fine, but it will be taxed ... no one is saying you can't buy it, just that their will be a tax on it ..

rearnakedchoke
09-11-2009, 05:34 PM
Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.


:laugh:

ZZZZZZZZZZIIINNNG!!!! ... i must admit .. that is great ..

NateR
09-11-2009, 08:38 PM
Nope, I don't see what is so wrong about it .. i mean, the US Gift tax is even more ridiculous and people are worried about this? there have been excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol .. i don't see why the government wouldn't "consider" lumping soda in there .. for years we have known the results of tobacco and alcohol use in excess, that is a part of the reason it is taxed .. we now know, and have known the effects of excess sugar or hfcs and the effects are huge, especially with children ... with the already growing obesity rate, what else do you expect ... i say tax the soda, get it out of schools .. if parents want to give it to their kids, fine, but it will be taxed ... no one is saying you can't buy it, just that their will be a tax on it ..

I just think the notion that the government can tax us "for our own good" is a very dangerous one. That's not the purpose of taxes.

I was just as opposed to the cigarette tax as I am to this soda tax and I think smoking cigarettes and drinking soda are horrible for you. So, I'm not defending my vices here, I just believe that people should be in control of their own lives, we don't elect government officials to play the role of overprotective parents.

bradwright
09-11-2009, 09:58 PM
I just think the notion that the government can tax us "for our own good" is a very dangerous one. That's not the purpose of taxes.

I was just as opposed to the cigarette tax as I am to this soda tax and I think smoking cigarettes and drinking soda are horrible for you. So, I'm not defending my vices here, I just believe that people should be in control of their own lives, we don't elect government officials to play the role of overprotective parents.

i really dont think your government or our government for that matter would ever tax anybody for their own good the only reason they tax things like booze,cigarettes and now maybe soda is because they know no matter how much they tax these things people will continue to consume them thus making it a very lucrative source of revenue,they really dont give a rats you know what about the well being of anybody just as long as everyone keeps on paying their taxes is about all that matters to them.

Tyburn
09-11-2009, 11:18 PM
Do Americans pay VAT? Value Added Tax, on all items they buy anywhere in America?

If so...I think its wrong to add extra taxes ontop of that on individual items outside of alcohol and Ciggarettes.

If you dont do VAT...then you actually have nothing to complain about...the cost of living in the US in minimal compared to most other places! try living here...EVERYTHING is twice as expensive and bloody half the size..

imagine going to a country where you pay half as much and get double the ammount?

HEY I'll be doing that next week :happydancing:

Chuck
09-12-2009, 12:21 AM
It's legal to murder a fully viable fetus in the womb, but you better not be drinking too much soda.:huh:
I think the relation might be a selfish society trying to keep itself from being burdened.... unwanted babies are a burden... fat people are a burden etc...


1. I think it's disgusting and I haven't any idea why people do it, but it's not for myself or the government to impose a tax simply to heckle smokers.

2. It's basically a right to smoke cigarettes, but they are simply picking on smokers, it's crap.

3. Same with cities that make smoking indoors illegal.
1. That's really not why the tax is there though... at least I don't think so... smokers simply put a greater burden on society.. if the burden is greater then the tax should be there to offset it.

2. A right? A freedom perhaps.. luxury.... privilege.... I sure don't see it as a right.

3. But second hand cigarette smoke is harmful. I think to what degree is still up for debate but my freedom to breathe smoke fresh air shouldn't be imposed on by anybody.


1. So, you don't believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit and instead should have their lifestyles dictated to them by the government?

2. If the government thinks that socialized medicine gives it the right to tell it's citizens what they are or are not allowed to eat, then I think that's one of the greatest arguments against socialized medicine.

1. We already live within the confines of numerous laws put in place to protect us from ourselves... speed limits, seat belts, FDA regs, OSHA regs etc.. When you really think about it we have much less freedom then we think.. :ninja:
2. I agree with you Nate but like it or not if we want to drive down the cost of health care this is and HAS to happen. We either need to surcharge those with unhealthy lifestyles or give rewards/incentives to those who choose a healthy lifestyle. Insurance companies and greed are not the biggest problems with health care and it's rising costs today. It's a selfish, unhealthy American public that hurting itself. I'm not claiming to know how to fix it.. but I can promise you that's a HUGE portion of the cost we all pay.


1. I just think the notion that the government can tax us "for our own good" is a very dangerous one. That's not the purpose of taxes.

2. We don't elect government officials to play the role of overprotective parents.

1. I think it's taxation with representation... I semi-truck has to pay higher taxes are licensing fees then a passenger car because it puts a greater burden on our highways. People who smoke, are overweight etc put a greater burden on our health care system then those who live a healthy lifestyle. Total freedom = chaos... Unfortunately we live in a society that needs protection from itself at times.

2. I agree. But unfortunately for us, at times we need them too.

Chris F
09-12-2009, 12:26 AM
Are you also as opposed to the taxes on cigarettes?

If the tax is only on a said item. Sales taxation is fine. We fought for independence because they were taxing, stamps, paper, cloth, sugar and Tea on top of the already high tariffs. I am against any sin tax this includes cancer sticks, alcohol, etc.

Chuck
09-12-2009, 12:29 AM
If the tax is only on a said item. Sales taxation is fine. We fought for independence because they were taxing, stamps, paper, cloth, sugar and Tea on top of the already high tariffs. I am against any sin tax this includes cancer sticks, alcohol, etc.

C'mon you're the history teacher you know that's not accurate. We didn't fight for independence because they were taxing things.. it was the lack of representation... our taxes going across the Atlantic ocean to benefit a government that did nothing for us.....

Chris F
09-12-2009, 12:31 AM
actually calling it a sin tax would be wrong...its more like a luxury tax.:laugh:
We have those also. More Govt' thievery. For the record before you ask Buzzard yes I also oppose income taxation which was not even an issue till FDR's new deal needed money so they twisted the Constitution beyond its intent to include this robing of those who work to give to those who do not. My personal feelings are we should shrink govt' to it constitutional limits and fund it with tariffs like they did for the majority of our history. This is the federal I am speaking of so spare me the argument about roads and police, etc. Those can be funded locally with sales taxation etc.

Chris F
09-12-2009, 12:34 AM
How did abortions get in with drinking too much soda? Did I miss something?:unsure-1:
Was it actually called a sin tax...the drinking of the soda that is???:huh:

It has to do with the Govt' intrusion into lives. A woman's womb evidently is the only place the Govt' refuses to go. Thus babies are slaughtered in the name of privacy. Yet I can be told sugar is bad for me which in all truth it is fine in moderation and much better then the diet stuff that will cause cancer.

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 12:42 AM
If the tax is only on a said item. Sales taxation is fine. We fought for independence because they were taxing, stamps, paper, cloth, sugar and Tea on top of the already high tariffs. I am against any sin tax this includes cancer sticks, alcohol, etc.

by "they" I presume you mean England :ninja:

You have to understand something about that. English people were tireing of paying for the Empire. So they bundled most of the taxes onto collonial outposts instead. We were also trying to fund a war with France...and you lot refused to stop trading with them for Sugar in the pacific. So I imagine any tax on sugar was out of spite, for you effectively being treacherous. Tea was an expensive import from our Empire....cloth...well if it was from india, again, very expensive...paper and stamps is bloody shocking though.

Also...although the Tax was the straw that broke the camels back...actually, the collonial America were pretty upset already. They had a set of laws that were separate to England...and verified by England...but the King kept over rulling them, and stalling them...and I mean...he was unneedfully mean about the whole thing, it was unjust. The Americans offered negotiations and even came to a compromise, that involved them being the ones who had to travel rather then the British...but England just ignored them...this went on for the better part of 50 years getting continuously worse...til finally they decided that something had to be done.

I still think that half the problem was Americas consistant trading with France...How did you feel when it came to light that England released a serial murderer of American Citizens, to gain rights to trade oil in a former terrorist controlled country??

Now imagine that rather then just being a one off, rude and unfair shun of the United States...that England had entered (whilst still being an allie in the war on terror) into long term trade aggreements with the Taliban.

Tell me...if you had provincial rule over England, and they did that to you...would you treat them nicely?

We saw how strong a link there had been between America and France during the culmination of the War of Independance.

We were wrong to treat you badly...but you were foolish to trade with an enemy of the government who rulled you at the time. the whole nation was acting in the open as traitors to the crown...and you wonder why we landed the taxes of the whole Empire onto you :huh:

Chris F
09-12-2009, 01:32 AM
by "they" I presume you mean England :ninja:

You have to understand something about that. English people were tireing of paying for the Empire. So they bundled most of the taxes onto collonial outposts instead. We were also trying to fund a war with France...and you lot refused to stop trading with them for Sugar in the pacific. So I imagine any tax on sugar was out of spite, for you effectively being treacherous. Tea was an expensive import from our Empire....cloth...well if it was from india, again, very expensive...paper and stamps is bloody shocking though.

Also...although the Tax was the straw that broke the camels back...actually, the collonial America were pretty upset already. They had a set of laws that were separate to England...and verified by England...but the King kept over rulling them, and stalling them...and I mean...he was unneedfully mean about the whole thing, it was unjust. The Americans offered negotiations and even came to a compromise, that involved them being the ones who had to travel rather then the British...but England just ignored them...this went on for the better part of 50 years getting continuously worse...til finally they decided that something had to be done.

I still think that half the problem was Americas consistant trading with France...How did you feel when it came to light that England released a serial murderer of American Citizens, to gain rights to trade oil in a former terrorist controlled country??

Now imagine that rather then just being a one off, rude and unfair shun of the United States...that England had entered (whilst still being an allie in the war on terror) into long term trade aggreements with the Taliban.

Tell me...if you had provincial rule over England, and they did that to you...would you treat them nicely?

We saw how strong a link there had been between America and France during the culmination of the War of Independance.

We were wrong to treat you badly...but you were foolish to trade with an enemy of the government who rulled you at the time. the whole nation was acting in the open as traitors to the crown...and you wonder why we landed the taxes of the whole Empire onto you :huh:

Very true Dave. If you want to know what irked the colonialist just look at the bill of rights.

Mark
09-12-2009, 01:48 AM
and you wonder why we landed the taxes of the whole Empire onto you :huh:

you said we alot, are you taking things personal?
Was it right to make us pay the taxes for the whole empire?
I think that it was the quartering of troops that they disliked, would you like that?

NateR
09-12-2009, 02:35 AM
Dave, there was way more than just taxation going on that caused the American Revolution. In addition to the quartering of troops that Mark brings up, which would be considered an unimaginable civil rights violation today, there was also the banning of metalworks in the colonies. Under British rule, the colonials were only allowed to have wooden tools. Making metal tools was considered an act of treason against the king. It was intended to eliminate the possibility of armed revolt against British troops; but only served to further galvanize early Americans against the English tyrant.

Mark
09-12-2009, 02:48 AM
Dave, there was way more than just taxation going on that caused the American Revolution. In addition to the quartering of troops that Mark brings up, which would be considered an unimaginable civil rights violation today, there was also the banning of metalworks in the colonies. Under British rule, the colonials were only allowed to have wooden tools. Making metal tools was considered an act of treason against the king. It was intended to eliminate the possibility of armed revolt against British troops; but only served to further galvanize early Americans against the English tyrant.

ya, Dave we didn't like it!

Chuck
09-12-2009, 03:20 AM
ya, Dave we didn't like it!

:laugh::laugh:

logrus
09-12-2009, 03:23 AM
I don't see what the fuss is about. We are already dealing with a huge sales tax increase on soda and candy. Thats not even counting all the other hikes in the past 6 months.

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 11:20 AM
you said we alot, are you taking things personal?
Was it right to make us pay the taxes for the whole empire?
I think that it was the quartering of troops that they disliked, would you like that?
No it wasnt right to land the whole empire tax on you.

I say we alot Mark, but its not personal, its we as in the country, not we as in me and mine.

Quartering of the troops...well...you (as in your country) wouldnt stop trading with France...and we were at open war with France...would you arm us if you knew we might pass those arms to your enemies???

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Dave, there was way more than just taxation going on that caused the American Revolution. In addition to the quartering of troops that Mark brings up, which would be considered an unimaginable civil rights violation today, there was also the banning of metalworks in the colonies. Under British rule, the colonials were only allowed to have wooden tools. Making metal tools was considered an act of treason against the king. It was intended to eliminate the possibility of armed revolt against British troops; but only served to further galvanize early Americans against the English tyrant.

You were trading with France...what do you expect???

:laugh:

Although I didnt know we were that insecure...the Americas were along way from home, hard to govern, and up to bloody no good trading with France :ninja:

Mark
09-12-2009, 12:46 PM
After the way you treated us we didn't have any loyalty to you. I dont think you treatd us like citizens. More like a piece of property. Dave I dont care and im not going to argue about it, but you guys over there across the pond and us Americans have to different opinions.

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 02:48 PM
After the way you treated us we didn't have any loyalty to you. I dont think you treatd us like citizens. More like a piece of property. Dave I dont care and im not going to argue about it, but you guys over there across the pond and us Americans have to different opinions.

We treated you bad because you traded with our enemies. That was naughty of you.

No you were not treated like citizens because before you got your independance you were not citizens. the Thirteen Collonies were collonies Mark, they belonged to to England, like a conquested land. They were set up when we invaded certain areas of the coast. I guess we treated you like...well...probably like Slaves as that is what fueled alot of the Empire...is that right? Well...that is the way all Empires were governed until the Fall of the British Empire...she was the last collonial Empire...Collonial Empires were based on Conquest...like the Holy Roman Empire, or the Mongol Empire...or even the Spanish Empire.

Have you watched the opening scenes to Gladiator? It was as bad as that with the Native Americans...we basically rounded them up and stole their land. Thats how Empires were built.

Is it moral...well...not now. People have rights now, that were not considered rights for ancient warriors. Hunt or be hunted, Kill or be killed.

The Enlightenment in Europe quashed that, the American Revolution in America Quashed that...and we've never had an Empire on earth since.

You have to remember, British, and American Cultures are not identical. Canadians think like Britons, but Americans from the U.S have their independant Culture...the culture that was built EXACTLY on the changes we are discussing now. :)

VCURamFan
09-12-2009, 02:59 PM
No you were not treated like citizens because before you got your independance you were not citizens. the Thirteen Collonies were collonies Mark, they belonged to to England, like a conquested land.
See, that's the reason why we got pissed. The vast majority of us started as English citizens, or th descendants there-of. England sent its sons (& a few daughters) here to conquer, yet once we had done our work for the Queen, she decided that we were no more entitled to representation than the American Indians we had subjugated. Simply because we were an ocean away & out of sight, we were deemed unimportant.

I might have been able to understand if we were a conquered people. If we were just the descendants of the Iroquois, Apache, etc., I could see why your government wouldn't have seen a need to give us citizenship. The fact is, however, that we were English citizens doing the Queen's work, and we lost our citizenship once we got on the boat.

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 04:06 PM
See, that's the reason why we got pissed. The vast majority of us started as English citizens, or th descendants there-of. England sent its sons (& a few daughters) here to conquer, yet once we had done our work for the Queen, she decided that we were no more entitled to representation than the American Indians we had subjugated. Simply because we were an ocean away & out of sight, we were deemed unimportant.

I might have been able to understand if we were a conquered people. If we were just the descendants of the Iroquois, Apache, etc., I could see why your government wouldn't have seen a need to give us citizenship. The fact is, however, that we were English citizens doing the Queen's work, and we lost our citizenship once we got on the boat.

Well there was a change on the Throne. The Queen who sent you out was not the same person as The King who treated you Cruelly, nor the Second King who you rebelled against.

Secondly...love how you all keep ignoring this whole Issue about France. France and England were almost permanently at war...war takes money, money means taxes...and then we find our wayward collonies on the other side of the world wont cease from trading with the Enemy.

Imagine...if the United States Federal Government found the Richmond State Government was giving and trading directly with the Taliban?

What do you think Washington would do? Because THATS the kinda situation that you had from England perspective. America said it wouldnt distinguish between those who were terrorists and those who harboured them...there you were paying money to the French in return for sugar that they could then use to make War on England.

Truth be told...you began to play AND PAY for both sides.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread address that point.

VCURamFan
09-12-2009, 04:27 PM
Well there was a change on the Throne. The Queen who sent you out was not the same person as The King who treated you Cruelly, nor the Second King who you rebelled against.

Secondly...love how you all keep ignoring this whole Issue about France. France and England were almost permanently at war...war takes money, money means taxes...and then we find our wayward collonies on the other side of the world wont cease from trading with the Enemy.

Imagine...if the United States Federal Government found the Richmond State Government was giving and trading directly with the Taliban?

What do you think Washington would do? Because THATS the kinda situation that you had from England perspective. America said it wouldnt distinguish between those who were terrorists and those who harboured them...there you were paying money to the French in return for sugar that they could then use to make War on England.

Truth be told...you began to play AND PAY for both sides.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread address that point.
O that. That's just because we were going through our adolesent phase & were trying to stretch the boundaries. Sorry 'bout that.:laugh:

Mark
09-12-2009, 04:31 PM
I don't see where the US was trading with France, since we fought alongside you against the French in the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1754-1763. Even George Washington fought along with British troops in that war. So we were allies with you up until 1763, then Britain started passing a bunch of unreasonable taxes, the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. They repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but then passed the Declaratory Act which said that Great Britain was superior (and boss of) the American colonies "in all cases whatsoever."

Do you have a source that claims the US was trading with France BEFORE 1776? Besides your high school textbooks?

You guys got a lot to learn about ruling colonies.

NateR
09-12-2009, 04:42 PM
Besides your high school textbooks?

:laugh: Yeah, being from England, Dave has probably been taught a very skewed version of the events leading up to the American Revolution; but of course, the Brits aren't going to make themselves look bad in their own textbooks.

Dave, I've never heard of America trading with France before the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. Like Mark said, we were fighting along with you guys, against the French, as late as 1763.

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 05:02 PM
O that. That's just because we were going through our adolesent phase & were trying to stretch the boundaries. Sorry 'bout that.:laugh:

:laugh: point covered I think :laugh:

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 05:10 PM
I don't see where the US was trading with France, since we fought alongside you against the French in the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1754-1763. Even George Washington fought along with British troops in that war. So we were allies with you up until 1763, then Britain started passing a bunch of unreasonable taxes, the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. They repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but then passed the Declaratory Act which said that Great Britain was superior (and boss of) the American colonies "in all cases whatsoever."

Do you have a source that claims the US was trading with France BEFORE 1776? Besides your high school textbooks?

You guys got a lot to learn about ruling colonies.
The issue of governance is key Mark.

American Governance is pretty much non existant compared to Collonial Governance. If you want to rule an Empire...then the Empire must understand their place. It was jolly nice of England to allow the Collonies ANY amount of self Rule...you have to remember, we DID own the collonies. Litterally speaking. They belonged and were founded by us, they belonged to us, they didnt rule themselves, they were rulled over by us. That is what Empire, and Imperialism is all about.

We were incharge, the collonies did as we say. If we granted them a certain amount of Freedom and self rule, that was at His/Her Majesties Pleasure. If we wanted them represented, we would appoint someone...if we didnt, then, nevermind...none of the other collonies were represented in Whitehall...why should the American collonies take President?

Your break was an act of treason, your trading with France, which you did in the South Pacific, and why the French were your friends and support in the War of Independance, was treason.

Yeah...we treated you badly...but half of it was totally inline with what we were allowed to do, and the other half was because you were being naughty.

look into trading with france, specifically for sugar in the pacific...I think you were.

If you werent then...I guess the King at the time really WAS a Tyrant :unsure-1:

Mark
09-12-2009, 05:18 PM
...I think you were. If you werent then...I guess[/B]

I have my answer, you dont have any proof. You should really not do that. It makes me not want to believe anything you say.

NateR
09-12-2009, 06:03 PM
Your break was an act of treason, your trading with France, which you did in the South Pacific, and why the French were your friends and support in the War of Independance, was treason.

Dave, we're talking about the events leading up to the Declaration of Independence, not anything that happened afterwards.

You need to cite some reliable sources that state that the colonies were trading with France prior to July 4th, 1776.

Also, with the loyal service that the colonies provided the British in the French and Indian War, the Quartering Act of 1765 was a horrible slap in the face and justification for any acts of "treason" or rebellion against the Tyrant-King George.

rockdawg21
09-12-2009, 06:30 PM
You were trading with France...what do you expect???

:laugh:

Although I didnt know we were that insecure...the Americas were along way from home, hard to govern, and up to bloody no good trading with France :ninja:
France is gay. When the rest of the world turned down Iraq's proposal to build a nuclear plant, even the Russians who sold to them their tanks and jets, the French were like, "Oh oui (or however it's spelled), we will help you! Give us discounts on your oil and we don't give a **** if you have a nuclear plant that allows you to have a byproduct of bomb-grade plutonium or uranium!"

Well, it didn't go by those words, but that's exactly what those ****ers did. I have the French too Dave.

VCURamFan
09-12-2009, 06:33 PM
France is gay. When the rest of the world turned down Iraq's proposal to build a nuclear plant, even the Russians who sold to them their tanks and jets, the French were like, "Oh oui (or however it's spelled), we will help you! Give us discounts on your oil and we don't give a **** if you have a nuclear plant that allows you to have a byproduct of bomb-grade plutonium or uranium!"

Well, it didn't go by those words, but that's exactly what those ****ers did. I hate the French too Dave.Fixed.

Also, please don't take my posts to mean that I am in any way a fan of the French. They suck. They were just useful when we neeed our freedom.:happydancing:

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 07:53 PM
Also, with the loyal service that the colonies provided the British in the French and Indian War, the Quartering Act of 1765 was a horrible slap in the face and justification for any acts of "treason" or rebellion against the Tyrant-King George.

There is justification for Treason?

The idea of becoming a "patriot" in the American sence refering to rebellion, is something unique to your Culture.

In British Culture, Treason is inexcusable, and those who committ it should be hung.

Now...I'll go hunt out the source that I found before, and post it for you :laugh:

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 07:55 PM
France is gay. When the rest of the world turned down Iraq's proposal to build a nuclear plant, even the Russians who sold to them their tanks and jets, the French were like, "Oh oui (or however it's spelled), we will help you! Give us discounts on your oil and we don't give a **** if you have a nuclear plant that allows you to have a byproduct of bomb-grade plutonium or uranium!"

Well, it didn't go by those words, but that's exactly what those ****ers did. I have the French too Dave.

As a nation, they cant be trusted.

Friends with you one moment (when it suits them) Lets help the Americans gain independance to benefit our trade and piss off the British

and...traitors the next (when they feel they are under pressure to committ to something) lets veto the International Law vote in the United Nations for war on Iraq.

They tried to build an Empire...but it was just never meant to be. Their revolution was brutal...absolutely brutal. :blink:

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 07:56 PM
I have my answer, you dont have any proof. You should really not do that. It makes me not want to believe anything you say.

:laugh: look im going to find the link right now...okay :rolleyes:

rockdawg21
09-12-2009, 08:03 PM
As a nation, they cant be trusted.

Friends with you one moment (when it suits them) Lets help the Americans gain independance to benefit our trade and piss off the British

and...traitors the next (when they feel they are under pressure to committ to something) lets veto the International Law vote in the United Nations for war on Iraq.

They tried to build an Empire...but it was just never meant to be. Their revolution was brutal...absolutely brutal. :blink:

LOL, as if the Brits were a peaceful non-conquering nation! How'd that saying go, "The sun never sets on the British Emprie?"

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 08:04 PM
LOL, as if the Brits were a peaceful non-conquering nation! How'd that saying go, "The sun never sets on the British Emprie?"

:laugh: No...the difference is...they sent theirs to the guillotine, we sent ours to Tyburn :ninja:

rockdawg21
09-12-2009, 08:08 PM
:laugh: No...the difference is...they sent theirs to the guillotine, we sent ours to Tyburn :ninja:
LOL, justify it however you want. The conquering British were NOT saints! It's not like they colonized those 100+ countries by asking them nicely to become part of the British Empire.

NateR
09-12-2009, 08:10 PM
There is justification for Treason?

There is a reason that I put treason in quotation marks, because fighting for basic human rights should NEVER be considered treason, unless you are a tyrant. The British labeled it as such, but that just shows how oppressive and tyrannical the British Empire had become by that point in history.

In other words, rebelling against Britian was the morally-correct thing to do, as it is anytime you rebel against any tyrant.

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 08:25 PM
thankyou! 1733

The Mollasses Act passed by Parliament and imposed upon the American Collonies banning them from trading sugar and rum and stuff with French and Spanish in the Pacific...this is AFTER War and BEFORE your revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses_Act

:)

...and it wasnt enforced properly. Instead the Americans smuggled...and imagine how that might make the British feel.

I do believe that George was most unfair to America...not disbuting that at all, he went way overboard trying to exploit them and their natural resources with little interest in the people. BUT, America was not wholly the innocent oppressed that she is somtimes made out to be...she had little to no respect for British Authority, which was the rightful governing body, and she though a little too highly of her place in the world whilst under Imperialism.

rockdawg21
09-12-2009, 08:28 PM
thankyou! 1733

The Mollasses Act passed by Parliament and imposed upon the American Collonies banning them from trading sugar and rum and stuff with French and Spanish in the Pacific...this is AFTER War and BEFORE your revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses_Act

:)

...and it wasnt enforced properly. Instead the Americans smuggled...and imagine how that might make the British feel.

I do believe that George was most unfair to America...not disbuting that at all, he went way overboard trying to exploit them and their natural resources with little interest in the people. BUT, America was not wholly the innocent oppressed that she is somtimes made out to be...she had little to no respect for British Authority, which was the rightful governing body, and she though a little too highly of her place in the world whilst under Imperialism.
Can you imagine it? Prohibition on soda? Then soda will be sold on the black market, how ironic!

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 08:35 PM
There is a reason that I put treason in quotation marks, because fighting for basic human rights should NEVER be considered treason, unless you are a tyrant. The British labeled it as such, but that just shows how oppressive and tyrannical the British Empire had become by that point in history.

In other words, rebelling against Britian was the morally-correct thing to do, as it is anytime you rebel against any tyrant.

What about the Tyrant that held Yugoslavia together from the First World War through to the Bulkan War?

He rulled with an iron fist, and the moment he died, the country fell into civil strife. it NEEDED a Dictator.

There is such a thing as a Benign Dictatorship. Those, even ruthless, are not always bad.

I think that England was too concerned with France, and she found it very difficult to rule America because the collonies were so far away. She went overboard, tiz true.

But Loyalty is the crux of an Empire, its the Crux of any Government...I dont believe that people should be able to overturn their governments whenever the government doesnt do exactly what they want. In British Culture, a Government Leads and Provides...in American Culture, Government is an ugly evil that had better obay the whims of its fickle citizens, or else...it should mind its onw business, not provide, not help...and basically...do absolutely nothing that a local council wouldnt do.

Two very different systems of Government.

We tried a Republic once...you wanna REALLY see Corruption? Ours was so bad it was a GOD send when a Military Dictator took over for nearly a decade after the English Civil War.

...honnestly...your country got a few laughs at work when it was revealed that one senior politician had heckled the President during a speech saying only two words...and it had been described as "puke-worthey" by another.

Your Government doesnt even sit except for a couple of times a year does it :huh:

ours meets every single day! and its non stop heckling...I mean...worse then shouting "you lie" to the prime minister...have you never seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZlrOTYGsw8

Welcome to the British Culture of Government :laugh:

"The fact that the Prime minister wont answer the single questions just shows what a dodgey deal this is, he asks about administration. doesnt he understand the administration and liquidation are different things? let me put it this way, Administration is what his government is in at the moment, liquidation is whats going to happen by the British People at the next general ellection the more people hear about this deal the more they realize it is a complete con...a sub prime deal from a sub prime minister"

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 08:36 PM
Can you imagine it? Prohibition on soda? Then soda will be sold on the black market, how ironic!

it would be horrible! but...thats generally how these things go isnt it. If someone wants something, they get it. if not leagally, then...otherwise :unsure:

Tyburn
09-12-2009, 08:45 PM
LOL, justify it however you want. The conquering British were NOT saints! It's not like they colonized those 100+ countries by asking them nicely to become part of the British Empire.

perhaps it was our charm :huh:

:laugh:

Chris F
09-13-2009, 12:03 AM
I don't see where the US was trading with France, since we fought alongside you against the French in the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1754-1763. Even George Washington fought along with British troops in that war. So we were allies with you up until 1763, then Britain started passing a bunch of unreasonable taxes, the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. They repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but then passed the Declaratory Act which said that Great Britain was superior (and boss of) the American colonies "in all cases whatsoever."

Do you have a source that claims the US was trading with France BEFORE 1776? Besides your high school textbooks?

You guys got a lot to learn about ruling colonies.

I hate to agree with Dave but we were trading with the French, mind you most of the time it was via Canada. But after the French and Indian War we established a fairly robust trade with them. As for sources they are sketchy because each state was independent and since there was no collective congress we have little in official decrees. But there are a lot of mentions of it in the memoirs of the founders as well as the speeches given at the first continental congress.

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 12:17 AM
I hate to agree with Dave .

:laugh:

I think it was legal until the British found out, then they passed an Act of Parliament to try and stop it, so it went underground. The British couldnt enforce it from long distance, so they got ugly...meanwhile French and American bonds grow stronger with a now joint hatred of the British, when the Americans finally revolt because England lands them with heavy taxes partly out of need, and partly as punishment, the French are there for America, and the Thirteen Collonies become the Early Version of the United States.

Meanwhile Britian continues to deal with other parts of the Empire, particularly India. We remain in control of Canada, except for where Canada meets the sea on the East Coast north of America where a permanent reminder of the French help for American Independance is established.

Did Canada help with the Treason...I doubt it, since they were occupied by England in part also...but who knows. Its a long way to the pacific, someone had to be helping the Collonies because all of them were EAST coast. Between them and the pacific was a massive collonial outpost called Louiziana, and it was...owned by the French...it stretched to Washington State in the north...so there is your route to the Pacific...French pacific, to French collonial, to America.

The south was Spanish...they wouldnt have helpped, because they were dying off...and the dutch were too small to help.

Thats how I think it went.

I think war could have been avoided if England had taken up the negotiated offer of having thirteen representative in Parliament...but, we were the dominant, we didnt have to take orders from a submissive who wanted further representation...though...I think in hindsight, it would have helpped us keep the collonies for another century or so. Wasnt the George that dealt with the US, clincally mad? one of the King Georges, was certified actually with a mental illness of maddness...bet you thats the same guy. He's got a war to fight, an empire to maintain...and he's unwell...it was bound to end in tears :laugh:

logrus
09-13-2009, 12:30 AM
I hate to agree with Dave but we were trading with the French, mind you most of the time it was via Canada. But after the French and Indian War we established a fairly robust trade with them. As for sources they are sketchy because each state was independent and since there was no collective congress we have little in official decrees. But there are a lot of mentions of it in the memoirs of the founders as well as the speeches given at the first continental congress.

It was really G.B fault. They wanted to charge more then anyone else and they didn't want anything we were producing at the time. Besides that War was over, and the bully became our friend. Its not like we were trading during the War or anything.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-13-2009, 12:48 AM
Do Americans pay VAT? Value Added Tax, on all items they buy anywhere in America?

If so...I think its wrong to add extra taxes ontop of that on individual items outside of alcohol and Ciggarettes.

If you dont do VAT...then you actually have nothing to complain about...the cost of living in the US in minimal compared to most other places! try living here...EVERYTHING is twice as expensive and bloody half the size..

imagine going to a country where you pay half as much and get double the ammount?

HEY I'll be doing that next week :happydancing:

Is VAT tax like a sales tax? Here in America different states have different sales tax! Kentucky for example has a 6% sales tax on non Grocery items. Indiana has a 7% sales tax on non food items! Personally I wouldn't mind it if my state sales tax went down but I doubt it will.

As you probably already know the sales tax is set by each individual state for their own state!

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 01:36 AM
It was really G.B fault. They wanted to charge more then anyone else and they didn't want anything we were producing at the time. Besides that War was over, and the bully became our friend. Its not like we were trading during the War or anything.

WTF? We never stopped hating and waring with France.
The first time we worked together was WW1...and the last time we worked together was WW2

People STILL come into the Store today and ask which apples are French so they can avoid them!! Even this century the French have hated on our meat imports and exports...

Its not good enough to say the War was over....the war is never over between us...this is the worst grudge match the world has ever seen...I dont think two countries have ever held such long standing hatred towards each other.

So....to begin trading less then ten years after the war...is not good enough. You were a collonie, you were not free to trade with who you wanted. You were subject to the Crown, and consorting with the enemy is High Treason.

We have legitamate right to be pissed off that you would go trading with the French...and less then 500 years later...where we they when you wanted to take out a Terrorist in Iraq? They buggered that one up aswell. Dont take it personally, if you can break your code of loyalty to us...why should they not break their codes of loyalty to you?

We could have handled it better...but the collonies were not free from blame in all of this.

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 01:38 AM
Is VAT tax like a sales tax? Here in America different states have different sales tax! Kentucky for example has a 6% sales tax on non Grocery items. Indiana has a 7% sales tax on non food items! Personally I wouldn't mind it if my state sales tax went down but I doubt it will.

As you probably already know the sales tax is set by each individual state for their own state!

Sounds the same to me.

in England the local Government are not allowed to mess with the price. It is a standard rate...im not sure what rate it is though :laugh:

Mark
09-13-2009, 02:47 AM
:laugh: look im going to find the link right now...okay :rolleyes:

You should have done that first, not run your mouth about the UNITED STATES!
U guys do everything backwards!

NateR
09-13-2009, 03:08 AM
What about the Tyrant that held Yugoslavia together from the First World War through to the Bulkan War?

He rulled with an iron fist, and the moment he died, the country fell into civil strife. it NEEDED a Dictator.

I don't think anyone NEEDS a dictator. That's easily one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on the internet.

Mark
09-13-2009, 03:08 AM
thankyou! 1733 this is AFTER War and BEFORE your revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses_Act


Are you sure 1733 is after the war and before the revolution? Do I need to capitalize after and before? Like you did.

NateR
09-13-2009, 03:11 AM
Are you sure 1733 is after the war and before the revolution? Do I need to capitalize after and before? Like you did.

The French and Indian War started in 1754 and ended in 1763. So, I'm not sure if they teach kids how to tell time over there in England, but 1733 actually takes place before 1754. :laugh:

Mac
09-13-2009, 03:16 AM
Dave , Are you staying at Naters again on your next states trip?

Mark
09-13-2009, 03:16 AM
The French and Indian War started in 1754 and ended in 1763. So, I'm not sure if they teach kids how to tell time over there in England, but 1733 actually takes place before 1754. :laugh:

Now you can get your high School textbook and show us.

Neezar
09-13-2009, 03:34 AM
So....to begin trading less then ten years after the war...is not good enough. You were a collonie, you were not free to trade with who you wanted. You were subject to the Crown, and consorting with the enemy is High Treason.

We have legitamate right to be pissed off that you would go trading with the French...We could have handled it better...but the collonies were not free from blame in all of this.

Yes, we were free to trade with who we wanted. We had been doing it for years. The Molasses Act came about from GREED. It had nothing to do with not trading with the French. If that were the case then why not just order us not to trade? This act also affected trade with other countries, too. Were you guys as war with them, too? Hell no. You folks needed money and that is why this ridiculous act was handed down. AND we traded products that we had for sugar with the French. The British wouldn't have any part of that and only wanted money. Well, we didn't have money at the time and you people KNEW that this act would be the ruin of many here and showed NO REGARD for that! I think you guys simply left us no choice. Therefore, I don't view it as treason.

So, again it had NOTHING to do with you people being pissed or having your little feelings hurt. It was all about GREED.

Mark
09-13-2009, 03:42 AM
I hate to agree with Dave but we were trading with the French, mind you most of the time it was via Canada. But after the French and Indian War we established a fairly robust trade with them. As for sources they are sketchy because each state was independent and since there was no collective congress we have little in official decrees. But there are a lot of mentions of it in the memoirs of the founders as well as the speeches given at the first continental congress.

You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

Chuck
09-13-2009, 03:43 AM
You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

LOL!!!

NateR
09-13-2009, 05:08 AM
You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-13-2009, 06:21 AM
It sounds like the British view the Government as rightful rulers and the citizens as servants! Our country was founded on the Basic Freedom of the Government being a servant to the Citizens! I believe that our rights do not come from Government but from God and the Governments job is to serve the people by protecting those rights. In other words we hire the Government to protect our God given rights so we are the employer and the Government the Employee!

logrus
09-13-2009, 07:40 AM
WTF? We never stopped hating and waring with France.
The first time we worked together was WW1...and the last time we worked together was WW2

People STILL come into the Store today and ask which apples are French so they can avoid them!! Even this century the French have hated on our meat imports and exports...

Its not good enough to say the War was over....the war is never over between us...this is the worst grudge match the world has ever seen...I dont think two countries have ever held such long standing hatred towards each other.

So....to begin trading less then ten years after the war...is not good enough. You were a collonie, you were not free to trade with who you wanted. You were subject to the Crown, and consorting with the enemy is High Treason.

We have legitamate right to be pissed off that you would go trading with the French...and less then 500 years later...where we they when you wanted to take out a Terrorist in Iraq? They buggered that one up aswell. Dont take it personally, if you can break your code of loyalty to us...why should they not break their codes of loyalty to you?

We could have handled it better...but the collonies were not free from blame in all of this.

I dunno, they managed to join us long enough to kick the British the hell out of America, 12 years after we fought against them. :tongue0011:

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:40 AM
You should have done that first, not run your mouth about the UNITED STATES!
U guys do everything backwards!

but I did find the link, and it shows that England had to pass a law to try and stop you guys trading with france well before your bid for independance. So far from running my mouth, it appears I was speaking truth :ninja:

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:43 AM
The French and Indian War started in 1754 and ended in 1763. So, I'm not sure if they teach kids how to tell time over there in England, but 1733 actually takes place before 1754. :laugh:

so which war with france was late 1600s then :blink::huh:

the problem with all this is that England and france have always been at war...so those dates are arbitary and about a specific dissagreement...but generally we were always at war.

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:44 AM
It sounds like the British view the Government as rightful rulers and the citizens as servants! Our country was founded on the Basic Freedom of the Government being a servant to the Citizens! I believe that our rights do not come from Government but from God and the Governments job is to serve the people by protecting those rights. In other words we hire the Government to protect our God given rights so we are the employer and the Government the Employee!

thats pretty much accurate :) from both perspectives :)

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:45 AM
Dave , Are you staying at Naters again on your next states trip?

NO :laugh:

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:50 AM
Yes, we were free to trade with who we wanted. We had been doing it for years. The Molasses Act came about from GREED. It had nothing to do with not trading with the French. If that were the case then why not just order us not to trade? This act also affected trade with other countries, too. Were you guys as war with them, too? Hell no. You folks needed money and that is why this ridiculous act was handed down. AND we traded products that we had for sugar with the French. The British wouldn't have any part of that and only wanted money. Well, we didn't have money at the time and you people KNEW that this act would be the ruin of many here and showed NO REGARD for that! I think you guys simply left us no choice. Therefore, I don't view it as treason.

So, again it had NOTHING to do with you people being pissed or having your little feelings hurt. It was all about GREED.


No you were not.

The English specified that all trade must be in English ships, through English merchants. Yes with foreign countries but with us as the middle men...that would stop a french ship, and french imports.

alright....so we made money off it aswell...but we had to look after those people in the south pacific that belonged to us, from competitors like the French...and also...the Empire cost a bomb...someone had to foot part of the bill...we made money any way we could to maintain it...you try ruling a third of the world with the money from an island smaller then california... :laugh:

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:53 AM
You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

:unsure-1: ohhh...now i've got him angry... :blink:

I'm not actually visiting Hillsboro...and I'm sure you'll be far, far, to busy to visit me in granite city....besides...would be a waste of tar and feathers...

:laugh:

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:55 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

:ninja: dont go getting any ideas. :ninja:

Mark
09-13-2009, 04:13 PM
..besides...would be a waste of tar and feathers...

Only in your eyes.

Mark
09-13-2009, 04:25 PM
this is AFTER War and BEFORE your revolution


Which war are you talking about? The French and Indian War is what Nate and I was talking about and that ended just a little more than a decade before the American Revolution started.

so which war with france was late 1600s then :blink::huh:

the problem with all this is that England and france have always been at war...so those dates are arbitary and about a specific dissagreement...but generally we were always at war.

Did you study any American history over there?

NateR
09-13-2009, 05:06 PM
Which war are you talking about? The French and Indian War is what Nate and I was talking about and that ended just a little more than a decade before the American Revolution started.



Did you study any American history over there?

The Americans were fighting right alongside the British, against the French, in the French and Indian War. Even George Washington was one of the primary generals in that war. However, after providing faithful service to the British crown in defeating the French, England treated us worse than ever after the war.

Black Mamba
09-13-2009, 06:53 PM
You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

Quoted for the truth. :laugh: :tongue0011:

Sorry Dave, but that was funny.

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 09:08 PM
Only in your eyes.

Honnestly Mark...I'm not worth the effort :laugh:

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 09:16 PM
Did you study any American history over there?

Nope. Why would we study American History? When we have more then 2000 solid years of History of our own nation to study...that took long enough.

But I dont need to study American History to tell you Britian and France were always at war, so long as they both had Empires. You might be talking about a specific conflict...but hostilities between France and England were continuous. The Hatred was continuous, between specific conflicts. Even outside of the Specific Conflict.

ANY Trade with France BEFORE your Independance, which ive demonstrated was the case...was still effectively High Treason. As long as you were part of our Empire AT ALL, you shouldnt have been trading with France. Period. On that I aggree completely with King George.

However, I wouldnt have used taxes, and I wouldnt have passed Acts which couldnt be enforced to try and solve the deal. I would have made the Collonies Representative in Parliament, that would be the only way to appease them, and could be used as an easier method of Control. If the Heirachy of the Collonies were on our side, we wouldnt need to officiate...they would do the discipline for us.

Could it have led to civil war within the collonies themselves? quite possibly...but at least then they would be fighting amoungst themselves and not for independance against us :laugh:

Jonlion
09-13-2009, 09:47 PM
On my visit to Boston and walking the Freedom trail, i came across this and it got me thinking that security was looking a little run down.

Could be time for Great Britain to retake its rightful land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :tongue0011:


http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg186/jonlion/100_2980.jpg

:laugh::laugh:

I don't blame you guys at all for rebelling, we deserved it! Stupid Paul Revere though! Got my picture with him looking miserable!

Jonlion
09-13-2009, 09:59 PM
Nope. Why would we study American History? When we have more then 2000 solid years of History of our own nation to study...that took long enough.

But I dont need to study American History to tell you Britian and France were always at war, so long as they both had Empires. You might be talking about a specific conflict...but hostilities between France and England were continuous. The Hatred was continuous, between specific conflicts. Even outside of the Specific Conflict.

ANY Trade with France BEFORE your Independance, which ive demonstrated was the case...was still effectively High Treason. As long as you were part of our Empire AT ALL, you shouldnt have been trading with France. Period. On that I aggree completely with King George.

However, I wouldnt have used taxes, and I wouldnt have passed Acts which couldnt be enforced to try and solve the deal. I would have made the Collonies Representative in Parliament, that would be the only way to appease them, and could be used as an easier method of Control. If the Heirachy of the Collonies were on our side, we wouldnt need to officiate...they would do the discipline for us.

Could it have led to civil war within the collonies themselves? quite possibly...but at least then they would be fighting amoungst themselves and not for independance against us :laugh:


Actually in School now at about 16, most History students will do American History but usually 1900 onwards, Rise of the production line, and Industry, Rockefeller and Ford and all that, the Klu Klux Klan, the Roaring twenties, the prohibition era, the Depression "prosperity is just around the Corner" Kudos to anyone who knows the guy that said it, then onto Roosevelt and the New Deal and recovery.

Most people including me were taught that back at school.

Also Dave, I would slightly question this hatred of France, I'd more argue about a fierce rivalry. Many of our political moves was motivated by being ahead of France, not by hating them.

Then if you look at it, the French and English Aristocracy always got on, amongst themselves they saw eachother as educated and enlightened and so pretty much got on. Of course rivalry remained.

Now if you want hate......., look at the Spanish and the French in the Napoleonic Wars, that was hate, Britain and France just waged a very polite and civil war against one another, the way they treated eachother and as gentlemen engaged with eachother was all very cordial. Look at the respect afforded to Napoleon. When Marhsals Ney and Soult were captured they were treated with every respect.

If you want to go further back many of our kings were more comfortable in France than England. Whatever way relations had been pretty good upto Edward Longshanks, then it started getting a bit nasty.

I would rather say England and France have of course held hate but it really is just a fierce rivalry and intensely related shared History.

I love the Frogs, great people!

Tyburn
09-13-2009, 10:50 PM
Actually in School now at about 16, most History students will do American History but usually 1900 onwards, Rise of the production line, and Industry, Rockefeller and Ford and all that, the Klu Klux Klan, the Roaring twenties, the prohibition era, the Depression "prosperity is just around the Corner" Kudos to anyone who knows the guy that said it, then onto Roosevelt and the New Deal and recovery.

Most people including me were taught that back at school.

Also Dave, I would slightly question this hatred of France, I'd more argue about a fierce rivalry. Many of our political moves was motivated by being ahead of France, not by hating them.

Then if you look at it, the French and English Aristocracy always got on, amongst themselves they saw eachother as educated and enlightened and so pretty much got on. Of course rivalry remained.

Now if you want hate......., look at the Spanish and the French in the Napoleonic Wars, that was hate, Britain and France just waged a very polite and civil war against one another, the way they treated eachother and as gentlemen engaged with eachother was all very cordial. Look at the respect afforded to Napoleon. When Marhsals Ney and Soult were captured they were treated with every respect.

If you want to go further back many of our kings were more comfortable in France than England. Whatever way relations had been pretty good upto Edward Longshanks, then it started getting a bit nasty.

I would rather say England and France have of course held hate but it really is just a fierce rivalry and intensely related shared History.

I love the Frogs, great people!

However you put it. Trading with France before American Independance by the Collonies was High Treason. :laugh:

Whether we were killing them...or just trying to get ahead of them, whether we hated them...or just had fierece rivalry

As for studying American History...I was the last year before the A/S levels and a complete revamp of Secondary Education. I missed it. I was never taught nowt about American History, nor its Government.

I wasnt even taught half of English History...I researched it for myself when I decided to become a Royalist :laugh:

Jonlion
09-13-2009, 11:07 PM
However you put it. Trading with France before American Independance by the Collonies was High Treason. :laugh:

Whether we were killing them...or just trying to get ahead of them, whether we hated them...or just had fierece rivalry

As for studying American History...I was the last year before the A/S levels and a complete revamp of Secondary Education. I missed it. I was never taught nowt about American History, nor its Government.

I wasnt even taught half of English History...I researched it for myself when I decided to become a Royalist :laugh:

Ha ha yeah i figured that i caught the first waves of that change because they didnt have a whole load of past exams!

I get what you are saying, i watched a great film called Amazing Grace and it was about William Wilburforce and it really shows how much of our politics was affected by the French and how we dealt with them. i know a lot about the Napoleonic Wars and have some great books on them but i really want to research what happened in the American Revolution and what was going on with us.

They hardly teach any English History these days, No Battle of Waterloo, Second WW, its pretty sad.

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 01:17 AM
Ha ha yeah i figured that i caught the first waves of that change because they didnt have a whole load of past exams!

I get what you are saying, i watched a great film called Amazing Grace and it was about William Wilburforce and it really shows how much of our politics was affected by the French and how we dealt with them. i know a lot about the Napoleonic Wars and have some great books on them but i really want to research what happened in the American Revolution and what was going on with us.

They hardly teach any English History these days, No Battle of Waterloo, Second WW, its pretty sad.

:unsure-1: it makes you wonder what they learn.

I mean...have you ever seen some of the questions they ask foreigners who become naturalized?

they dont even teach that sorta stuff in school...I remember reading one question about the war of the Roses...and who won it...and I was asking everyone I knew...and noone knew how it was won....well...we knew how it was won...but not in a question who states WHO won.

In the end we decided it had to be York...because York was white rose, Lancaster was red rose...and the marriage was the red rose inside the white rose...or have I got that the wrong way round...

....anyway I never learned any of that in school. I cant even pass the citizenship test in my own bloody country :laugh:

I do know stupid facts that are uniquely English...you know...like which Cathedral has the oldest Crypt...which cathedral should have been the mercian third province...what year the witby synod that trashed the celtic church happened in...what the sword represents on the London Sheild...etc...but its like completely useless information :laugh:

Chris F
09-14-2009, 01:39 AM
You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

Mark go read what I said. I gave you several things you can read for facts. You will have to read since most books can't simply be linked. But if you read the works of Fisher Ames it mentions our trading wiht France. Also Benjamin Rush's memoirs mention it as well. Plus as I said it was referenced in the speeches made at the first Continental congress. Not sure if your library has free access but much of it is online thorough places like J stor.

So one should be careful who they call a traitor before they start spouting off ignorance like that. I am sure since, I as I have said many time before have a Masters Degree in America History, and have taught American History at the college level, have a lot more experience with primary sources then probably most on this forum. We most certainly did trade with the French prior to the Revolutionary War and it was a contributing factor to Britain's rage against us. And since we are the same age I know good in well the history books we had in High School did teach that. If you like to post evidence of the contrary then I will be happy to apologize. But the primary sources clearly agree with Dave's claim to us trading with the French.

And before people cast stones this is not meant in any hostile or rude way. I actually laughed when MArk said that because Dave and I rarely see eye to eye on anything. And I am not bragging about my degrees and such. I amsimply reminding the thread that I do have them and have taught before. Even if NateR thinks I am just making it up. LOL!!!!!

Mark
09-14-2009, 01:49 AM
Mark go read what I said. I gave you several things you can read for facts. You will have to read since most books can't simply be linked.

Chris I dont think you understand, I dont want books I want the facts. Not that I care anyway. Go read a book....... OK chris...... I hope this was a joke.

Mark
09-14-2009, 01:53 AM
So one should be careful who they call a traitor before they start spouting off ignorance like that.

If you are soooooooo smart Why cant you see a joke???????????????????

Mark
09-14-2009, 02:00 AM
as I have said many time before have a Masters Degree in America History, and have taught American History at the college level, have a lot more experience with primary sources then probably most on this forum.

Chris F I am soooooooooo sick and tired of you saying that. I dont know if you have low self esteem or that youre really not smart at all and try to act like your smart. I dont know. Please enlighten me please.

NateR
09-14-2009, 02:18 AM
So one should be careful who they call a traitor before they start spouting off ignorance like that.

And before people cast stones this is not meant in any hostile or rude way.


It's nice that you edited in the comment that you don't intend to be hostile or rude. But if you really did know that Mark's comments were a joke, then why did you insult him in the first place?

So it's these little flashes of arrogance on your part that rub so many people on here the wrong way.

Chuck
09-14-2009, 02:33 AM
If you are soooooooo smart Why cant you see a joke???????????????????

Chris has a Masters in HISTORY Mark.... he'll get the joke years from now when he looks back on this thread..... but only if it's in book form.... you know... primary source stuff :D

Mac
09-14-2009, 03:08 AM
I like Dr.Pepper and Mr Pibb . hmmmm I guess any soda with a surname . Except that Dr Thunder you get from dollar general , that stuff is rank , i think they tried to copy dr pepper and used real black pepper.


Wait , this isnt the direction this thread was headed was it ?

Bonnie
09-14-2009, 04:28 AM
I like Dr.Pepper and Mr Pibb . hmmmm I guess any soda with a surname . Except that Dr Thunder you get from dollar general , that stuff is rank , i think they tried to copy dr pepper and used real black pepper.


Wait , this isnt the direction this thread was headed was it ?

<sighs> Not any more. :laugh:

I like Dr. Pepper too. Love the smaller cans (8 oz.) they've come out with that way I can indulge every once in a while.

Ooops! Sorry, guys, didn't mean to derail the topic. :rolleyes: Mac, look what you made me do. :fryingpan:

Mac
09-14-2009, 04:30 AM
Mac, look what you made me do. :fryingpan:

Ill fix it Bonnie .


Chrisf sucks .



Carry on

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 09:28 AM
:laugh::laugh:

I'm going to miss this when I'm in the U.S

:laugh::laugh:

bradwright
09-14-2009, 12:55 PM
:laugh::laugh:

I'm going to miss this when I'm in the U.S

:laugh::laugh:

most hotels these days offer Internet service Dave.:wink:
and if the ones you stay in dont there are always Internet cafes...good place to meet new people as well....or get mugged..just try not to dwell on the second one for to long.

TENNESSEAN
09-14-2009, 01:52 PM
I like Dr.Pepper and Mr Pibb . hmmmm I guess any soda with a surname . Except that Dr Thunder you get from dollar general , that stuff is rank , i think they tried to copy dr pepper and used real black pepper.


Wait , this isnt the direction this thread was headed was it ?

Mac, bonnie I know you guys think that you like dr pepper but I am the only true dr pepper junky here. I have studied its origins and have written college level papers on this subject, so for the greater good of this forum please leave any dr pepper discussion to me.

I don't mean to be rude but, I am the expert and you guys really know nothing about dr pepper.


Well Miss smarty pants . Did you know that there is only ONE place where you can still get dr pepper in made with the ORIGINAL recipie ? There is only one place where it is still made with cane sugar and Not high fructose corn syrup.

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 02:12 PM
most hotels these days offer Internet service Dave.:wink:
and if the ones you stay in dont there are always Internet cafes...good place to meet new people as well....or get mugged..just try not to dwell on the second one for to long.

I wont be going on computers whilst I'm in America...I shall be enjoying myself on holiday.

The only time you might hear from me is if something goes terribly wrong and I need help, or, if I have computer access in Illinois, if I somehow do end up with Nathan, or something like that...but its not schedualed that I be in Hillsboro at any point in time, and I certainly shall not be using computers at the gyms, I have to be collecting data there.

...and I wont get mugged :angry:

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 02:15 PM
Mac, bonnie I know you guys think that you like dr pepper but I am the only true dr pepper junky here. I have studied its origins and have written college level papers on this subject, so for the greater good of this forum please leave any dr pepper discussion to me.

I don't mean to be rude but, I am the expert and you guys really know nothing about dr pepper.

:laugh::huh:

...so when I phone you...I might ask for "Mr Doctor Pepper Please" :laugh:

Did you really write papers on it? I thought my academic papers were the most far out...I wrote about Gothic Horror and Professional Wrestling...

..I think yours is far more unusual then mine :)

Neezar
09-14-2009, 02:18 PM
I wont be going on computers whilst I'm in America...I shall be enjoying myself on holiday.

The only time you might hear from me is if something goes terribly wrong and I need help, or, if I have computer access in Illinois, if I somehow do end up with Nathan, or something like that...but its not schedualed that I be in Hillsboro at any point in time, and I certainly shall not be using computers at the gyms, I have to be collecting data there.

...and I wont get mugged :angry:



Dave, have you ever seen anyone else mugged? I know you got mugged so no need for that story again. lol. But have you seen others get mugged?

ps A Mark answer will do just fine here. Short and sweet. :biggrin-1:

County Mike
09-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Dave got mugged?

Neezar
09-14-2009, 02:27 PM
Dave got mugged?

Yes, multiple times I believe. :laugh: Sorry. :ashamed:

County Mike
09-14-2009, 02:28 PM
Yes, multiple times I believe. :laugh: Sorry. :ashamed:

Does he wear a T-shirt that says "I carry cash"?

Neezar
09-14-2009, 02:30 PM
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/comedian_04/motivational/america-1.jpg



:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Neezar
09-14-2009, 02:34 PM
Does he wear a T-shirt that says "I carry cash"?

No. People aren't allowed to carry guns or knives over there, a mugger's paradise.

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 02:34 PM
Dave, have you ever seen anyone else mugged? I know you got mugged so no need for that story again. lol. But have you seen others get mugged?

ps A Mark answer will do just fine here. Short and sweet. :biggrin-1:

Have I ever SEEN it happen?

no...only to me...and one of those I never saw coming neither :laugh:

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 02:39 PM
No. People aren't allowed to carry guns or knives over there, a mugger's paradise.

I got Beaten up twice. The first time was by an opportunistic street gang that hung around in what verged on to Manningham, the redlight district of Bradford. I lived there in a student house, thats why I was in the area. They were on bikes, and they started smashing me in the face with bike lights..could have escaped, but I lived with women and didnt want them to know where I lived, or else they would try and brick the house, or worse, pour petrol through the letterbox and strike a match.

Instead I just dropped and made sure my bag was underneith me, so they could steal it.

Second time was different, it was on campus at night, and I was jumpped from behind by a pair of asian youths, they dragged me into this alleyway, beat me up and stole my bag :angry:

I was once asked for my wallet by a guy who told me he had a knife...but I laughed at him. You either have the knife in your hands...or you dont have one...and so I laughed at him because he wasnt carrying a knife...he ran away embarissed...but that was outside halls of residence...and I dont class that as a mugging. :laugh:

I was at University, so the faux knife thing was 2000, and the gang attack was January 2002, the asians attacked in december of the same year.

Never got happy slapped in London, thank GOD...they would go round following homosexuals from soho, and they would beat them up and film it...in one instance, they killed a guy in his mid thirties, outside waterloo...which was where I lived...and I narrowly escaped the Tavastock Bus Bomb on 7/7 by changing my shift and swapping with someone else to be the Early Virger instead

NateR
09-14-2009, 02:43 PM
I got Beaten up twice. The first time was by an opportunistic street gang that hung around in what verged on to Manningham, the redlight district of Bradford. I lived there in a student house, thats why I was in the area. They were on bikes, and they started smashing me in the face with bike lights..could have escaped, but I lived with women and didnt want them to know where I lived, or else they would try and brick the house, or worse, pour petrol through the letterbox and strike a match.

Instead I just dropped and made sure my bag was underneith me, so they could steal it.

Second time was different, it was on campus at night, and I was jumpped from behind by a pair of asian youths, they dragged me into this alleyway, beat me up and stole my bag :angry:

I was once asked for my wallet by a guy who told me he had a knife...but I laughed at him. You either have the knife in your hands...or you dont have one...and so I laughed at him because he wasnt carrying a knife...he ran away embarissed...but that was outside halls of residence...and I dont class that as a mugging. :laugh:

So, how's that whole "no handgun" thing working out for ya? :laugh:

NateR
09-14-2009, 02:43 PM
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/comedian_04/motivational/america-1.jpg



:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That's awesome! :cool:

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 02:45 PM
So, how's that whole "no handgun" thing working out for ya? :laugh:

Well...noone was killed. So...fairly well thank you :tongue0011:

NateR
09-14-2009, 02:54 PM
Well...noone was killed. So...fairly well thank you :tongue0011:

Well, I've never personally known anyone who has been shot by street muggers (and I've lived in about 7 different states across the country) and I have never once been mugged in my entire life, despite the fact that I've almost always lived in towns with a high percentage of firearms owners. So it appears, from my perspective, that the more strict a country's gun control laws are, then the higher crime rate they have.

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 02:58 PM
Well, I've never personally known anyone who has been shot by street muggers (and I've lived in about 7 different states across the country) and I have never once been mugged in my entire life, despite the fact that I've almost always lived in towns with a high percentage of firearms owners. So it appears, from my perspective, that the more strict a country's gun control laws are, then the higher crime rate they have.

you arent supposed to have handguns in big cities of the US either. You need a permit to carry...and thats not available everywhere.

So if you meet a gun in washington or chicago or saint louis...it'll be a criminal...and you shouldnt have one yourself. So how does that work then :huh:

:laugh:

Besides...I've never really seen many guns in real life...i'd probably laugh...because...thats kinda what I do...it can be most disconcerting to muggers because they expect you to be frightened :blink:

bradwright
09-14-2009, 02:58 PM
Well, I've never personally known anyone who has been shot by street muggers (and I've lived in about 7 different states across the country) and I have never once been mugged in my entire life, despite the fact that I've almost always lived in towns with a high percentage of firearms owners. So it appears, from my perspective, that the more strict a country's gun control laws are, then the higher crime rate they have.

i'm not so sure your right about that Nate...we have very strict gun laws here in Canada as you know and i have never been mugged nor do i even know anyone thats been mugged....well unless you count Dave that is.:laugh:

Twinsmama
09-14-2009, 02:58 PM
You guys got a lot to learn about ruling colonies.

I say Mark for President!!


Dave are you really arguing w/ Mark when you may see him soon. You know even their pranks are rough. I feel for you...I also hope Nate gets some pictures!! Dave bring extra clothes I hate to say...Mark is a man of his word and you are going to get it :laugh:


Also I'll just throw this out there....if someone thinks they are smart they wouldn't need to say it we would know by now.

County Mike
09-14-2009, 03:05 PM
i'm not so sure your right about that Nate...we have very strict gun laws here in Canada as you know and i have never been mugged nor do i even know anyone thats been mugged....well unless you count Dave that is.:laugh:

Canada is too cold for muggers.

I've never been mugged. Never even been bothered by anyone on the street as far as I can remember. Maybe it's because of the machine gun I carry with me everywhere I go.

bradwright
09-14-2009, 03:15 PM
Canada is too cold for muggers.

I've never been mugged. Never even been bothered by anyone on the street as far as I can remember. Maybe it's because of the machine gun I carry with me everywhere I go.

you just might be on to something there i never quite looked at it that way before...so how do you explain Detroit...or Chicago ?:huh:

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 03:38 PM
I say Mark for President!!


Dave are you really arguing w/ Mark when you may see him soon. You know even their pranks are rough. I feel for you...I also hope Nate gets some pictures!! Dave bring extra clothes I hate to say...Mark is a man of his word and you are going to get it :laugh:


Also I'll just throw this out there....if someone thinks they are smart they wouldn't need to say it we would know by now.

I am politely dissagreeing with Mark Hughes on this ocasion, yes.

I'm not going to Hillsboro this time on tour :laugh:just incase :laugh::laugh:

As for Marks Statement in your quote. England has nothing to learn about rulling Collonies, after the Mongols we were the largest Imperial Force on the planet for about 250 years...and apart from the Holy Roman Empire, we were the best equiped, and organized and powerful for the same amount of time.

The United States has been a super-power for less then a fifty years, and she is already in such deep financial trouble she recently risked losing her status. She has never had an Empire, and has less then 500 years of her own history to draw on, with little experience of close quarters on home turf. The best and closest comparison is perhaps a few terrirtories like Guam for example...and Alaska, and maybe Hawaii...that she has rulled from afar in a manner of speaking.

So...to say that we have a lot of learning to do is laughable...running an Empire is harder then winning a war, and more costly, and we won like the Championship belt in it. As far as Empires go...well...England is for Empires, what Matt Hughes is for the Welterweight Division...get my drift? :laugh: A permanent and prominent feature, THE Feature for years.

The United States is a little like...I dunno...Josh Koscheck...you know...he's had one or two fights, he was constructed through TUF and thinks he could be a better Champion then Matt Hughes.

In terms of Learning from the United States in Empire Management...we have as much to learn as Matt Hughes does from Josh Koscheck...which is...well, frankly, nothing :laugh:

...and with that, I run for the hills before Mark brings out his tar and feathers :unsure:

NateR
09-14-2009, 03:38 PM
i'm not so sure your right about that Nate...we have very strict gun laws here in Canada as you know and i have never been mugged nor do i even know anyone thats been mugged....well unless you count Dave that is.:laugh:

I think there is a correlation between crime and population density as well. Big cities are always going to be problem areas, with or without guns. Although, from what I understand, Canada's gun control laws aren't as strict as most Canadians would like us to believe.

NateR
09-14-2009, 03:54 PM
you arent supposed to have handguns in big cities of the US either. You need a permit to carry...and thats not available everywhere.

That depends on the city and state you are living in.

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 03:57 PM
That depends on the city and state you are living in.

:unsure: ohh...and this is where you say Washington DC, Chicago, and Saint Loius are all exempt from that isnt it :laugh:

NateR
09-14-2009, 05:21 PM
:unsure: ohh...and this is where you say Washington DC, Chicago, and Saint Loius are all exempt from that isnt it :laugh:

Nope, those three cities would have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation as well as some of the highest crime rates. Hmmmm, coincidence?

Boomer
09-14-2009, 05:25 PM
She has never had an Empire

Only because we never wanted one.

bradwright
09-14-2009, 05:46 PM
I think there is a correlation between crime and population density as well. Big cities are always going to be problem areas, with or without guns. Although, from what I understand, Canada's gun control laws aren't as strict as most Canadians would like us to believe.

yes there is a correlation (i had to look that word up by the way) between crime and population density with or without guns but i have lived in a few different citys in Canada and although they would be considered small in size by your standards i have yet to have any problems.
do i think this might be a direct result of our very strict gun laws? ( notice i said very strict...we dont have any guns up here you know:Whistle:)
no Nate i dont think that,there are a lot of factors that influance why i personaly have never had a problem and i'm not sure our gun laws have anything at all to do with it.

VCURamFan
09-14-2009, 06:05 PM
Mark go read what I said. I gave you several things you can read for facts. You will have to read since most books can't simply be linked.
You got it all wrong, buddy. Mark Hughes doesn't read books. He just stares at them until they give him the information he wants!

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 06:07 PM
Only because we never wanted one.

:laugh:

Thats because your whole Nation was formed as an ANTI-Imperialism machine.

The United States ended the age of the Empire. After England, there was no more Empires. So...it would actually be almost unconstitutional for the United States to even want one...although with 50 States...her Union is the size of an Empire in itself :blink:

Mac
09-14-2009, 08:08 PM
England has nothing to learn about rulling Collonies, after the Mongols we were the largest Imperial Force on the planet for about 250 years...and apart from the Holy Roman Empire, we were the best equiped, and organized and powerful for the same amount of time.

:



Yeah , and at one point in time the model "T" was the most sophisticated automobile on the road.


The United States has been a super-power for less then a fifty years,
:



little longer than 50 years dave , When the fat man hit Hiroshima the whole world realised who the big dog was.

TENNESSEAN
09-14-2009, 08:18 PM
Ever drink dr pepper from one of those old 10 oz glass bottles, ice cold. That's the best.

NateR
09-14-2009, 08:20 PM
little longer than 50 years dave , When the fat man hit Hiroshima the whole world realised who the big dog was.

Even before that. Some historians will trace America's rise to superpower status all the way back to the Spanish-American War in 1898.

Mac
09-14-2009, 08:33 PM
Ever drink dr pepper from one of those old 10 oz glass bottles, ice cold. That's the best.


Sure have . you remember "twist a pepper" with the yellow caps , i maybe bought 3 dr peppers that summer when i was about 9 , the rest were all won from the caps lol.

All soda tastes better in a glass bottle . seems like these plastic bottles anymore hit room temp 5 mins after they leave the cooler . The local grocery store somehow got a shipment of the old TALL glass coke bottles in the other day . i dont drink much regular soda anymore but had to buy a few , they were the old style that take a church key to open , not a twist off . The bottles tho have all spanish writing on them all except the coca cola logo.

bradwright
09-14-2009, 08:37 PM
Sure have . you remember "twist a pepper" with the yellow caps , i maybe bought 3 dr peppers that summer when i was about 9 , the rest were all won from the caps lol.

All soda tastes better in a glass bottle . seems like these plastic bottles anymore hit room temp 5 mins after they leave the cooler . The local grocery store somehow got a shipment of the old TALL glass coke bottles in the other day . i dont drink much regular soda anymore but had to buy a few , they were the old style that take a church key to open , not a twist off . The bottles tho have all spanish writing on them all except the coca cola logo.

you hit the nail on the head with that one...i hate plastic bottles.

Crisco
09-14-2009, 09:26 PM
you hit the nail on the head with that one...i hate plastic bottles.

Canned Soda is also much better then(plastic) bottled.

VCURamFan
09-14-2009, 09:51 PM
Canned Soda is also much better then(plastic) bottled.
Truth.


Glass bottle
Can
Plastic bottle

Chuck
09-14-2009, 09:56 PM
Truth.


Glass bottle
Can
Plastic bottle


Negative Ghostrider...


On tap served in a frosted mug
Glass Bottle
20oz or smaller plastic bottle
Can
2 Liter and all other plastic bottles

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:03 PM
Chris I dont think you understand, I dont want books I want the facts. Not that I care anyway. Go read a book....... OK chris...... I hope this was a joke.

Well Mark I take everything too serious according to you all so why not this. :wink:

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:05 PM
If you are soooooooo smart Why cant you see a joke???????????????????
Sorry but I do not like being called a tratior even in jest and I imagine you too would see it as an insult if I called you Social Marxist Obama hugger. That all I got to say about that.

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:11 PM
Chris F I am soooooooooo sick and tired of you saying that. I dont know if you have low self esteem or that youre really not smart at all and try to act like your smart. I dont know. Please enlighten me please.

My self esteem is pretty high and according to most on this forum too high. Problem is not a single one of you have ever met me and frankly lacks the ability to ascertain any said judgement on me. See there lies the problem, people are quick to judge using their own narrow minded views of how one should act. This is the same reason your brother, and I would imagine you also, gets misjudged so often. So next time before you decide to be critical take a big breathe and ask yourself do I know this person well enough to judge his face, place or race? This sorta thing was what Jesus was teaching on in Matthew 7 when he was comparing the pharisaical attitude of being in a place of judgement apart form God's standard.

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:13 PM
It's nice that you edited in the comment that you don't intend to be hostile or rude. But if you really did know that Mark's comments were a joke, then why did you insult him in the first place?

So it's these little flashes of arrogance on your part that rub so many people on here the wrong way.

I guess you ignored my edit then. It was not an insult. If he took it as one, which I doubt he did, then that was his interpretation of what I said. So which is it NateR do I lack self esteem as Mark says or am I arrogant as you say? I admit I am opinionated on certain subjects, but far from either of those poor observations of my personality.

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:15 PM
Chris has a Masters in HISTORY Mark.... he'll get the joke years from now when he looks back on this thread..... but only if it's in book form.... you know... primary source stuff :D

Thats pretty funny Chuck. Thats a creative insult that I do not mind. Plus my sense of humor is pretty dry. :)

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:16 PM
Ill fix it Bonnie .


Chrisf sucks .



Carry on

Why? Because I prefer Coke and no Government intrusion and accurate historical information? :laugh:

Chris F
09-14-2009, 11:20 PM
You got it all wrong, buddy. Mark Hughes doesn't read books. He just stares at them until they give him the information he wants!

:laugh:

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 11:39 PM
Yeah , and at one point in time the model "T" was the most sophisticated automobile on the road.





little longer than 50 years dave , When the fat man hit Hiroshima the whole world realised who the big dog was.

was the fall of the USSR really more then 50 years ago :blink::huh:

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 11:41 PM
Even before that. Some historians will trace America's rise to superpower status all the way back to the Spanish-American War in 1898.

:laugh: I think the earlies you can possibly say America was a true super power was 1945 after the war...and as late as whenever the USSR fell apart.

NateR
09-15-2009, 12:48 AM
:laugh: I think the earlies you can possibly say America was a true super power was 1945 after the war...and as late as whenever the USSR fell apart.

Well, that's your opinion, but I would place it near the end of WW1. Claiming that the US didn't become a super power until after the USSR collapsed is just complete nonsense.

County Mike
09-15-2009, 12:58 AM
USA and USSR were superpowers at the same time. That's why we had the cold war.

County Mike
09-15-2009, 01:06 AM
Here's a cool graphic to show what happened in WWII

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9276/thisiswhyusaisbetterthe.jpg

Mark
09-15-2009, 01:13 AM
You and Dave can both go get some facts. Nice to know that you agree with Dave......Traitor.....WE should tar and feather you both when dave comes over!

I changed my mind, just Chris now.

Mark
09-15-2009, 01:14 AM
If you are soooooooo smart Why cant you see a joke???????????????????

???????????????????

Mark
09-15-2009, 01:17 AM
Chris F I am soooooooooo sick and tired of you saying that. I dont know if you have low self esteem or that youre really not smart at all and try to act like your smart. I dont know. Please enlighten me please.

You can learn more about people from the internet than you think.

NateR
09-15-2009, 01:20 AM
Chris F, Mark is not impressed with your performance.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

NateR
09-15-2009, 01:22 AM
Here's a cool graphic to show what happened in WWII

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9276/thisiswhyusaisbetterthe.jpg

That's the most historically accurate portrayal of WW2 that I've ever seen. :laugh:

bradwright
09-15-2009, 01:22 AM
Well, that's your opinion, but I would place it near the end of WW1. Claiming that the US didn't become a super power until after the USSR collapsed is just complete nonsense.

i would think that the USA was A super power for quite sometime but not THE super power until after the USSR collapsed.

but i think you just might be forgetting about us up here though.:unsure-1:
did you know that Winnipeg is the slurpee capital of the world ?
that has to give us some sort of super power i would think.:Whistle:

Mark
09-15-2009, 01:28 AM
Jesus

Its funny that you bring up his name. I guess you are not that smart. See people were drawn to jesus, they wanted to be around him. They stayed listening to him so long that he fed them. but you push people away. And I am truly sorry, They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. So lets see if you can change that. Mark R Hughes

adamt
09-15-2009, 01:37 AM
Problem is not a single one of you have ever met me and frankly lacks the ability to ascertain any said judgement on me. See there lies the problem, people are quick to judge using their own narrow minded views of how one should act.



i never met jesus and my entire faith is based solely on written accounts and what he said in written form. If I can judge my entire faith by written works I am pretty sure I can judge a dude with REALLY REALLY HIGH self ego.....er...umm.. I mean esteem based on what he writes.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 01:38 AM
I changed my mind, just Chris now.

Glad I could help Dave. Enjoy your visit with the crew. :)

Chuck
09-15-2009, 01:42 AM
Thats pretty funny Chuck. Thats a creative insult that I do not mind. Plus my sense of humor is pretty dry. :)

:laugh::laugh:

Chuck
09-15-2009, 01:44 AM
i never met jesus and my entire faith is based solely on written accounts and what he said in written form. If I can judge my entire faith by written works I am pretty sure I can judge a dude with REALLY REALLY HIGH self ego.....er...umm.. I mean esteem based on what he writes.

Wow.... that's a really good point... possibly the best post I've ever seen from you.. :unsure-1:


Now I'm thinking I need to be careful what I type!

Mac
09-15-2009, 01:44 AM
Intermission .





http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/chicken-bbq-demotivational-poster.jpg






Carry on .



I need to learn to pop a bowl of popcorn before i start reading this thread

Mark
09-15-2009, 01:50 AM
Intermission .





http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/chicken-bbq-demotivational-poster.jpg


What does this have to do with soda?

Mac
09-15-2009, 01:54 AM
What does this have to do with soda?

you dont like an ice cold soda with a good barbecued chicken ? What are you , communist ?:laugh:

TENNESSEAN
09-15-2009, 02:28 AM
i never met jesus and my entire faith is based solely on written accounts and what he said in written form. If I can judge my entire faith by written works I am pretty sure I can judge a dude with REALLY REALLY HIGH self ego.....er...umm.. I mean esteem based on what he writes.

Um yea. What chuck said.

Mac
09-15-2009, 02:30 AM
cmonnnnnnn people . Its a picture of a chicken on fire with the caption " Chicken Barbecue , Youre doing it wrong " How are you folks not laughing at this ?

Is it because Mark didnt like it ? Am i gonna have to ban him to get some laughs around here.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 02:38 AM
You can learn more about people from the internet than you think.

Not really. Like NateR likes to always mention, people can easily lie and pretend to be something they are not. Kinda like the Brad Paisley song "online". The problem is I am too honest and it rubs people the wrong way. Especially overly sensitive Midwesterners. I say what is on my mind and do not really feel remorse for it. Could I be more tactful? Absolutely, and I have gotten better in that area. Sure that kind of thinking makes some angry. But then again no leader worth their salt ever did what was popular and accepted, including Jesus. You might want to go back and re-read your bible Mark. Many Jesus' followers left him because they did not like his message. Even calling it hard. Jesus even ask them if the message offended them. Then "many" (i let you look that word up yourself and draw your own conclusions as to its meaning in that context) walked with him no more. This is all right out of the book of John the 6 chapter if you think I am lying. So before you paint a picture of a kum by ya Jesus with tons of followers you may want to rethink that belief. As for me pushing people away. True enough. I do turn many people away. However those who want to hear the truth and do not mind having it gave to them unapologetically, like what I say. You see the true problem is people who are alike naturally repel one another. And in a lot of your post and NateR post you rub people the wrong way and have I am sure turned some people off by that posture. NateR even admitted this to me in the old forum back when several people left the forum because of the double standard the MOD's had for themselves verses posters. I said my peace. I wish you well and assure you I am not in any way biter, angry, put out, or ruffled by this line of discussion. I just ask that in the same measure you cast your stones of judgement at me that you hold yourself to the same high standards.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 02:40 AM
Chris F, Mark is not impressed with your performance.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Good because I am not acting nor do I need his approval and assurance. My confidence in not in flesh but in Christ and Him crucified.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 02:43 AM
Its funny that you bring up his name. I guess you are not that smart. See people were drawn to jesus, they wanted to be around him. They stayed listening to him so long that he fed them. but you push people away. And I am truly sorry, They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. So lets see if you can change that. Mark R Hughes

Please refer to my earlier post. When Jesus was popular they flocked to him. When he demanded righteousness and full commitment they left. I E the rich young ruler. So do not just stop with the early years of the ministry.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 02:47 AM
i never met jesus and my entire faith is based solely on written accounts and what he said in written form. If I can judge my entire faith by written works I am pretty sure I can judge a dude with REALLY REALLY HIGH self ego.....er...umm.. I mean esteem based on what he writes.

You have no way of knowing what or how I intend anything I write, even when I use an emoticon. As for Jesus, without the Holy Spirits leading you would not know Jesus from Adam. This is why unbelievers can read the bible and not be moved. SO try again sir. You post is illogical and a fallacy without conclusion.

Neezar
09-15-2009, 02:50 AM
You have no way of knowing what or how I intend anything I write, even when I use an emoticon. As for Jesus, without the Holy Spirits leading you would not know Jesus from Adam. This is why unbelievers can read the bible and not be moved. SO try again sir. You post is illogical and a fallacy without conclusion.

Yes, we do. Unless you are lying. You TOLD us your intentions. Your intentions are to tell the truth as you see fit and damn the consequences or whoever gets hurt by it.

So, were you lying? Or do we understand your intentions?

adamt
09-15-2009, 02:51 AM
Mac, bonnie I know you guys think that you like dr pepper but I am the only true dr pepper junky here. I have studied its origins and have written college level papers on this subject, so for the greater good of this forum please leave any dr pepper discussion to me.

I don't mean to be rude but, I am the expert and you guys really know nothing about dr pepper.


Well Miss smarty pants . Did you know that there is only ONE place where you can still get dr pepper in made with the ORIGINAL recipie ? There is only one place where it is still made with cane sugar and Not high fructose corn syrup.

oh please i can name all 24 of the 23 flavors

Mac
09-15-2009, 02:52 AM
oh please i can name all 24 of the 23 flavors



nu uh , or you wouldve .

Neezar
09-15-2009, 02:54 AM
My self esteem is pretty high and according to most on this forum too high. Problem is not a single one of you have ever met me and frankly lacks the ability to ascertain any said judgement on me. See there lies the problem, people are quick to judge using their own narrow minded views of how one should act. This is the same reason your brother, and I would imagine you also, gets misjudged so often. So next time before you decide to be critical take a big breathe and ask yourself do I know this person well enough to judge his face, place or race? This sorta thing was what Jesus was teaching on in Matthew 7 when he was comparing the pharisaical attitude of being in a place of judgement apart form God's standard.

No one is trying to judge your face, place, or race. Nor is anyone judging you using God's standards. We are judging your written words here. That's it. Nothing more. And while you may be the most book learned man we have ever been blessed with here on the forums, you obviously have sociopathic issues.

Mark
09-15-2009, 02:56 AM
Please refer to my earlier post. When Jesus was popular they flocked to him. When he demanded righteousness and full commitment they left. I E the rich young ruler. So do not just stop with the early years of the ministry.

I guess unlike Peter you wouldn't of denied him 3 times?

adamt
09-15-2009, 02:58 AM
i'm not so sure your right about that Nate...we have very strict gun laws here in Canada as you know and i have never been mugged nor do i even know anyone thats been mugged....well unless you count Dave that is.:laugh:

didn't a guy get his head cut off on a bus in canada not too long ago?

Chris F
09-15-2009, 02:58 AM
Yes, we do. Unless you are lying. You TOLD us your intentions. Your intentions are to tell the truth as you see fit and damn the consequences or whoever gets hurt by it.
So, were you lying? Or do we understand your intentions?

I never said it in that way. You like to put words in people's mouths to justify you prejudice. I cannot control how people feel by what they read. You the reader are they only one who can decide how you feel. Chuck for example more then likely laughs what I say off because he seems to be the only one who does not take things so overtly serious. If one gets hurt by what I said. (It has happened before) Then they themselves choose to be hurt by their interpretation. my words are merely words and more then likely you all are just tired of being convicted.

Mark
09-15-2009, 02:58 AM
Its funny that you bring up his name. I guess you are not that smart. See people were drawn to jesus, they wanted to be around him. They stayed listening to him so long that he fed them. but you push people away. And I am truly sorry, They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. So lets see if you can change that. Mark R Hughes

They say you can lead a horse to water but he wont drink.

adamt
09-15-2009, 02:59 AM
Wow.... that's a really good point... possibly the best post I've ever seen from you.. :unsure-1:


Now I'm thinking I need to be careful what I type!



i'm learning :D

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:00 AM
I guess unlike Peter you wouldn't of denied him 3 times?

Unlike Peter we will not get a second chance. If I have a gun pointed at my head telling me to renounce Christ or die. I will gladly die!!!!! SO are you saying you would deny Christ to save your neck? Now it is my turn to feel sorry for you if that is how you feel.

TENNESSEAN
09-15-2009, 03:01 AM
oh please i can name all 24 of the 23 flavors

Prove it. Let's see what cha got buddy!

adamt
09-15-2009, 03:01 AM
nu uh , or you wouldve .


well if i did i would have to kill ya.... and i think you're armed as well as i am so we better not go there.

I'll just have to take it to the grave....

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:03 AM
No one is trying to judge your face, place, or race. Nor is anyone judging you using God's standards. We are judging your written words here. That's it. Nothing more. And while you may be the most book learned man we have ever been blessed with here on the forums, you obviously have sociopathic issues.

You have judged my place. Since i am not a part of the inner circle I often get ridiculed for what I say. But if NateR says the samething he is praised and applauded like he was king. This is the same double standard that ran off so many a couple of years ago. Hakuna Matata!

Mac
09-15-2009, 03:04 AM
well if i did i would have to kill ya.... and i think you're armed as well as i am so we better not go there.

I'll just have to take it to the grave....


I call Shenanagins!



I triple dog dare you!!!!!!!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_blGfuJqvbMU/R51HMq04gjI/AAAAAAAAAx0/BT25kN3N2SY/s320/triple_dog_dare.jpg

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:04 AM
They say you can lead a horse to water but he wont drink.

If the shoe fits sir.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:05 AM
Unlike Peter we will not get a second chance. If I have a gun pointed at my head telling me to renounce Christ or die. I will gladly die!!!!! SO are you saying you would deny Christ to save your neck? Now it is my turn to feel sorry for you if that is how you feel.

Thats the problem. Peter walked with Jesus and everything else. He was so much closer to God than you ever will be on earth. And you say you are better than he is. Unbelievable

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:06 AM
I call Shenanagins!



I triple dog dare you!!!!!!!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_blGfuJqvbMU/R51HMq04gjI/AAAAAAAAAx0/BT25kN3N2SY/s320/triple_dog_dare.jpg

Forget that we want facts remeber. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:07 AM
Yes, we do. Unless you are lying. You TOLD us your intentions. Your intentions are to tell the truth as you see fit and damn the consequences or whoever gets hurt by it.

So, were you lying? Or do we understand your intentions?

I never said it in that way. You like to put words in people's mouths to justify you prejudice. I cannot control how people feel by what they read. You the reader are they only one who can decide how you feel. Chuck for example more then likely laughs what I say off because he seems to be the only one who does not take things so overtly serious. If one gets hurt by what I said. (It has happened before) Then they themselves choose to be hurt by their interpretation. my words are merely words and more then likely you all are just tired of being convicted.



Not really. Like NateR likes to always mention, people can easily lie and pretend to be something they are not. Kinda like the Brad Paisley song "online". The problem is I am too honest and it rubs people the wrong way. Especially overly sensitive Midwesterners. I say what is on my mind and do not really feel remorse for it. Could I be more tactful? Absolutely, and I have gotten better in that area. Sure that kind of thinking makes some angry. But then again no leader worth their salt ever did what was popular and accepted, including Jesus. You might want to go back and re-read your bible Mark. Many Jesus' followers left him because they did not like his message. Even calling it hard. Jesus even ask them if the message offended them. Then "many" (i let you look that word up yourself and draw your own conclusions as to its meaning in that context) walked with him no more. This is all right out of the book of John the 6 chapter if you think I am lying. So before you paint a picture of a kum by ya Jesus with tons of followers you may want to rethink that belief. As for me pushing people away. True enough. I do turn many people away. However those who want to hear the truth and do not mind having it gave to them unapologetically, like what I say. You see the true problem is people who are alike naturally repel one another. And in a lot of your post and NateR post you rub people the wrong way and have I am sure turned some people off by that posture. NateR even admitted this to me in the old forum back when several people left the forum because of the double standard the MOD's had for themselves verses posters. I said my peace. I wish you well and assure you I am not in any way biter, angry, put out, or ruffled by this line of discussion. I just ask that in the same measure you cast your stones of judgement at me that you hold yourself to the same high standards.


Again, I stand by what I said. From what I read you stated that you say what is on your mind (the truth as you see it) and have no remorse of anyone getting hurt by it (damn the consequences).

Hence, sociopathic tendencies.

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:08 AM
You have judged my place. Since i am not a part of the inner circle I often get ridiculed for what I say. But if NateR says the samething he is praised and applauded like he was king. This is the same double standard that ran off so many a couple of years ago. Hakuna Matata!

Name 5.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:10 AM
Thats the problem. Peter walked with Jesus and everything else. He was so much closer to God than you ever will be on earth. And you say you are better than he is. Unbelievable

Thats not what I said. The Bible is clear. As is history. Do you think Nate Saint or Jim Elliot thought they were better then Jesus? No but they were willing to die for His name. Sound to me you sir are not and are hiding behind your machismo instead of submitting fully to Christ. That sir is unbelievable. If you are not willing to die then why botther following Him?

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:12 AM
Again, I stand by what I said. From what I read you stated that you say what is on your mind (the truth as you see it) and have no remorse of anyone getting hurt by it (damn the consequences).

Hence, sociopathic tendencies.
Glad you think you can read minds. That is not even close. Just your morbid prejudice spewing it ugly head.

TENNESSEAN
09-15-2009, 03:12 AM
I am the king of all things dr pepper. Mac you can still get twist a pepper in sigon but can hardly find a can in vegas me and sender stopped at every store in the vegas airport no dr pepper to be found. Unbelievable.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:14 AM
Chris F have you ever been wrong in your life???

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:14 AM
Name 5.

all I need to say is Hakuna Matata and it should ring a bell.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:16 AM
Its funny that you bring up his name. I guess you are not that smart. See people were drawn to jesus, they wanted to be around him. They stayed listening to him so long that he fed them. but you push people away. And I am truly sorry, They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. So lets see if you can change that. Mark R Hughes

U are not changing!

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:17 AM
Glad you think you can read minds. That is not even close. Just your morbid prejudice spewing it ugly head.

I did no mind reading, Chris. I used your own words. All I did was show you how most people interpret those words. And if you are honest then you will admit, at least to yourself, that you knew that already.

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:18 AM
all I need to say is Hakuna Matata and it should ring a bell.

Pumbaa. That's one. You said many.

Another?

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:20 AM
Chris F have you ever been wrong in your life???

Yes many times. That is how I learn. In fact I missed 4 question on my food safety test today to get my Food managers license. And I have admitted being wrong on here a time or two as well. The thing is I do not post on thread I know nothing about. When I speak in an unrepentant manner it is because I know I am right and I am willing to die for that belief. The rest of the time I am pretty flippant.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:22 AM
U are not changing!

Not sure your point here. Quoting yourself then saying I ma not changing. To me that says you need to fit in my mold and if not you are worng which is the same thing you are accusing me of. If that is not what you meant then please elaborate.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:24 AM
I did no mind reading, Chris. I used your own words. All I did was show you how most people interpret those words. And if you are honest then you will admit, at least to yourself, that you knew that already.

The parentheses you added was not anything I said. They were added by you. SO thus not my words yours. Nice try but you cannot twist it to save yourself.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:25 AM
Pumbaa. That's one. You said many.

Another?

There were several that left or were banned from that blow up. I only kept up with pumbaa so I do not remember screen names. So spread whatever lie you want from that but you know it happened and there is no denying it.

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:27 AM
The parentheses you added was not anything I said. They were added by you. SO thus not my words yours. Nice try but you cannot twist it to save yourself.

Those were my words, hence the parentheses. And like I said, I was showing you how those words are interpreted by most.

You act like you don't understand why people get on the defensive about the things you say. I just s-p-e-l-l-e-d it out for you. I showed you HOW your words are interpreted.

You have already attested to your education so you can't play dumb now. Nice try.


Next.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:29 AM
Chris F what im saying is you have many friends. So there must be a problem. How can you lead people to christ if nobody wants to listn to you? please answer

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:29 AM
There were several that left or were banned from that blow up. I only kept up with pumbaa so I do not remember screen names. So spread whatever lie you want from that but you know it happened and there is no denying it.

Funny thing that I only remember Pumbaa also. So, I can deny it. :w00t: I am denying it! I deny! I deny! :frantics:



:laugh::laugh:

ps You ran off DonnaMarie so we are even, no? Unless you can come up with more names.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:31 AM
Funny thing that I only remember Pumbaa also. So, I can deny it. :w00t: I am denying it! I deny! I deny! :frantics:



:laugh::laugh:

ps You ran off DonnaMarie so we are even, no? Unless you can come up with more names.

Shurly not this christian man.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:32 AM
I think we need to start a new bash Chris F thread and stop hijacking this thread about tax on soda. Funny thing is I was defending Dave in all this and look what happens. :laugh: Bedtime gotta open in the morning. I will check tomorrow night to see what nice things you all said of me. BTW if Neezer is right then aren't you all just feeding into my narcissistic, sociopath like tendencies by responding and make more "judgements" After all I am sure you all think I have some sort of Jesus complex. :wink: Not true but it would not be the first time you all have accused me of it. This is fun but gotta sleep. Hakuna Mata and God bless!

Neezar
09-15-2009, 03:33 AM
Wait, I think Chuck is sending him another name. :dry:




Chuck, you don't count because you came back! :tongue0011:

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:33 AM
Funny thing that I only remember Pumbaa also. So, I can deny it. :w00t: I am denying it! I deny! I deny! :frantics:



:laugh::laugh:

ps You ran off DonnaMarie so we are even, no? Unless you can come up with more names.

I thought she came back? If not I am truly sorry the truth hurt her that much she felt she needed to leave. BTW I am wrong Mark I had something else to say before bed. :laugh:

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:35 AM
Chris F what im saying is you have many friends. So there must be a problem. How can you lead people to christ if nobody wants to listn to you? please answer

I want a answer.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:35 AM
Shurly not this christian man.

Nope she left because the truth hurt, not my words. Nothing I said to her could not be backed up with book chapter and verse.

Chuck
09-15-2009, 03:35 AM
Name 5.

I can. :ninja:

But I don't have a dog in this fight so I'm :running:

bradwright
09-15-2009, 03:36 AM
didn't a guy get his head cut off on a bus in canada not too long ago?

well technically he wasn't mugged...he was murdered...and the guy used a knife...not a gun....and no i didn't know him.

Chuck
09-15-2009, 03:38 AM
Wait, I think Chuck is sending him another name. :dry:




Chuck, you don't count because you came back! :tongue0011:

What are you paranoid of filling in for Dave while he's gone????


My PM, which you must have a keen interest in.. simply said "I miss Bentley!"...


and I do... :sad:

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:40 AM
Nope she left because the truth hurt, not my words. Nothing I said to her could not be backed up with book chapter and verse.

Im sure thats what Jesus would of said to her. You do drive people away dont you.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:40 AM
I want a answer.

I apologize I did not see this comment. I will be happy to respond. I have lead many to Christ and unlike some convert, they are still serving him and have not slipped away when times got rough. In fact, at that meeting for my food safety test Iwas wrong at, I was privileged to lead someone else to Christ. You see it is not me they need to hear it is the Holy Spirit tugging at their heart. All I have to do is go fishing. When John and Peter went fishing they did not use bait Jesus made the fish come to their nets. All they had to do is do what Jesus said. SO please spare me the bait excuse as well as the flies with honey. That seeker sensitive stuff is a insult to God and His Spirit. I hope this answered your question.

Chuck
09-15-2009, 03:43 AM
I apologize I did not see this comment. I will be happy to respond. I have lead many to Christ and unlike some convert, they are still serving him and have not slipped away when times got rough. In fact, at that meeting for my food safety test Iwas wrong at, I was privileged to lead someone else to Christ. You see it is not me they need to hear it is the Holy Spirit tugging at their heart. All I have to do is go fishing. When John and Peter went fishing they did not use bait Jesus made the fish come to their nets. All they had to do is do what Jesus said. SO please spare me the bait excuse as well as the flies with honey. That seeker sensitive stuff is a insult to God and His Spirit. I hope this answered your question.

I take issue with this amigo... but we can save that for another time... :D

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:45 AM
I apologize I did not see this comment. I will be happy to respond. I have lead many to Christ and unlike some convert, they are still serving him and have not slipped away when times got rough. In fact, at that meeting for my food safety test Iwas wrong at, I was privileged to lead someone else to Christ. You see it is not me they need to hear it is the Holy Spirit tugging at their heart. All I have to do is go fishing. When John and Peter went fishing they did not use bait Jesus made the fish come to their nets. All they had to do is do what Jesus said. SO please spare me the bait excuse as well as the flies with honey. That seeker sensitive stuff is a insult to God and His Spirit. I hope this answered your question.

Who have you led to christ on here? Show me some good you have done on here, I dont see any.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:47 AM
Im sure thats what Jesus would of said to her. You do drive people away dont you.

Yeah Jesus said only nice things didn't he? He never told anyone to go and sin no more. He never called anyone a brood of Vipers did he? The Jesus you have imagined in your mind in NOT the Jesus of scripture Mark. My guess is you still have not read John 6 yet have you. This is what happens when we form a personal theology instead of having a christocentric one. But if I did drive her away it was not my intentions. But I will not apologize for that thread. I gave book chapter and verse.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:49 AM
Who have you led to christ on here? Show me some good you have done on here, I dont see any.

I will let Bonnie answer that. I did not lead her to the Lord but I believe God had me in the right place at the right time to give her some encouragement. She is a remarkable lady with more heart then most people I know.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:50 AM
Yeah Jesus said only nice things didn't he? He never told anyone to go and sin no more. He never called anyone a brood of Vipers did he? The Jesus you have imagined in your mind in NOT the Jesus of scripture Mark. My guess is you still have not read John 6 yet have you. This is what happens when we form a personal theology instead of having a christocentric one. But if I did drive her away it was not my intentions. But I will not apologize for that thread. I gave book chapter and verse.

The Jesus I know doesnt walk up to people and blast them ether. He knew everyones sins but didnt tell them about them.

bradwright
09-15-2009, 03:51 AM
okay boys its nighty night time so brush your teeth and get to bed...dont make me come back in here.:ninja:

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:52 AM
The Jesus I know doesnt walk up to people and blast them ether. He knew everyones sins but didnt tell them about them.

So the women at the well had her hand held. Mark you need to read your bible.

Mark
09-15-2009, 03:52 AM
He never told anyone to go and sin no more.

Sounds like you were one that wanted to throw the stones at her.

Chris F
09-15-2009, 03:54 AM
Sounds like you were one that wanted to throw the stones at her.

No I am not an instigator just a defender. She said I was wrong. I proved I wasn't she got mad.

NateR
09-15-2009, 03:55 AM
Thats not what I said. The Bible is clear. As is history. Do you think Nate Saint or Jim Elliot thought they were better then Jesus? No but they were willing to die for His name. Sound to me you sir are not and are hiding behind your machismo instead of submitting fully to Christ. That sir is unbelievable. If you are not willing to die then why botther following Him?

You whine about people putting words in your mouth and then you go and put words in Mark's mouth? :rolleyes: Are you trying to demonstrate hypocricy so we can all learn from your example?

What's funny is that your attitude is exactly like Peter's just before Jesus predicted his denial of Him. Those who speak with big, prideful words about how they will never deny Jesus if the crap hits the fan, are usually the first to tuck tail and run. I'm pretty sure you might fit into that category.

bradwright
09-15-2009, 03:59 AM
so like i was saying before,a tax on soda isn't really that bad of an idea.:)

Mark
09-15-2009, 04:03 AM
No I am not an instigator just a defender. She said I was wrong. I proved I wasn't she got mad.

Let me tell u something you are not going to believe, You dont know everything.

Mac
09-15-2009, 04:04 AM
so like i was saying before,a tax on soda isn't really that bad of an idea.:)


I tried the comic relief , but not gonna do that anymore . There is a man trying to call Marks faith into question , and I dont like it .