If you could travel back into time say circa 1985, what technology advance would seem the most unbelievable? I would have a hard time convincing 1985 reconviper1 that amiga isnt the top computer maker, that we now have computers with mutilple cores, evreyone has a cell phone, and video games look like movies. Also, it would be hard to convince 1985 me that micheal jackson was a pedophile and michelle pheiffer is actually still pretty hot.
Eat S-it!!!!!
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed(alone no doubt), how about playing nice shitface.
I wouldn't have a hard time convincing anyone in 1985 that today, in 2007, the year of our Lord, you'd still be a virgin.
You'd have a hard time convincing anyone anywhere Amiga made computers. Commodore made the Amiga, prick.
The voyage on the time it's à beautifull dream, personnaly, i imagine this regulliary, i dream of my with Goethe, one "poete" deutsch, i see egally that on my epoque, the schook for it, in its time, not électricity, not penycilin, not veicle on essence, not all
Wow, all the personal attacks, don't know what brought that about but f**k all of you, I was just making a light hearted thread, but i have to deal with a bunch of angry bitches like you, dont, like it, don't post to it, so again i say,**** YOU!, have a great day bitches.
Wow, all the personal attacks, don't know what brought that about but f**k all of you, I was just making a light hearted thread, but i have to deal with a bunch of angry bitches like you, dont, like it, don't post to it, so again i say,**** YOU!, have a great day bitches.
Harden the fock up /Bomber
Wow....evidently someone did NOT read the stickies....
Now, that you have come....and hopefully gone....here it is....
FCUK OFF AND DIE!!!!!
Sorry assclown, I'll pass on that, how about your do it for me, and take the rest of the pathetic little shits with you. This is really amusing that a simple thread has let the true loser's rear their ugly empty head's. My next post is gonna be angry poster's ,why bother?, I'm really sorry that my post bothered you all, just kidding, **** all of you!,LOL.
Please dismount your mother and leave the forum, chodesmoker.
No problem, what is your mom doing, i gotta second to blow one in her face, hell, you can even dig up your grandma, I got some ooze for granny too, bring her back to life. I think i'll stick around. bbfn dingbat.
| reconviperone1 wrote : No problem, what is your mom doing, i gotta second to blow one in her face, hell, you can even dig up your grandma, I got some ooze for granny too, bring her back to life. I think i'll stick around. bbfn dingbat. |
Well said! Especially that bbfn dingbat part ... that makes you my BFF Fuckwit ... now, go fuck this -->
After someone mentioned the stickies, he still didn't read them.
Prolly 'cause he's an expert on being sticky from always being the center of those circle jerks...
| reconviperone1 wrote : If you could travel back into time say circa 1985, what technology advance would seem the most unbelievable? I would have a hard time convincing 1985 reconviper1 that amiga isnt the top computer maker, that we now have computers with mutilple cores, evreyone has a cell phone, and video games look like movies. Also, it would be hard to convince 1985 me that micheal jackson was a pedophile and michelle pheiffer is actually still pretty hot. |
If I could time travle back to 1985, I'd tell your mom that $5 was too much for such a woeful shag. Was like stirring a bucket of porridge at the battle of Bannockburn.
If I could travel back to 1985 I'd take the opportunity of telling the abortion clinic to sluice out their drains properly to prevent tossers like this being allowed to survive.
| WingDing wrote : telling the abortion clinic to sluice out their drains properly |
Ohh...Your just a walking thesaurus...
Too bad you didn't show up in time to give him the real low down on what happened to dear old Grannys cadaver...
| reconviperone1 wrote : If you could travel back into time say circa 1985, what technology advance would seem the most unbelievable? I would have a hard time convincing 1985 reconviper1 that amiga isnt the top computer maker, that we now have computers with mutilple cores, evreyone has a cell phone, and video games look like movies. Also, it would be hard to convince 1985 me that micheal jackson was a pedophile and michelle pheiffer is actually still pretty hot. |
Wow, lots of typical answers. Well, I'll play along with ya, if it will make ya feel better.
The piece of technology that I would find most unbelievable would be the device that brainwashed the population of the US into believing that Barbara Boxer, Pat Schroederr, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would make good politicians.

Brainwash? If I were back in 1985 and someone told me there'd be a brain amongst the American population in the foreseeable future I laugh.
There is a brain amongst the American population. It lies, cold and forgotten in a dark corner somewhere, crying its little optic centres out and shivering, lost and abandoned since the early 1500s...
If I could go back to 1985 I'd try to convince your dad to wear a condom so I wouldn't have wasted those 20 seconds reading your post.
Good luck finding that basta*d's dad.
I ain't playing along...I've got an ex-wife back there and I'd just as soon not see her again.
| mugz wrote : There is a brain amongst the American population. It lies, cold and forgotten in a dark corner somewhere, crying its little optic centres out and shivering, lost and abandoned since the early 1500s... |
I think it was a little later that the brain was abandoned.
Round about the time they abandoned the secular principles the nation was founded on and turned themselves instead into "one nation under God" (translation: "we are dumb and need what to be told to do" or "absolve us of any responsibilty for our own decisions and actions" ).
No offence, Jebus.
| llama_man wrote : I think it was a little later that the brain was abandoned.
|
Let's compare, shall we:
U.S Constitution:
| Quote : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
Bill of Rights: Amendment I
UK: The Coronation Oath ... taken by your Elizabeth II in 1953:
| Quote : Archbishop. Will you to the your utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and
|
The Coronation Oath (UK)
I think you're a wee bit confused here laddy
| Quote : Archbishop. Will you to the your utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and |
And in 1953, exactly what power, prerogative powers aside, was it she had?
"One nation under God." That statement alone is offensive to Me.
I like your translation though - alone among the human race, the Americans actually admit it.
I'm still not taking any responsibility for their actions. I'm not going to get cross a second time...
| Tom_Smart wrote : And in 1953, exactly what power, prerogative powers aside, was it she had? |
Let's try this (feel free to edit wiki, if you can improve upon the article):
| Quote : ... Constitutional role
|
British Monarchy
I swear I think that "Kissing Hands Ceremony" must just be precious
Note the [b]bold quotes ... I found those interesting, especially for the benefit of those people who don't seem to know the difference between a non-mandatory, ceremonial pledge and the US Constitution
| mugz wrote : "One nation under God." That statement alone is offensive to Me.... |
That "pledge" is a a ceremonial thing with no legally binding consequences (to the best of my knowledge) - I don't say it, but that's a personal preference ... I'm not offended by those that do. The only thing that counts is that 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, cited above.
There are three reasons not to listen to a word you have to say.
| Quote : prerogative powers aside |
I believe addressed those, yet you mention them anyway.
Did I mention you quoted Wiki?
***points and laughs***
Come on Jake, you're better than a Wiki quote. We both know our Monarch is purely ceremonial. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy, government is voted
into power by the people, to act in the interests of the people. The Queens role in appointing a Prime Minister happens after they have won a majority of seats in the House of Commons and is still ceremonial.
If you really want to ridicule out system I'd have a pop at the age of some of the members of our house of Lords. You won't get an argument from me or any rational thinking person here. But before you do, I advise you do something about this old twat.
That was a weak stab at humour, there.
On a serious note, I've always wondered about the whole 'one nation under God' when taken in conjunction with the separation of Church & State thingy.
There was a thread about it being taken out of the pledge a while back. Mpjesse was outraged that the pledge should be toyed with in that manner. Until I pointed out to him it had only been in it since the 50's and has been changed about loads of times since it's inception.
Tom_Smart wrote :
|
You were invited to "correct" that article. Oh, and that "Coronation Oath" damn sure wasn't a wiki ... but then you're the ones who have to live with the old hen, not us. And yeah, Robt. Byrd is fair game for ridicule ... but then again - he's a democrat.
Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd is a democrat? Guess you just can't trust those democrats after all.
| Tom_Smart wrote : Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd is a democrat? Guess you just can't trust those democrats after all. |
Yep - and former klansman (Sen., So Carolina) Strom Thurmond was a democrat most of his life until dementia took hold and he switched to the Republican party and died.
Are you suggesting a link between joining the Republicans and dying?
Are you still beating your wife
Rules change to suit those changing them.
Discuss.
No and I know you're not beating yours. Well not to the buffet anyway, that's just impossible.
Jake, you've missed the point entirely.
The place of religion in the UK (unwritten) constitution goes back a long way historically, especially since the "divine right of kings" gave the ruling monarch carte blance to do as (s)he liked. Whilst that idea eventually died out (a civil war along the way), religion is still (regrettably) ingrained in our systems of state, despite most of our citizens not being religious. Thankfully, the religious bodies largely stay out of our polticial system, since they know that if they attempted to wield their power, they'd be turfed out on their ear pronto.
America, on the other hand, had a chance to start from scratch, and did a pretty good job of advocating seperation of church and state (following the example led by France).
For example the Treaty of Tripoli (drafted by Washington, ratified by Adams);
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Or maybe Jefferson;
"Christianity is the most perveted system that ever shone on man"
All good stuff.
Now, fast forward to our day and age, and read this humdinger from former President (and father of current President) Bush Snr;
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I'd also talk at length about Intelligent Design, but I think it would just be too embarassing for you.
Accept it - your country has been taken over by religious zealots. Enjoy.
| mugz wrote : That was a weak stab at humour, there. On a serious note, I've always wondered about the whole 'one nation under God' when taken in conjunction with the separation of Church & State thingy. |
Wasn't that the whole McCarthy Commie Scare BS thing?
It was just another time proven way to start introducing "morals" and "family values" back into the government. (Ultimately Ironic, I know, but still).
The real reason was to try to get more public approval and turn this in to a classic "with us or against us" situation using such vague guidelines as Religion (which usually does not need any rational explanation for some of its rulings/laws/doctrines. Just "Because God said so" ). One of the most time tested and proven methods of mass population control and dominance has been through the usage of religion. The only other has been war or mutual enemy.
After WWII, with Russia being SO friendly to us, and their denouncement of any religion (since religion is a tough one to control if you are not the ones that lead it in the first pace), hating both them, and their lack of christianity went hand in hand.
Now we have a president whose entire platform was run on similar grounds. The use of religion and family values as monikers for a program that really does not fit either. Constant fear mongering about the global enemy of Terrorism in combination with "gut feelings", "patriotism" and other vague pronouncements have slowly taken away bits of our revolutionary freedoms.
The danger is, if it continues, that freedom will be hard to regain and that power very tough to get the leaders, whoever they may be, to relinquish.
As a side note. The POA is optional. But ask any kid what kind of treatment they get if they either do not say it in the morning or leave out the "Under God" portion. People can be so understanding about another persons beliefs.
| mugz wrote : That was a weak stab at humour, there.
|
Well remember where it came from...the US was just striking out on its own, but still had heavy British and Christain (in on form or another) influences. Dont get me wrong, Im not bashing the UK, not by a whelks chance in a supernova, just reflecting on possible origins.
There is a lot of stuff WRT religious freedom that needs to be corrected within the US. "In God We Trust", "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god" spoken with a hand on the bible, etc.
Eventually we'll get it sorted out, but at this point a lot of that stuff is more simple tradition (albeit contradiictory)than objects of substance.

Turpit - couldn't disagree more. Your nation STARTED as secular (inspired by the French, which is ironic as you now hate them) and are abandoning it to adopt a nation of Christian fundementalism.
Oh god, I just found myself agreeing with a Ninjahedge post. I feel dirty.
* goes away to scourge self with sandpaper *
| mugz wrote : There is a brain amongst the American population...lost and abandoned since the early 1500s... |
I think you may want to check that date and edit the rip on us. In the 1500's we were many, many generations away
from "finding" a new world, wiping out the native population, then spending the next couple of hundred years showing
the world...um...somethi...er...nevermind.
| llama_man wrote : Your nation STARTED as secular (inspired by the French, which is ironic as you now hate them) |
Amusing. A handful of right-wing, French hating people I know had no idea they helped us greatly in our battle for independence. Didn't sway them at all.
*starts to agree with Mugz*
| llama_man wrote : Turpit - couldn't disagree more. Your nation STARTED as secular (inspired by the French, which is ironic as you now hate them) and are abandoning it to adopt a nation of Christian fundementalism. |
Im afraid I must disagree with you. While the popular version of history (written much latter by those with star spangled banners in their eyes who wanted history to fit their views, not fit their views to history) is 'secular', the reality is the US was founded by a bunch of fat, rich, white farmers who were, IAW British law, tax evaders and religious heretics. They were anything but secular, unless your interpretation of secular is that they they didnt want to worship that which the british government tried to force them to worship. That they didnt want to be ruled by the church was just one of many excuses they used, first to immigrate, then to revolt. As it turned out, ironically, like GB at the time, they really did want to be ruled by the church and twisted their new govenment to reflect and enforce the rules of religion, but most importantly, the religion that they chose, not the one chosen for them by the British Monarchy.
Which is why, to this day, the supreme court is clogged with case regarding violation of religious freedom by US federal law.

There are 512 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

