Changing face of US politics

[PeteEU]

Jmak, Pete is a untalenetd shill and for over a year all I’ve seen of him is his backside as he complains that! You have to treat him with kid gloves or he starts to whine and cry that you are too mean for this little foal.

However I just had to point out his hackerey.............


Tell us oh mighty learned Pete, which party of "racism" was it that was in charge of those racist white states in the 60s? Tell us Pete since you are so versed in this topic about the "racist" republican party, which party made the Civil Rights act of 1964 pass and come to fruition? Hmmm, I wonder which party Al Gore's father was a part of that lead him oppose the Civil Rights Act? Which directly resulted in him losing his senate seat? That famous governor that stood on the steps of the college in Alabama and tried to stop black students from entering he was a.........republican..............eh Pete?

You remain a poor sodding hack.

We are discussing the Republican party of 2008, not the Democratic party of the 1960s. If you want to discuss the Democratic party of 50 years ago, then by all means start a thread. Instead stop using your usualy tactic of diversion, avoidance and attacking people and stick to the subject and facts.

And did you not quit the boards last time when you could not win an argument?

 

[Sir Loin]

We are discussing the Republican party of 2008, not the Democratic party of the 1960s. If you want to discuss the Democratic party of 50 years ago, then by all means start a thread. Instead stop using your usualy tactic of diversion, avoidance and attacking people and stick to the subject and facts.

And did you not quit the boards last time when you could not win an argument?

You were trying to appear informed and relevant when you decided to claim that the republican party is the party of racism. Amongst other asshatery Harshaw already spanked you on. It is completely understandable why you are avoiding buttressing your fatuous claims. But I'm sure that you can lay out for for us all how the republican party has been the party of racism in the last 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 or even one year(s) ago. Have at it brave intellectual warrior. You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to get inspired to actually have a point you can defend with logic facts and a sense of reality.:roll:

Sorry Pete I have not quit the forum, though it is crystal clear why you wish that were so. Chuckle.

 

[Keorythe]

Funny. Republicans the party of denial.

Affirmative action. Why does the Republicans want to get rid of it? The party of white men, wants to get rid of the law that prevents discrimination against people of non white origin.. wonder why? How many blacks were at the Republican convention this year.. 7? How many black republican politicians and candidates are there now? Oh yea that Jindal guy.. wait he aint black, but Indian.. oh well.. close enough!

Then we have homosexuals. If Republicans dont believe that there is any discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, then why are they on the for front of trying to keep and expand discriminatory laws against homosexual peoples? What is next.. the black man or the hispanic man.. or both?

Speaking from someone who falls into hispanic/latino side I can say without help from you that affirmative action is government mandated racism. The original intent has long been superceded by racial discrimination laws which are now strictly enforced. Something that was not possible during the Jim Crow era (a democratic created era no less). Are you now stating that the "well educated" entrance boards for universities are now racist? Sorry PeteEU, but chances of racial discrimination is pretty thin. How are we supposed to be a land of equality when we no longer choose people based on their merits and instead based on their skin color?

Oh, yes. African Americans have a high crime rate, high drop out rate, and poor employment rates. While I wish I could say that the man is keeping them down I really can't. I spent a few years dealing with the poor section of their population during my CPS years. Most were more than happy to live in their conditions on the government teat. It completely blew my mind that they had no will to try and work their way out of their conditions. The mindset of their kids was get rich quick. It wasn't localized, I saw this in MAJORITY of the African American homes. Education just wasn't high on the totem pole. Once again, it blew my mind that this stereotype was coming to life in front of my eyes. Ironically I saw this as well with the illegal immigrant population (spend fast live gratuitously) but it flip flopped with the legal immigrants. If nothing else, the plight poor African Americans has to do with ALOT more than "the man" trying to keep them down and is going to have to be fixed from within their own racial bounds.

Problem is now that they are pissing off the latino population too, which aint the smartest thing to do, since the white man is gonna be in the minoirty by 2040 in the US and the Latino population is going to be the largest portion of the population.. but hey, you have 32ish years to fix that!

Care to explain why the Latino population is exploding? Care to explain why a race with some many conservative values is democrat? Could it have anything to do with illegal immigration and out enforcement (or lack of) of our sovereign borders? Now that the petroleum industry in Mexico looks to be hitting peak oil and the cement industry hitting hard times we can expect a huge influx of illegal immigration the like we haven't seen before. The Latino vote is lost to anyone who wants to enforce immigration polices.

 

[Sir Loin]

Speaking from someone who falls into hispanic/latino side I can say without help from you that affirmative action is government mandated racism. The original intent has long been superceded by racial discrimination laws which are now strictly enforced. Something that was not possible during the Jim Crow era (a democratic created era no less). Are you now stating that the "well educated" entrance boards for universities are now racist? Sorry PeteEU, but chances of racial discrimination is pretty thin. How are we supposed to be a land of equality when we no longer choose people based on their merits and instead based on their skin color?

Oh, yes. African Americans have a high crime rate, high drop out rate, and poor employment rates. While I wish I could say that the man is keeping them down I really can't. I spent a few years dealing with the poor section of their population during my CPS years. Most were more than happy to live in their conditions on the government teat. It completely blew my mind that they had no will to try and work their way out of their conditions. The mindset of their kids was get rich quick. It wasn't localized, I saw this in MAJORITY of the African American homes. Education just wasn't high on the totem pole. Once again, it blew my mind that this stereotype was coming to life in front of my eyes. Ironically I saw this as well with the illegal immigrant population (spend fast live gratuitously) but it flip flopped with the legal immigrants. If nothing else, the plight poor African Americans has to do with ALOT more than "the man" trying to keep them down and is going to have to be fixed from within their own racial bounds.



Care to explain why the Latino population is exploding? Care to explain why a race with some many conservative values is democrat? Could it have anything to do with illegal immigration and out enforcement (or lack of) of our sovereign borders? Now that the petroleum industry in Mexico looks to be hitting peak oil and the cement industry hitting hard times we can expect a huge influx of illegal immigration the like we haven't seen before. The Latino vote is lost to anyone who wants to enforce immigration polices.

Want to really see Pete's noodle get fried and go POOF? Ask him for his statistical support for the idiotic claim that "Problem is now that they are pissing off the latino population too..." and you'll quickly see why Pete finds it frustrating when people call him out directly on his propensity to just create his own reality pell mell. Pete is a spiral king, he constantly is left having to spiral away from his specious claims. Sadly this usually leaves him having to do the same thing over and over, as each new "point" he spirals out to gets debunked. In addition to routinely spewing stereotypical and ignorantly generalized tripe, Pete does his best to bring true meaning to the term circle jerk on a daily basis.:lol:

Ironically despite the fact that he is being directly challenged and debated, Pete thinks that if he just knee jerks to "you're avoiding (insert claim here)" this makes it so! So he tells virtually everyone he encounters this. It only one reason he is a poor sodding hack.:roll:

 

[BlueKC]

I don't think that Democrats fail to acknowledge that african-americans commit more crime per capita than caucasians, leading to an increased rate of incarcerations. I think we know that. We also think that the disparity is not as wide as the incarceration rate, and that the stereotypes depicted in the comments above show why blacks have lower rates of success a jury trial.

That said, we do acknowledge the racial divide in true crime rates. We think its the role of the government to work to eradicate such differences by increasing funding to those areas. Your party seems to think "they don't vote with us... **** 'em".

 

[PeteEU]

You were trying to appear informed and relevant when you decided to claim that the republican party is the party of racism. Amongst other asshatery Harshaw already spanked you on. It is completely understandable why you are avoiding buttressing your fatuous claims. But I'm sure that you can lay out for for us all how the republican party has been the party of racism in the last 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 or even one year(s) ago. Have at it brave intellectual warrior. You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to get inspired to actually have a point you can defend with logic facts and a sense of reality.:roll:

And there you go again, trying to change the subject by attack the attacker. Listen, the Democratic party of the 1960s, especially in the south, were a bunch of racist pigs. But we are NOT talking about the 1960s but about 2008 and here like it or not, the racist democrats of the 1960s moved with their voters to the Republican party.

And no amount of spin and topic changing from your side can change the fact that the Republican party is a party of white men, that 7ish black people were at the latest convention and that the Republican party used racial hatred as a political advantage (of course not directly for the most part) during the last election. That the Republican party does not stand for defending the rights of people as it continues to try to curb the rights of minorities. That the Republican party is not the party of free thinking, free conservative economics of the past, but a party that wants to impose its values and belief system on others and spends like a drunken sailor in a strip bar (gay strip bar).

Okay answer me this Sir Lion or anyone.

Does the republican party defend the rights of everyone, regardless of sex, race, religion and sexual orientation?

Does the republican party believe that race, sex, religion and sexual orientation does not matter and does it want equality for all regardless of race, sex, religion and sexual orientation?

Can you all seriously say that the Republican party of today, even remotely stands for anything mentioned in the 2 above questions?

Sorry Pete I have not quit the forum, though it is crystal clear why you wish that were so. Chuckle.

I dont care one bit about you, but you never answered my questions in any thread and then when you were losing an argument you posted that you quit the forum.. and yet you have not.

 

[Sir Loin]

And there you go again, trying to change the subject by attack the attacker. Listen, the Democratic party of the 1960s, especially in the south, were a bunch of racist pigs. But we are NOT talking about the 1960s but about 2008 and here like it or not, the racist democrats of the 1960s moved with
their voters to the Republican party.

Yeah you got something right, I am "attacking" the "attacker" and maybe the attacker should actually have his "attacks" make a lick of sense eh?

No Pete there you again trying to fluff up another of your infantile “republicans bad” post, which aside from “America is bad” is the only thing you do here at DP. Sorry yet another of your simplistic illogical and irrational screeds got challenged. That is what happens at debate boards when you throw about narrow minded generalized stereotypes. They call attention to themselves and get challenged. In thread after thread you get offended and flee when challenged, always claiming your opponents were avoiding and changing the topic, despite the fact they are responding directly to YOUR CLAIMS. :doh

As you have just proven in this thread (as in so many others) you can’t actually elaborate on the matter much less articulate an intelligent answer. So what is your excuse THIS time?

And no amount of spin and topic changing from your side can change the fact that the Republican party is a party of white men, that 7ish black people were at the latest convention and that the Republican party used racial hatred as a political advantage (of course not directly for the most part) during the last election. That the Republican party does not stand for defending the rights of people as it continues to try to curb the rights of minorities. That the Republican party is not the party of free thinking, free conservative economics of the past, but a party that wants to impose its values and belief system on others and spends like a drunken sailor in a strip bar (gay strip bar).

Aside from the fact that you just laid out another infantile and ignorant screed, there is the lack of anything rational to buttress your willing ignorance. Like the rest of your posts in this thread. You know the ones you deemed you better not answer or delve too deeply into least you have to actually “debate” your oh so well thought out and sourced theories?

But tell you what Pete, if you would like to prove me and the other posters who called you out in this thread wrong, you can. Go head and demonstrate that your claim that the republican party is the party of white men is rational and correct. You tried this earlier with your equally obtuse claim the republican party is the party of racism. You act as if typing up more infantile spin and claiming the topic has been changed equates some type of victory. Hey never mind you brought up the history of the republican party, no fair pointing out where you are wrong eh? I and DP veterans know this is all you have, when you get challenged and can’t produce, run to your I’m being attacked, you’re trying to avoid my points by challenging and addressing them! This is all you have, which you demonstrate happily thread after thread until you get called on it and have to flee to your go to defense position. So go ahead and show us that the comment that there were “7ish black people at the GOP convention” and the GOP used racial hatred as a political advantage can be supported/proven. Go ahead and throw in something intelligent and relevant that demonstrates the rest of your latest infantile missives. Ya know, the republican party wants to impose its values and belief system on others and other ten cent irrationality?

Don’t worry Pete none of the DP veterans known for actual debate and open minded discussion has the slightest expectation that you can “grow up” and support your maundering complacency. It is at this point, your calling card.

Okay answer me this Sir Lion or anyone.

Does the republican party defend the rights of everyone, regardless of sex, race, religion and sexual orientation?

Does the republican party believe that race, sex, religion and sexual orientation does not matter and does it want equality for all regardless of race, sex, religion and sexual orientation?

Can you all seriously say that the Republican party of today, even remotely stands for anything mentioned in the 2 above questions?

Hey Pete sorry after all this time you have not figured this out yet, it is your charge your claim and thus the onus falls upon you to prove or at least support the same. Instead of hiding behind a series of sophomoric questions intended to divert attention away from ALL that you have failed to support in this thread; try buttressing and addressing the challenges to your claims here so far. Throwing up more of the same and asking people who have already debunked you to do so again, while you lacked the courage of your convictions to carry through with everything you have posted up to now (but would like to not have to address) does nothing more than expose your sad little game. Ever heard about a "one trick pony" Pete? Try not to illustrate that so routinely and you might start to get the respect you hypocritically demand from others, but demonstrate so little of yourself.

I dont care one bit about you, but you never answered my questions in any thread and then when you were losing an argument you posted that you quit the forum.. and yet you have not.

Nor do you care one bit about actually supporting your own post. Yeah I just never address your “questions” while you keep changing them and failing to support your claims. Just like Jmak and Harshaw and virtually everyone who disagrees with you in every thread. Why I've never addressed your claims and questions in any thread ever!! Except then what else would we have spoken about before now then? Chuckle.

See another problem with you Pete is your ripe hypocrisy and obvious posturing. You always go to the personal, which is fine by me because I can smack you like a corner ho. It is your inability to smack talk while trying it, that leaves you sputtering that you have been smacked. So once again in a thread where you say I'm trying to change the topic and I am just attacking the attacker, what is your ploy? I was going to leave the forum because I lost an argument? Chuckle.

Well here is your BIG CHANCE Pete, to prove that you are honest and I’m dishonest! Prove it and link us all up to this non occurrence. Since that never happened and is yet another PeteEUism, I won’t be holding my breath. Perhaps it is time for you to whine you are being attacked, this is personal and you are going to use the ignore feature. Again. Chuckle.

 

[Sir Loin]

So let us explore an actual case of approach avoidance couched in hypocritical and infantile accusation of the same. Hence forth from this moment on known as PeteEUisms.

**Please note I am only using this single thread to illustrate absurdity ad infinity. Though I can certainly go through every thread PeteEU wishes to contest that the same has not occurred in; that I participated with him in. In fact, you might assume that I am doing so in off hand times and planning on “publishing” them with full comical intent and effect as perhaps a Christmas bounty!**

He is the Rush Hannity of the Euroelitists mind-vice enclave. Only without the style and substance to actually garner him the adulation of certified idiots.

Links to the brilliance first, actual brilliance second!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics.html#post1057841257

To me it is clear that the states where race still matters a considerable deal are Republican and where it does not, it is Democratic. This is also reflected in the polices of the 2 parties.

All of the following loadstones are contained within this truly extraordinary ejaculation:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-2.html#post1057841737

Funny. Republicans the party of denial.

Affirmative action. Why does the Republicans want to get rid of it? The party of white men, wants to get rid of the law that prevents discrimination against people of non white origin.. wonder why? How many blacks were at the Republican convention this year.. 7? How many black republican politicians and candidates are there now? Oh yea that Jindal guy.. wait he aint black, but Indian.. oh well.. close enough!

Then we have homosexuals. If Republicans dont believe that there is any discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, then why are they on the for front of trying to keep and expand discriminatory laws against homosexual peoples? What is next.. the black man or the hispanic man.. or both?

It is funny that the party that wants to get rid of racial discrimination is also the party that is almost pure one colour.

Face it, the Republican party is the party of pro discrimination... because it favours them. The more you can prevent people of colour or odd sexual habits from voting, the more votes you will get after all!

America has been (in some places) balkanized into sub-groups determined by skin colour since the 1800s when slaves were given free. There was China town, there was Little Italy and so on. Is it better than it was say 50 years ago? Sure, back then a black man in a white area would have been arrested and beaten.... at least now they only get arrested. The Asians dont solely live in China town any more so there is progress.

Yes I am generalizing big time, and America of today is not what it was in 1940 or even 1970, but it is also not all roses and racial tranquillity as the Republicans have been trying to push.

Race matters on so many aspects of American life. Race matters in legal matters, economic matters and educational matters. It matter where you live and how you live. Blacks have a higher representation in US prisons compared to their part of the population, lower education scores, and are economically worse off relatively speaking. Their health is worse, because of lack of economic means and so on (and get blamed by right wingers for the ****ty US ranking in the world health scores.. classy!) Is it better than in 1940? Sure, at least now they can piss in the same toilet as a white man, and go to schools where white children go, but dont claim that it is all rosy and perfect.

So dont come here and say that race does not matter in America and Republicans believe so and hence anti discrimination laws need to be repealed. It only shows how out of touch and frankly racist the Republican part has become over the last 30 years. Conservative values my ass.. it is all about power, and the Republicans know they cant gain any traction with black America, so they are trying everything to marginalize them.

Problem is now that they are pissing off the latino population too, which aint the smartest thing to do, since the white man is gonna be in the minoirty by 2040 in the US and the Latino population is going to be the largest portion of the population.. but hey, you have 32ish years to fix that!

Just because it is Christmas and all and because I know just how good the last 14 moths of material I have is, I’m only going to supply a link to this pedantic off topic irrational diatribe:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-2.html#post1057842439

And now for something really different and completely batshit bi-polar:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-3.html#post1057846844

Do you really think that without affirmative action that you would have a black president today? No I am not saying that Obama benefited from affirmative action, I am saying that the American white populations attitude towards non white people has changed because of affirmative action. It has forced them in many areas of the country to mix with non whites, and that changes attitudes.

Again, what is the the Republican Party then? Define it.

Then define "non-white". Are Turks non whites? What about Poles? Russians? Spanish? Greeks? We can agree that people from Asia can in some if not many cases be labled as "non-white", but the only country that has a large portion of "Asians" is the UK, and yes here there are local, regional and national politicians of said "race". Hell there are even Lords and Lady's. Is it good enough? Hell no, their representation in politics is just as horrible as the black representation and the hispanic representation in the US.

Followed immediately and for maximum comical effect by (same link):

LOL classic avoidance. If you want to discuss Europe's lack of integration with its minorities fine lets do that, but dont tell me that I cant debate the US denial of its own racial and ethnical problems, that you and others (especially the US right wing) seem to totally ignore, yet exploit at every turn they can if it is for political gain.

Now if at this point you are starting to see the definition of PeteEUism you can blame evil black hat me. Chuckle. Now remember folks nobody has challenged any of the above at this point. I’m.we are just trying to AVOID everything here.............:2rofll:.

BTW- Toodles Pete, have a hot toddy and get La Nanita to tuck you in. Don't leave a vapor trail on your way out. Unless you are suddenly feeling up to owing up to the obvious. Big chance for your here Pete! Do try not to PeteEUism it instead. :screwy

 

[Harshaw]

And you base that on what? Why do you think that affirmative action does not work?

From the statistics that you yourself posted intended to show how bad off minorities are in US. I thought that was pretty clear.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[PeteEU]

From the statistics that you yourself posted intended to show how bad off minorities are in US. I thought that was pretty clear.

You can't have it both ways.

Yea but the real question is would it have been better or worse without affirmative action?

I would content with the level of racial issues in the US up to the 1960s when the country was forced to deal with the problem, that the situation would be far worse than now, if it had not been for affirmative action. I mean racists and racist attitudes just dont "poof" because the law says that whites and blacks are equal. This goes for any form of discrimination btw.

I mean look at the battle of the sexes. Countries where the law states that X % of people standing for office, have to be female, have a far far higher female representation in political and professional life than most countries that do not have such laws.

I am not saying it is a perfect way of doing things, but doing nothing is not a good thing at all, as change will never happen then.

 

[PeteEU]

So let us explore an actual case of approach avoidance couched in hypocritical and infantile accusation of the same. Hence forth from this moment on known as PeteEUisms.

**Please note I am only using this single thread to illustrate absurdity ad infinity. Though I can certainly go through every thread PeteEU wishes to contest that the same has not occurred in; that I participated with him in. In fact, you might assume that I am doing so in off hand times and planning on “publishing” them with full comical intent and effect as perhaps a Christmas bounty!**

He is the Rush Hannity of the Euroelitists mind-vice enclave. Only without the style and substance to actually garner him the adulation of certified idiots.

Links to the brilliance first, actual brilliance second!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics.html#post1057841257



All of the following loadstones are contained within this truly extraordinary ejaculation:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-2.html#post1057841737




Just because it is Christmas and all and because I know just how good the last 14 moths of material I have is, I’m only going to supply a link to this pedantic off topic irrational diatribe:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-2.html#post1057842439

And now for something really different and completely batshit bi-polar:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-3.html#post1057846844

Followed immediately and for maximum comical effect by (same link):




Now if at this point you are starting to see the definition of PeteEUism you can blame evil black hat me. Chuckle. Now remember folks nobody has challenged any of the above at this point. I’m.we are just trying to AVOID everything here.............:2rofll:.

BTW- Toodles Pete, have a hot toddy and get La Nanita to tuck you in. Don't leave a vapor trail on your way out. Unless you are suddenly feeling up to owing up to the obvious. Big chance for your here Pete! Do try not to PeteEUism it instead. :screwy

More of the same bla bla crap from you Sir Lion. Cant even be bothered to read it as you never make a point, never stick to the subject and constantly attack people instead of answering the questions given to you.

 

[Harshaw]

I mean look at the battle of the sexes. Countries where the law states that X % of people standing for office, have to be female, have a far far higher female representation in political and professional life than most countries that do not have such laws.

Well, after showing this is numerically true (especially in "professional life"), show me 1) a verifiable, quantifiable beneficial result of that higher representation, and 2) square it with the notion that sex doesn't matter.

If you have anything there, show how it supersedes the inherent right of the electorate to elect whomever they wish, as opposed to those candidates the government wants them to elect.

 

[PeteEU]

Well, after showing this is numerically true (especially in "professional life"), show me 1) a verifiable, quantifiable beneficial result of that higher representation, and 2) square it with the notion that sex doesn't matter.

If you have anything there, show how it supersedes the inherent right of the electorate to elect whomever they wish, as opposed to those candidates the government wants them to elect.

Look at the latest Iraqi election. The law requires female representation. Do you really think that there would have been any if the law was not in place?

Elections test Spain's new gender-parity law | csmonitor.com

France's parity law has significantly improved representation at the local level since it was passed in 2000: In towns with populations of 3,500 or more, the percentage of women elected to city council seats rose from 25.7 in 1995 to 46.4 by 2006.

is it all peachy and good.. of course not as you can read in the article. Note that the article is oldish, and there have been elections in many countries since the article was written. France for example has increased its female representation in the national legislative considerably.

But the point is, that without the laws, women get much lower representation in political life. With the laws, they get a far higher representation. This shows that there is some form of sexual discrimination, most likely not directly, in many western "enlightened" countries, like the US, like France and so on.

Look at the statistics from around the world or even the US only, and women have had a hard time as hell to get elected into public office, especially on a national level. As it stands now, the 110th US congress has 91 women in the US congress, where 16 are in the Senate and the rest in the House. A big majority of those women come from the Democratic party. That gives the US a quota free ranking of 17% female participation at national level and 71st out of 188 countries. The sad part is that it is a record high number..... but hardly impressive considering females make up 50% or so of the population.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PLS="@

Are quota's good? No, because it shows that the "system" is broken, and that is never good. But without quota's the status quo will remain for a far longer time... just look at how long it took women to get the vote...

But basicly, it is a cultural thing, and quotas help in removing the "discriminatory" aspects of a culture so things become more fair. It is not a big shocker that the countries where religion and "traditional" conservative values are promoted by all aspects of life, have some of the lowest female representation in all aspects of life.

 

[Sir Loin]

More of the same bla bla crap from you Sir Lion. Cant even be bothered to read it as you never make a point, never stick to the subject and constantly attack people instead of answering the questions given to you.

Yeah that is the ticket, pretend you have not viewed all of this at least three times since it was posted and keep supplying your asshat dance. Because as you already know.............I'm just so avoiding you and NONE of this will ever be brought up again! Chuckle. Particularly the next time you do your asshat dance, which as we all know....you........just........can't..............do.........without. Glad to see your non-reading of the above had nothing to do with your recent "idea" to actually stick to rational approaches.

But sure Pete, I and my promised Christmas collection of your brilliant theories and "non-fleeing" and "non-you are attacking me" habits have completely escaped your notice and have not had the slightest effect at all!:2wave:

Merry Christmas you poor sodding hack!:mrgreen:

BTW- Have I thanked you for illustrating so perfectly everythnig I said (that you did not read) is cleary just so unfair and so "made up"? Chuckle..........asshat.:devil: