World Politics

Page 451 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
I'm pretty sure that all of us on 'this' side of the fence know what a racist is, and recognize one when we see/hear them.

Again, I really did expect a bit more honesty from you. You are clearly not a fool and, as far as I can tell, not a Teabagger either. So why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible? You know perfectly well that the unprecedented Republican Hun wing animosity towards Obama was based on one thing first and foremost - that he is an articulate and intelligent black man. I have no doubt that in addition, 'they' despise all his policies (as has been demonstrated time and again by the Huns in Congress,) but gut racism undoubtedly lies at the root of 'their' hatred.
I'm pretty sure that all of us on 'this' side of the fence know what a racist is, and recognize one when we see/hear them.

Perhaps. I do find it odd how the term is used to paint most with opposing points of view. Tea Party, Conservatives, Republicans... all are smeared with the term literally every day. Every day.

I can assure you the amount of racism on the right is roughly the same when compared to the left, yet you guys point and yell with incredible regularity.

Again, I really did expect a bit more honesty from you. You are clearly not a fool and, as far as I can tell, not a Teabagger either. So why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible?
Don't you really mean that in order for me to be considered honest I need to agree with you? Strange definition of honesty.

You know perfectly well that the unprecedented Republican Hun wing animosity towards Obama was based on one thing first and foremost - that he is an articulate and intelligent black man.
No, actually I don't know that. My proof source is the Hun wing also vigorously opposed Clinton and Carter. The opposition, then and now, is not based on skin color.

but gut racism undoubtedly lies at the root of 'their' hatred
Then it should be incredibly easy to make this case. So, make the case instead of making accusations.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Malkin's a racist now?
Sorry, what? Do you not remember this?



A book defending racial profiling and internment camps and how the same procedures could be used for Arab Americans and other ethnic groups during the "War on Terror"...no, not racist at all to imply that maybe we need to round up certain ethnic groups and lock 'em away somewhere we don't have to worry about them.

Oh and that's not to mention her ties to VDARE. I'd suggest you look up both VDARE and "her friend" Peter Brimelow sometime. They have some...rather interesting things to say.

And then totally randomly...the Michelle Malkin who blames the mortgage crisis on Latinos and illegal immigrants...the Michelle Malkin who blames illegal aliens and "uncontrolled immigration" for bringing swine flu and other diseases into the US (damn dirty foreigners)...The one who writes approvingly of the Minutemen...look, why don't you just google it, ok? Getting a bit tired of doing your work for you.

btw my favorite Michelle Malkin quote:

"I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.”
-Michelle Malkin, 2/16/07.
I don't think you actually know what being racist means.
I don't think you have a clue what being racist means. Hint: you don't have to be white.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Sorry, what? Do you not remember this?



A book defending racial profiling and internment camps and how the same procedures could be used for Arab Americans and other ethnic groups during the "War on Terror"...no, not racist at all to imply that maybe we need to round up certain ethnic groups and lock 'em away somewhere we don't have to worry about them.

Oh and that's not to mention her ties to VDARE. I'd suggest you look up both VDARE and "her friend" Peter Brimelow sometime. They have some...rather interesting things to say.

And then totally randomly...the Michelle Malkin who blames the mortgage crisis on Latinos and illegal immigrants...the Michelle Malkin who blames illegal aliens and "uncontrolled immigration" for bringing swine flu and other diseases into the US (damn dirty foreigners)...The one who writes approvingly of the Minutemen...look, why don't you just google it, ok? Getting a bit tired of doing your work for you.

btw my favorite Michelle Malkin quote:

"I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.”
-Michelle Malkin, 2/16/07.
I don't think you have a clue what being racist means. Hint: you don't have to be white.
Did you actually read the book or are you depending on your experts to tell you what to think about it?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Did you actually read the book or are you depending on your experts to tell you what to think about it?
I bet it is on your bookshelf?? Do you have to buy those books to prove your head is screwed on the RIGHT way?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
I bet it is on your bookshelf?? Do you have to buy those books to prove your head is screwed on the RIGHT way?
I don't own it and I've never read it. I'm quite sure VC didn't either and I know you couldn't even read the forward of the book without your head exploding.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Did you actually read the book or are you depending on your experts to tell you what to think about it?
I'll let the experts tell you:

I'll close with a final observation about "In Defense of Internment." In Michelle's final chapter (page 150), she details what she sees as the many important similarities between the activities of al Qaeda and its supporters today and the activities of Japanese Americans sixty years ago:

"There are parallels between World War II and the War on Terror, but the antiprofilers don't make the proper comparisons. The Japanese espionage network and the Islamic terrorist network exploited many of the same immigration loopholes and relied on many of the same institutions to enter the country and insinuate themselves into the American mainstream. Members of both networks arrived here on student visas and religious visas. Both used spiritual centers--Buddhist churches for the Japanese, mosques for the Islamists--as central organizing points. Both used native-language newspapers to foment subversive tendencies. Both leaned on extensive ethnic- or religious-based fundraising groups for support--kais for the Japanese, Islamic charities for Middle Eastern terrorists. Both had operatives in the U.S. military. Both aggressively recruited American citizens as spies or saboteurs, especially (but not exclusively) inside their ethnic communities. Both were spearheaded by fanatics with an intense interest in biological and chemical weapons." (Michelle might also have noted in this passage that American citizens of Muslim faith and Arab ancestry have actually pled guilty to charges of attending al Qaeda training camps (the Lackawanna, NY cases) and seeking to levy war against the United States in Afghanistan (the Portland, OR cases). Those, it would seem, are even clearer instances of threat to the United States by American citizens than the handful of vague references about Kibei and/or Nisei in the MAGIC cables.) Michelle's purpose in writing the book, you'll recall, was to "offer a defen[se] of the most reviled wartime policies in American history: the evacuation, relocation, and internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II." (p. xiii) "Even with the benefit of hindsight," she argues on page 80, "it is not at all clear that mass evacuation [of all people of Japanese ancestry, including U.S. citizens] was unwarranted." Why? Because information (especially from the MAGIC decrypts) about subversive activities by Japanese Americans (which, she notes, happen to be just like the sorts of subversive activities that Arabs and Muslims are engaging in) provided a "solid rationale for evacuation." (p. 141.)

So here's what I don't get. On page xxx of the book's Introduction ("A Time To Discriminate"), Michelle tells us to "[m]ake no mistake": she is "not advocating rounding up all Arabs or Muslims and tossing them into camps."

She's not?
http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html#Over

Huh. So Malkin believes that Arab and Muslim Americans are currently doing basically the same thing that Japanese Americans did during WW II and that Japanese internment was not "unwarranted". Think even you can connect those dots.

I see you haven't looked up Peter Brimelow and VDARE yet. You might want to do that.

And again, how does any of this relate to the makeup of the TP today?

btw I love how "experts" has become a pejorative to conservatives. That's hilarious. And explains oh so much.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
I'll let the experts tell you:

http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html#Over

Huh. So Malkin believes that Arab and Muslim Americans are currently doing basically the same thing that Japanese Americans did during WW II and that Japanese internment was not "unwarranted". Think even you can connect those dots.

I see you haven't looked up Peter Brimelow and VDARE yet. You might want to do that.

And again, how does any of this relate to the makeup of the TP today?

btw I love how "experts" has become a pejorative to conservatives. That's hilarious. And explains oh so much.
So, I take it you've not read the book but you'll go ahead with the racism accusation anyways. Got it.

And again, how does any of this relate to the makeup of the TP today?
I find it odd that you and others are very willing to paint everyone (or most) as 'racist' on the basis of the actions of some of the people attending rally's. You are the one leveling the charge against the Tea Party in general and Malkin in particular.

btw I love how "experts" has become a pejorative to conservatives. That's hilarious. And explains oh so much.
I'm using the word 'experts' in a pejorative sense for your benefit only. You read someone else's opinion regarding, in this case, what amounts to a book review and fire the insidious (or used to be, at least) charge of racism at someone who may not be a racist, but someone who has the balls to tackle a tricky subject with a view or conclusion that may differ from yours.

I get the feeling you are not even curious about this stuff.

Here's another 'expert' opinion;

There are at least two things that make it very difficult to accurately evaluate historical events. The first is that hindsight is 20/20. In other words, we tend to judge what happened in the past without taking into account all of the knowledge that we have acquired after the fact. For example, when we look back at WW2, not only do we know how everything turned out, but we have decades of extensive research to rely on that the actors on the world stage during that conflict did not have access to.

Furthermore, we as human beings often look at historical events through the prism of today's conditions and standards. Put another way, it's hard for those of us who live in the world's most prosperous and powerful nation to truly imagine what life was actually like back in World War 2. We may THINK we know, but there are many things of import that we are wont to discount or shrug off simply because they're no longer of concern.

Which brings us to the Japanese internment during WW2.

Until recently, there has scarcely even been any public debate about the issue. The Japanese Internment has been written off by most people as another sad, racist, chapter of our history that was wholly without merit.



In order to prove this assertion, Malkin paints a picture, quite effectively I might add, of a situation in which the Japanese internment is one of several not very pleasant options that Roosevelt had to choose between. Here's what I consider to be the crux of the case that Malkin makes....

-- The attack on Pearl Harbor severely damaged our Pacific forces and brought America into WW2 - on the side that was currently losing. And this was not like the Gulf War or Vietnam, we could not simply choose to "go home" and end the war. Losing would have likely meant -- at some point -- marauding Axis armies marching through the countryside raping, murdering, and pillaging everything in their path. The stakes don't get any higher than they were in a conflict like World War 2.

-- On December 11th of 1941, the freighter SS Lahaina was sunk by a Japanese sub off of Honolulu. Another Japanese sub sank the SS Manini in Hawaiian waters 6 days later. On December 18th, another sub sank the SS Prusa near the "big island". Several other December attacks occurred within 20 miles of the California and Oregon coastlines. On February 23rd, a Japanese sub shelled the Ellwood oil fields in Goleta, California. At least one "high ranking Japanese military official--Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi...was eager to carry the war to the U.S. mainland".

Secretary of War Henry Stimson also wrote this in his diary on February 10, 1942

"...I think it is quite within the bounds of possibility that if the Japanese should get naval dominance in the Pacific they would try an invasion of this country; and, if they did, we would have a tough job meeting them."

In other words, Japanese forces were close and the danger to our homeland was very real.

-- Richard Kotoshirodo, a Japanese American and John Mikami, who was Japanese, gathered extensive amounts of information while they were spying that was very helpful to the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor. Japanese-Americans (Yoshio and Irene Harada) aided a Japanese pilot who landed at Niihau island, Hawaii after being shot down while attacking Pearl Harbor.

Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,

"We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials..."

That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.

A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, "'there can be no doubt that' most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations "continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast".

So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.

-- While we clearly couldn't trust citizens of Japan (or other Axis nations) to run around unsupervised while we were in the middle of a fight to the finish with their home-countries (hence the 11,229 Japanese citizens, 10,905 German citizens, 3,728 Italian citizens and a few others who were rounded up and interned), American born citizens were of course a different matter. Certainly, most of them were loyal. Curtis Munson who was been sent to investigate the issue, estimated that 90-98% of Japanese-Americans could be trusted (although he had his doubts about 9000 Kibei -- Japanese-Americans schooled in Japan).

However, Munson also noted that even a very small number of saboteurs could do a cataclysmic damage to the war effort,

"...The harbor at San Pedro could be razed by fire completely by four men with grenades and a little study in one night. Dams could be blown and half of lower California might actually die of thirst. One railway bridge at the exit from the mountains in some cases could tie up three or four main railroads..."

Here's more on the damage that could be caused by saboteurs from Provost Marshal General Allen Gullion,

"If production for war is seriously delayed by sabotage in the West Coastal states, we very possibly shall lose the war....from reliable reports from military and other sources, the danger of Japanese-inspired espionage is great."

-- America and other nations traditionally interned "enemy aliens" during wars. For example, in World War 1 more than 6300 "European-born civilians" were interned. Moreover, Mexico and Canada both chose to move ethnic Japanese away from their coasts. Also, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that interning Japanese citizens was constitutional.

-- Furthermore, Malkin revealed that in 1944, disturbingly "28 percent (of draft age Japanese-American evacuees) refused to swear allegiance to their country or forswear allegiance to the emperor of Japan" and when given the opportunity, 5,620 Japanese-Americans chose to abandon their U.S. citizenship.

-- Last but not least, there were no easy options for dealing with the situation. Mere monitoring of suspect Japanese citizens would have likely be too difficult given the number of people involved, the consequences of failure, and the demands of a world war. Criminal prosecutions of suspected spies would have been nearly impossible because intelligence sources couldn't be revealed and it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove someone who was say simply watching ship movements (so they could later report them) was committing a crime. Another possibility would have been some sort of "quasi-judicial military tribunal," but there would have been constitutional questions about that and it couldn't possibly be as effective as evacuating and/or interning Japanese-Americans along the West Coast.
In a nutshell, that's the dilemma that Malkin is trying to put in front of people with this book. Was it worth causing great inconvenience & infringing on the civil liberties of the Japanese-Americans who were interned, most of whom were loyal, patriotic, Americans, in order to stop the potential loss of countless American lives as a result of the actions of comparatively small numbers of disloyal Japanese-American saboteurs & spies?

In today's world, even in the context of the war on terrorism, that's an easy question to answer and indeed Malkin specifically states that she does not support rounding up Arabs or Muslims and putting them in camps. But, given the circumstances we faced in World War 2, Malkin argues that there was justification for interning of Japanese-Americans during World War 2. After reading her book, I can't help but come to the conclusion that she's right.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/malkin.php
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
redtreviso said:
Wall Street Isn't Winning – It's Cheating


"""These inequities are what drive the OWS protests. People don't want handouts. It's not a class uprising and they don't want civil war -- they want just the opposite. They want everyone to live in the same country, and live by the same rules. It's amazing that some people think that that's asking a lot."
""

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025
Since scott is probably afraid that the all knowing Rush Limbaugh in the republican sky would notice if he read from the Rolling Stone.

"""FREE MONEY. Ordinary people have to borrow their money at market rates. Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon get billions of dollars for free, from the Federal Reserve. They borrow at zero and lend the same money back to the government at two or three percent, a valuable public service otherwise known as "standing in the middle and taking a gigantic cut when the government decides to lend money to itself."

Or the banks borrow billions at zero and lend mortgages to us at four percent, or credit cards at twenty or twenty-five percent. This is essentially an official government license to be rich, handed out at the expense of prudent ordinary citizens, who now no longer receive much interest on their CDs or other saved income. It is virtually impossible to not make money in banking when you have unlimited access to free money, especially when the government keeps buying its own cash back from you at market rates.

Your average chimpanzee couldn't **ck up that business plan, which makes it all the more incredible that most of the too-big-to-fail banks are nonetheless still functionally insolvent, and dependent upon bailouts and phony accounting to stay above water. Where do the protesters go to sign up for their interest-free billion-dollar loans?""
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Preoccupied at my office.

Hey the Preoccupied Wall Street and the Tea Party are very similar. Both groups have a majority of people who have a very loose grip on reality.

President Obama is a socialist. So I have decided to preoccupy my office. I will sit in here until the management of my company meets my demands. I will not leave the office therefore I will be defecating / ****ing and doing some drugs in here. I will also shave my balls and get a Mohawk. I already have my Don’t tread on me flags flying and Also a flag with a AR15 pictured with the words come and take it. I am not leaving until they meet my demands. This aggression will not stand man!
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Hey the Preoccupied Wall Street and the Tea Party are very similar. Both groups have a majority of people who have a very loose grip on reality.

President Obama is a socialist. So I have decided to preoccupy my office. I will sit in here until the management of my company meets my demands. I will not leave the office therefore I will be defecating / ****ing and doing some drugs in here. I will also shave my balls and get a Mohawk. I already have my Don’t tread on me flags flying and Also a flag with a AR15 pictured with the words come and take it. I am not leaving until they meet my demands. This aggression will not stand man!
Is your office in a trailor?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
redtreviso said:
Is your office in a trailor?
No it is not in a "trailor". Not even a modular "trailor".

I just cooked some fish in here at my office. Everyone here at the office is mad about it / ****ed off. Especially Gina in accounting.......she has had that fish in that bowl on her desk for about 2 years now.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
So, I take it you've not read the book but you'll go ahead with the racism accusation anyways. Got it.
Oh I don't think Malkin is a racist just because of this book, although I don't for a second doubt that she defends internment during WWII solely as a way of justifying racial profiling and because she thinks it's an option for Arab and Muslim Americans.

For example, I also think she's racist because normally, non-racist people aren't friends with founders of white supremacist organizations or approve of their articles being posted on their website or employ one of their members as an immigration blogger or have the org on their blogroll. And also for example, normally, non-racist people don't agree with and link to articles written by racists like oh let's pick one say Steve Sailer.

I find it odd that you and others are very willing to paint everyone (or most) as 'racist' on the basis of the actions of some of the people attending rally's. You are the one leveling the charge against the Tea Party in general and Malkin in particular.
I said from the beginning that many TP'ers are racist. You have this bad habit of turning everything into broad generalizations - "many" becomes "mostly", "all TP'ers", "conservatives", "Republicans" etc.

But Malkin? Racist.

I'm using the word 'experts' in a pejorative sense for your benefit only.
I know. It's kind of dumb.

You read someone else's opinion regarding, in this case, what amounts to a book review and fire the insidious (or used to be, at least) charge of racism at someone who may not be a racist, but someone who has the balls to tackle a tricky subject with a view or conclusion that may differ from yours.
Sorry did I not make myself clear?

Michelle Malkin is racist.

That better?

Right. And all of that was addressed, analyzed, and taken apart in Mueller's article, piece by piece.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
VeloCity said:
I said from the beginning that many TP'ers are racist. You have this bad habit of turning everything into broad generalizations - "many" becomes "mostly", "all TP'ers", "conservatives", "Republicans" etc.
I'll do it.. All Republicans are racists.. It is so seldom untrue it can be used as a fact.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Oh I don't think Malkin is a racist just because of this book, although I don't for a second doubt that she defends internment during WWII solely as a way of justifying racial profiling and because she thinks it's an option for Arab and Muslim Americans.

For example, I also think she's racist because normally, non-racist people aren't friends with founders of white supremacist organizations or approve of their articles being posted on their website or employ one of their members as an immigration blogger or have the org on their blogroll. And also for example, normally, non-racist people don't agree with and link to articles written by racists like oh let's pick one say Steve Sailer.

I said from the beginning that many TP'ers are racist. You have this bad habit of turning everything into broad generalizations - "many" becomes "mostly", "all TP'ers", "conservatives", "Republicans" etc.

But Malkin? Racist.

I know. It's kind of dumb.

Sorry did I not make myself clear?

Michelle Malkin is racist.

That better?

Right. And all of that was addressed, analyzed, and taken apart in Mueller's article, piece by piece.
Oh I don't think Malkin is a racist just because of this book, although I don't for a second doubt that she defends internment during WWII solely as a way of justifying racial profiling and because she thinks it's an option for Arab and Muslim Americans.
I stated earlier that You don't know what being a racist actually means. I stand by that.


For example, I also think she's racist because normally, non-racist people aren't friends with founders of white supremacist organizations or approve of their articles being posted on their website or employ one of their members as an immigration blogger or have the org on their blogroll. And also for example, normally, non-racist people don't agree with and link to articles written by racists like oh let's pick one say Steve Sailer.
Do you see that when you accuse others of racism it lacks credibility? Care to guess why this is so?

I said from the beginning that many TP'ers are racist. You have this bad habit of turning everything into broad generalizations - "many" becomes "mostly", "all TP'ers", "conservatives", "Republicans" etc.
My bad habit is using what you write to point out your foolishness. So we at least agree that I have a bad habit.

Michelle Malkin is racist.
The bigger your font the more impressive you become. This is well known on the interwebz.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""Michelle Malkin is being paid from many different fronts : think tanks for her books, advertising for her blogs, Fox News for her appearances, Knight-Ridder for her syndicated column, to prove that if she repeats racist speech, it is not hate speech at all but a political opinion. ""

""Why not just turn Fox News into what it really is, a race-baiter's dream machine?""

http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/the_real_story_behind_foxs_obama_baby_mama_michell
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Some random leftist blogger calling a conservative a racist. OMG. That's, like, sooooo impressive.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Domodedovo bombing suspects shot in Turkey

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-links-chechens-shot-in-turkey-to-bombing/446379.html

Two Chechens shot dead in Turkey last month are suspected of involvement in a January suicide bombing at Moscow's Domodedovo Airport that killed 37 people, investigators said Wednesday.

Berg-Hadj Musayev, Zaurbek Amriyev and Rustam Altemirov were shot dead on Sept. 16 in a parking lot in Istanbul, in a killing that was blamed on Russian special services by a Turkish-based support group for refugees from the Caucasus.
The three Chechens were shot dead by 11 bullets fired from a pistol fitted with a silencer, Turkish media reported.

While Vladimir Putin was president, 2006 amendments to federal legislation gave the president the right to order special forces to hunt down suspected "terrorists" abroad.

Putin, now prime minister but seeking a return to the presidency in March, asked for such rights after four Russian diplomats were killed in Iraq.

Russian intelligence has been implicated in a series of killings abroad in recent years, including the 2004 murder of former Chechen rebel Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev in Qatar and the 2006 poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ok, It's difficult to take this guy seriously, but I had to laugh at this. Very typical of the left....

Michael Moore: I'm Not The 1%

"No, I'm not. I'm not," Michael Moore said to Piers Morgan after the CNN host asked him to admit that he was in the "one-percent."

"How could I be in the 1%. Listen, I do really well. I do well. But, what's the point though?" Moore said.

"Even though I do well, that I don't associate myself with those who do well. I am devoting my life to those who have less and who've been crapped upon by the system."
Now, if this D-bag had said, "I do really well and give back nearly everything to those who've crapped upon by the system"... at least one could respect that.

But no. He's a wealthy guy who rails against the very system that allowed for his success. How nice.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/26/michael_moore_im_not_the_1.html
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
What was the population when you were born?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

When I was born, I was the:5,326,040,655th person alive on Earth and
80,403,571,121st person to have lived since history began

Indian statistics
Every hour, there are:
3,113 Births 1,114 Deaths -68 Immigrants
Average yearly growth
+1.4%

Life expectancy 62.8 Male average

POPULATION 1230317918 (keeps increasing around every two seconds)

297 people = the amount the population has grown while you've been on this site

How the number is calculated.
Both numbers have been calculated using UN Population Division figures. The first is an estimate of how many people were alive on your date of birth. It is one possible value based on global population figures and estimates of growth rates over time. Data before 1950 is less accurate than figures after that date. The second number includes calculations based on the methodology of scholar Carl Haub, who estimated how many people had been alive since 50,000 B.C. His calculation has been amended by the UN to include additional points in time.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ok, It's difficult to take this guy seriously, but I had to laugh at this. Very typical of the left....

Michael Moore: I'm Not The 1%



Now, if this D-bag had said, "I do really well and give back nearly everything to those who've crapped upon by the system"... at least one could respect that.

But no. He's a wealthy guy who rails against the very system that allowed for his success. How nice.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/26/michael_moore_im_not_the_1.html
Awww scott doesn't like Michael Moore....Did Michael Moore insult your little dubya?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I think it already looks different. It was indeed started as a grass roots movement. Now, at least in a few towns, it's dominated by squatters, hipsters and fringe idiots. No, not every city, but here's an example.

Can't keep up with the rest of the thread.
Part of that news article says that there are a large number of mental health issues with these Protesters. I said it before that this is a very preoccupied bunch.

hey If you're ever unsure about how much cocaine people did in the 80s, think about this - Glenn Close was considered a sex symbol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY