|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists

Default Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists

August 29th, 2012, 23:50
Despite your head in the clouds beliefs Ubs, Most Muslims DO want Sharia law to apply to everyone.; it's one of Islam's stated aims. Here, we've had one of their leaders claim that Sharia law will be the ruling law of Australia within a few years. That should scare everyone who is not a Muslim.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Last edited by Corwin; August 30th, 2012 at 01:21.
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#41

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,403
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

August 30th, 2012, 00:36
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
So we can't dismiss your opinions simply because we know better (due to having an education relevant to the discussion at hand) but you can dismiss our opinions because you know better (due to having experience of a field that's irellevant to the discussion at hand)?

Übereil
If the crux of your argument is that a shelf of textbooks gives our good perfesser the ability to properly psychoanalyze someone that he's never even met, I'd say you're going a long way toward proving MY point.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,281

Default 

August 30th, 2012, 02:03
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Another quote from the ressentiment I mentioned in post #4;
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…86&postcount=4

There are many many other "pearls of wisdom" rooted in that identity built on convincing oneself that despite not knowing much, one is still ok. The ressentiment comes from going one step further and build a morality that attempts to stigmatize the source of ones frustrations rather than being humble about them.

If you want to have a pissing contest let’s do it. I received my MBA from a school that actually counts and most people in the world have heard of (less than two years ago) while working full time and supporting a family. I live in a country that matters. I served in one of the hardest infantry units of the greatest military in the world. You both live in mediocre countries with absolutely nothing to offer the world. Your countries are as insignificant as your schools. Your education is as irrelevant as your lives. As students you know absolutely nothing but how to regurgitate. You have zero experience and a blank resume. If you came to my country, which has standards, you would be hopelessly unemployed because there are tons of people far more able with far better resumes graduating from universities that actually count, and they have a solid work ethic too. Your future degrees are worth less than a University of Phoenix Online degree in my civilized important country that has more accomplishments this century than your countries have through their long histories. And no, I do not want to know the name of your schools as it will be gibberish with some dots and squiggles and pronounced like the savage squealing of a caveman.

If your hillbilly countries declared war on anyone they would laugh because your peoples have neither gumption nor sacks, and if we are to count recent people of note and accomplishments to the world we can throw brains in too. On the other hand, since I live in a country that is important and matters, if we declare war it goes a little differently.

I almost guarantee neither of you have any significant achievements of note and that neither of you have done anything of significance on your own. You go to school, woopity-fucking-do. We’ve been there and done that; now fast forward some years to when you are an adult with some experience under your belt and we can talk.

You spew nonsense you were spoon fed recently from a crap school in a land of mediocre sheep people neo-savages on a RPG site. And you are completely and utterly wrong on most accounts. Period. No room for discussion. Let’s take this as an example:

Harsh punishments seem to work while it have no effect. The reason why it seems to work is that the punishment-proposer is often in a situation in which they can be rational, while the criminal is usually in a situation in which they cannot.

The reason it have a reverse effect is that to the punishment-proposer (who should be the rational one) the punishment act as a placebo, kinda like praying for cancer. They did something and therefore there's a satisfaction that they did something.
Punishment, in a justice system, is for justice. Not for the punisher to feel they accomplished something. It is not for rehabilitation. If the people feel there is no justice, they take it into their own hands and seek vengeance. Punishment is so the law matters. Vigilantism has gone up in the US specifically because punishments have become a joke in a lot of states.

But, even if we look at some of the strictest countries with the harshest laws, like religious tyrannies run under Sharia Law with the moral police, or North Korea, their crime rates are extremely small (real crimes, not kissing in public or being gay).

Your point would only make sense if applied to countries more savage than your own where people have nothing to lose and are actually forced into committing criminal acts to survive. If you look at the crime statistics in the US you will see that most crimes are based off of want and not need. No one needs to force their penis into children or women (or even men). No one needs to get into a bar fight. No one needs to drink and drive. No one needs to commit vandalism. No one needs to sell drugs because their SSD, welfare, and free apartment just are’t enough to live off of. Etc. I grew up in a ghetto surrounded by and participating in crime. I never had to steal anything or break things or get in fights or do drugs; it did it all because it was fun and I was young and dumb.

Your professors are only giving you the information they want you to know so you will believe as they believe. If your school has an attitude anywhere close to the schools in civilization, your professors are all bitter, hate-mongers who want the world and all the people in it to reflect their cult ideas of how things should be, and anyone who disagrees is obviously suspect and less than the believers. It is standard cult practice. “We are smart because we know better.” You are in a cult no different than scientology, with ideas as fucking stupid as anything the Old Testament contains.

But, at the end of the day, it’s not your fault your from an unimportant and mediocre country and you have no experience to speak of so you are forced to spew illogical gibberish. Maybe God hates you? Who knows? It is what it is. But, like Jesus, I and the Texas Republican party (of which I have no affiliation with but will take the liberty of speaking on behalf of) forgive you.
Impregnator is offline

Impregnator

Watcher

#43

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 41

Default 

August 30th, 2012, 02:29
WOW! Nice stereotypical arrogant American roleplaying. Shameful.
Thrasher is online now

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#44

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,967

Default 

August 30th, 2012, 03:10
If these guys were serious about preventing the use of other forms of law over state, federal, and constitutional law they could do so by wording it as follows:

"In the event of any conflict between the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of this state, on the one hand, and the laws or requirements of any religion or any foreign laws, on the other hand, in its rulings, the courts of this state shall rely solely on the federal and state constitutions and U.S. law."

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19770003

If they unnecessarily single out Sharia law within the text of the law when they bring it to the table then you know they're not serious and merely performing a political stunt and scaremongering. The wording of the Texas Republican Platform point regarding this could be interpreted to mean they intend any of the following.

1) prohibit any substitute or parallel law except in accordance with US and state constitution

I don't have a problem with this; it does not create problems regarding international treaties as those fall under US constitutional authority. It does not single out any individual religion and would seem to expressly provide protection against any religious doctrine being applied in substitution of US and state law. This would seem to provide some of the protections generally interpreted under the 1st ammendment less ambigiously - at least within courts.

2) The above but including emphasis regarding international law and specifically sharia law within the text of the bill.


This would indicate more political showmanship as it introduces potential challenges to the bill under the Texas constitution, federal law, and the US constitution. You can argue whether you you agree with that precedent or not, but the language of emphasis need not be there to acheive the effect. Beyond its potential usefulness in scoring political points, the singling out of Sharia law serves only to strengthen challenges to the bill given precendent.

3) The above but JUST applying to international law and singling out Sharia law specifically.

Again, this is designed to fail and meant as a stunt. Additionally this stunt would be crafted so that members voting for it might be able to maintain claims of holding another religious doctrine or text to be supreme above state and US laws. Where they to vote for the above options they might argue that this would be to admit that in legal matters the US and Texas law and constitutions were the only applicable laws when in contradiction to their own particular religious creed, text or doctrine. For example, this would be the only option that might be acceptable to those who insist upon the supremacy of the the Bible over all Earthly law and did not wish to be seen as voting contrary to that. I think this does help to illustrate how this particular formulation would be the most unlikely and could also be seen as the most obviously easily defeated and therefore non-serious attempt to make law and more serious attempt to make news.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

SasqWatch

#45

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,513

Default 

August 31st, 2012, 11:43
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Despite your head in the clouds beliefs Ubs, Most Muslims DO want Sharia law to apply to everyone.; it's one of Islam's stated aims. Here, we've had one of their leaders claim that Sharia law will be the ruling law of Australia within a few years. That should scare everyone who is not a Muslim.
The average western muslim (and those are the ones who have any possibility on imposing Sharia laws upon westerners) does not want to force anyone to abide by Muslim laws and traditions. They want it to be possible for them to do so and for others who voluntarily choose to do so. Ideally they want everyone to volunteer, just like every Christian wants every non-Christian to convert, but they're not going to force anyone.

That Muslim leader claiming Sharia law will be the ruling law of Australia anytime soon has his head as much in the clouds as you claim mine is. That's just not going to happen, because there's far too few pepole supporting him. He's about as likely to get political power as the average neo-nazi leader. To quote JemyM, the threat is non-existent.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
If the crux of your argument is that a shelf of textbooks gives our good perfesser the ability to properly psychoanalyze someone that he's never even met, I'd say you're going a long way toward proving MY point.
And that you're so cock sure that he's got no way of being even near accurate proves mine.

Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
If these guys were serious about preventing the use of other forms of law over state…
I find the discussion on whether the founding fathers intended to implement proper separation between church and state to be rather pointless. Because the founding fathers didn't intend that women and blacks had the same rights as white men. And you have to look hard and long to find someone who agrees that we ought to withdraw the vote for non-whites and non-men.

(Ann Coulter entertains the thought of banning women from voting, but that's not because they're women but because women mostly vote Democtat, thus proving that they're idiots.)

That a constitution drafted for America anno 1787 is going to be a little outdated 230 years later isn't all that strange. Especially when those 230 years happen to have been the 230 most eventful years in the history of mankind. America looks almost nothing like it did back when you adopted your constitution. So instead of discussing how the founding fathers intended the constitution to be (and taking for granted that that's what's right and just, like Americans have a tendency to do), maybe you ought to instead discuss what would be best suited for the America of today?

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#46

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

August 31st, 2012, 12:25
I agree with Ubs on the Founding Fathers part. I know it's a big part of history and that those people were well ahead of their time, but come on!

More than 200 years have past. George Washington your first president was a slave owner. Does that mean you should try and be slave owners too ? Get with the times!
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#47

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,132
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

August 31st, 2012, 12:42
Not interested in having a discussion with this "Impregnator" but post a reply for others to read.

Originally Posted by Impregnator View Post
If you want to have a pissing contest let’s do it.
Originally Posted by Impregnator View Post
Your professors are only giving you the information they want you to know so you will believe as they believe. If your school has an attitude anywhere close to the schools in civilization, your professors are all bitter, hate-mongers who want the world and all the people in it to reflect their cult ideas of how things should be, and anyone who disagrees is obviously suspect and less than the believers. It is standard cult practice. “We are smart because we know better.” You are in a cult no different than scientology, with ideas as fucking stupid as anything the Old Testament contains.
In in my reply to a similar post by DTE I pointed out the fallacy of the entire premise of your post.

First, you are a conspiracy theorist. Second, there's no pissing contest.

The idea that credentials/titles matters isn't academic, it's an authoritarian/traditional emphasis on people/titles rather than presenting facts. I'm not interested in peoples careers, credentials, achievements, academic titles or points. I'm interested in what facts an individual presents to support their position. The rest is white noise.

The combination of conspiracy theory and misconception of the need for credentials gives a solid hint that you have no experience with higher level education, science or critical thinking. This is itself isn't the problem, the problem is that you aren't humble about it. You are the mechanic that offers to fix the car and claim to know better than the mechanics despite never opening a hood. You are the carpenter who offers to fix the house better than architects despite having no experience with workers tools. When challenged you do not defend yourself by showing your skill but by attacking the critic.

In other words, you are a fraud.

Originally Posted by Impregnator View Post
I live in a country that matters.
Nationalistic pride as a personality trait is something I consider to be an early indicator that I am dealing with someone who achieved little in life and try to build up self-confidence through emphasizing origin or traits given at birth.

When it comes to facts, all trends points to China being the worlds economic leader in 2020. Europeans aren't looking at the US for future business, they are looking at Asia and have already begun to learn Asian languages in school. The trend also show that the average level of education in the US is too low to compete and the culture is too divided to change and is prone to collapse in infighting.

Originally Posted by Impregnator View Post
You both live in mediocre countries with absolutely nothing to offer the world.
The nordic model is world famous in economics and social sciences for creating a productive and efficient culture with a strong economy, low crimerate and on average good social statistics. Meanwhile the US is often referred as a bad example with unwanted living standards, high crimerate and poor social statistics.

Originally Posted by Impregnator View Post
But, even if we look at some of the strictest countries with the harshest laws, like religious tyrannies run under Sharia Law with the moral police, or North Korea, their crime rates are extremely small (real crimes, not kissing in public or being gay).
Democracies are often based on the premise that there are problems to be solved and things to improve all the time. Good statistics are important to reveal issues that need work. Dictatorships with a strong nationalistic pride are often based on the idea that they are perfect, a notion that aren't allowed to be questioned by statistics. Statistics such as crime is thus rarely reported or revealed. Sharia Courts are held by civilians without government intervention and are thus invisible.

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

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#48

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,027
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

September 1st, 2012, 03:46
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
I find the discussion on whether the founding fathers intended to implement proper separation between church and state to be rather pointless. Because the founding fathers didn't intend that women and blacks had the same rights as white men. And you have to look hard and long to find someone who agrees that we ought to withdraw the vote for non-whites and non-men.

That a constitution drafted for America anno 1787 is going to be a little outdated 230 years later isn't all that strange. Especially when those 230 years happen to have been the 230 most eventful years in the history of mankind. America looks almost nothing like it did back when you adopted your constitution. So instead of discussing how the founding fathers intended the constitution to be (and taking for granted that that's what's right and just, like Americans have a tendency to do), maybe you ought to instead discuss what would be best suited for the America of today?
How the heck did you think that is at all what I meant or think?

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that even by other measures of constitutionality you can show that these sharia-law-ban attempts appear to be more about an attempt to create a political show for the sake of a certain part of the base than actually protect against any real or supposed problem. Even presuming some of those law makers believed such a threat were real, I'm suggesting they are clearly not acting as such because they would rather have the bill say "sharia law" in it than write one that is constitutional.

While I do believe in the separation of church and state as it has more consistently been interpreted, the argument against those laws and to the dubious motivation behind them can be made even setting that one aside.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

SasqWatch

#49

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,513

Default 

September 3rd, 2012, 15:45
Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
How the heck did you think that is at all what I meant or think?
I was commenting on the discussion in general, not what you said in particular.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#50

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 14:08
You know, I only ever liked one politician, he may not have been perfect but he came close and that was Ron Paul. Such a shame that hes gone now. I mean the fact that he wants to get out of wars in the middle east should put him on everyones radar. Why is that every single politician in America wants the war to continue except him?
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#51

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 14:59
Such a shame that hes gone now.
Where did he go? I think he is still alive but his son is still in politics and will probably run in the future. However, very few people in the United States and around the world are in favor of a "hands off" policy being adopted by the US. Like it or not they are in favor with our money being handed out to them. The Middle east problems are real and they will not resolve themselves by "leading from behind" We have real enemies there as evidenced by the last two weeks. They are not going to just go away but will look for weakness in our leadership. The Iranian president reiterated his position despite being warned to tone down the rhetoric.This is a guy who prosecuted his own people for secretly having cable tv and accessing the internet.Read his speech, he is just crazy enough to attack Israel. If he were to block a third of the worlds oil from being transported, it would be the US who would re-open the shipping lanes.

Thomas Jefferson ideally saw the US as having trade relations with all nations but being an ally of none. It's a different world today with the types of arms we have today and things should be monitored. Bill Clinton said in an interview that most of these dictators started out young and fresh but kind of end up overstaying their welcome. Maybe he has a point and the UN should insist on some kind of terms limits for leaders of other countries much as I hate their meddling.
redman5427 is offline

redman5427

redman5427's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#52

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: its kinda frozen
Posts: 796

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 15:19
Originally Posted by redman5427 View Post
Maybe he has a point and the UN should insist on some kind of terms limits for leaders of other countries much as I hate their meddling.
Like a dictator is going to give two shits what the UN has to say? As if the toothless, gutless, bag-of-hot-air UN would be able to enforce it?

It's a nice theory, I suppose, but the implementation would be impossible.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#53

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,281

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 15:34
What don't people understand ?
The UN is not in itself a political entity. It is composed of those countries with those dictators.
Since they not only get to vote but are also usually allied (with many trade agreements in place) with any of the 5 permanent members of the SC - who all get veto rights. This resolution would just not pass, especially since on top of that many countries with dictators call themselves democratically elected… So it would have to be defined in such a manner where UN officials will have to decide who is and who isn't a dictator depending on many different factors (i.e. Is changing the constitution of a country - with a super-majority in parliament - to allow for unlimited terms a characteristic of someone using the democratic system in place or those of a dictator trying to take the power for himself ?).

In addition to just the voting concerns, the same things apply to enforcement. Who does the enforcement ? It's not the UN, it's the countries that are part of it. So you need enough countries to accept such measures too and accept to actually send boots on the ground to do something.

The UN is a place of dialogue, not a place to decide what happens in the individual countries. It's not a federation of states (like the US). It's a place where conflicts can try to be resolved using multi-lateral dialogue.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#54

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,132
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 15:39
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
The UN is a place of dialogue, not a place to decide what happens in the individual countries. It's not a federation of states (like the US). It's a place where conflicts can try to be resolved using multi-lateral dialogue.
So it's like a friendly neighborhood coffee shop, eh? Ever notice that absolutely nothing gets done at a coffee shop besides spending money and wasting time? Funny, that.

They ought to shut themselves down for being a primary contributor to greenhouse gases.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#55

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,281

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 16:09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICEF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_…ment_Programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOSOC#…lized_agencies
Just these are worth a lot. They're not the only ones though.

These don't include the peacekeeping missions in various countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of…eping_missions

Yes, they have many problems, but so do most international resolutions to problems.

Just like spending 700B dollars on military a year isn't without both advantages and disadvantages, it's the same with the UN.

Also, I abhor your view of coffee shops I think they're a great place to socialize. They have helped me befriend many people and are a great time to spend with friends and acquaintances. I spend money there to talk and enjoy part of my free time.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#56

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,132
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 16:15
Hehe, very funny DTE
I was just pointing out the toll it takes to be a leader of a country and that modern civilization should accept one day that people have their limits and I think that was also what Clinton was trying to say. I still understand it is also about control and power grabs and not likely to happen.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-n…8788/#49168788

Here are the new weapons of choice-hilarious!

Also, I abhor your view of coffee shops I think they're a great place to socialize.
AMEN to that! especially as I get older I love them
Last edited by redman5427; September 26th, 2012 at 16:27.
redman5427 is offline

redman5427

redman5427's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#57

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: its kinda frozen
Posts: 796

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 20:28
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICEF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_…ment_Programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOSOC#…lized_agencies
Just these are worth a lot. They're not the only ones though.

These don't include the peacekeeping missions in various countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of…eping_missions

Yes, they have many problems, but so do most international resolutions to problems.

Just like spending 700B dollars on military a year isn't without both advantages and disadvantages, it's the same with the UN.

Also, I abhor your view of coffee shops I think they're a great place to socialize. They have helped me befriend many people and are a great time to spend with friends and acquaintances. I spend money there to talk and enjoy part of my free time.
I completely agree that those aid programs are valuable. I question whether the UN does any better than alternative sources such as the Red Cross. Simply put, if we gave the Red Cross (or similar international aid organziation) the same pile of cash (and actually it would be a larger pile of cash since all the wasted UN overhead could be redirected), could they accomplish the same level of aid? Given the immense waste of the UN, I can't imagine the answer to that question being anything except a deafening, "Ummm, no shit, Sherlock."

As for your coffee shop, you actually pinpoint exactly why the UN cannot possibly function as you'd wish. Your coffeehouse socialization revolves around 1 friend, or maybe a group of 5. Let's put 200 of your friends in that shop, and while we're at it let's put maybe 50 more people in there that you can't stand and a couple complete loons to boot (maybe me ). How much socialization are you going to get? It's going to be an unmanageable and unintelligible mob scene. Exactly like the UN.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,281

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 20:43
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
I completely agree that those aid programs are valuable. I question whether the UN does any better than alternative sources such as the Red Cross. Simply put, if we gave the Red Cross (or similar international aid organziation) the same pile of cash (and actually it would be a larger pile of cash since all the wasted UN overhead could be redirected), could they accomplish the same level of aid? Given the immense waste of the UN, I can't imagine the answer to that question being anything except a deafening, "Ummm, no shit, Sherlock."
The Red Cross has their own overhead issues. Have you seen how much their CEO makes?

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#59

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,053

Default 

September 26th, 2012, 20:50
True, but you're still ahead of the game if you only throw money at one black hole (which would be exaggeration for the Red Cross, but still) rather than two.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,281
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:35.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch