Dr.Worthless

Monte, I frankly do not wish to discuss any subject matter where one participant believes that a certain population is under-educated by default, not only is it ignorant, its !@#$%^&*anine. By simply typing in "highschool graduation rates" in google, your belief that urban america is more educated than rural america is debunked, so education cannot be a factor in the difference in voting record. Heh, so please, tell me what does make you "smart"? Voting for Kerry? I'm willing to go it alone in this discussion (As I always do on these forums) because it is absolutly !@#$%^&*anine to label someone stupid because they didn't vote for the candidate you support. Its no different than labeling someone stupid because of the color of their skin. You have absolutely no facts to support any claim that "stupid people vote republican, smart people vote democrat". Oh, and Monte, shove it up your !@#$%^&* =). It was a legitimate question in which you answered in your typical offensive, combative way. As with 95% of the things you spew on this forum, you have no factual backing to support what you say.

You are grossly mis-informed. Urban Studies Thats right, Graduation rates for students who attend school in high poverty, racially segregated, and URBAN school districts lag from 15 to 18 percent behind their peers. Graduation rates for Hispanics and African Americans is at 50%, where as caucasians is at 75%. Since you already established for us that rural america is monoculturalistic, (meaning only whites) and the multi-culturalistic areas are all urban, by your definition urban areas are educating the african americans and hispanics, and statistics show you're doing a poor job. Do you have any facts to back up your statements, or are you talking from opinion?

Conversly, why do Urban populations tend to support a more liberal candidate? Its more than amusing that people base intelligence off of who they voted for. Give yourself a pat on the back "Ancient Power" you're smart because you voted for kerry! To bad he lost. Everyone else is dumb because they didn't vote for who you wanted to win.

Goes to show you a sucker is born every day, even if they aren't american.. Way to fall for an urban legend, texas.

roflmfao, look at his face.

Wealthy taxpayers did get huge benefits from the Bush tax cuts, but on average they still pay far higher rates than middle-income salaried workers. Estimates by the Tax Policy Center , for example, show that the average federal income-tax rate for persons with income of more than $1 million per year will decline to just under 26% by the time the cuts take full effect in 2006. That’s a rate more than two-and-a-half times higher than for the teachers, secretaries and cops whose incomes fall between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, whose average rate will fall to less than 9 percent. Source Factcheck.org The rich still pay far more in taxes $$ wise. We shouldn't be concerned with a %, because the government doesn't run on %, they run on cold hard cash. If you consider #'s, the rich carry the biggest burden, which they always have.

I'll throw in my two cents. None of us were alive at the time, so no one can say for certain exactly what the war was over, but I'm sure its was a combination of all of these issues and some. Early in the US's history the center of politics is where the importance was. All the cash was in the N/E around the capital. All the power players were there, everything was there. The south played second fiddle to the whims of the n/e, because they had all the power. Surely the power players in the south didn't appreciate this. Slavery was all over america, the difference was Slavery was key to the south's economy, where as the north was slowly becoming industrialized. I'd put the rankings around 1.) Economic/social differences 2.) Slavery Wars a dynamic thing, and no one being in the time period, we may never know exactly what all took place.

The older the berry, the sweeter the juice.

Oh.. the american civil war was over an election huh? roflmfao Wow, you've beat me into submission with your incredible knowledge of history.

Yes, the "bible belt" is in the south, but in the last presidency people voted for the person who's ideals best fit theirs. For many christian southerners (and christians in general) GW had a set of ideals that best fit theirs, so they voted for him. For alot of other people, Kerry had a set of ideals that best fit them, so they voted for him. It isn't rocket science, what is rocket science is trying to figure out wtf is everyone problem after the person they wanted elected didn't get elected, before the election it was !@#$%^&*pointfingerfest 2000, now its !@#$%^&*pointfingerfest 2004, and if a democrat (or whoever the "smart" people wants elected) doesn't get elected in 2008, it'll be !@#$%^&*pointfingerfest all over again, sadly enough. Akai, cite me instances where a large scale civil war was launched simply over an election, I'm curious.

roflmfao, Akai, only a 16 year old would actually talk about a CIVIL WAR starting because the person you wanted for president wasn't elected. Wait, and you're supposed to represent the "Smart" people from the "blue" states? Wow....

So I like wrestling, oh noes I guess that makes me a redneck, what ever will I do!? Again, I'm happy to accept the -*BAD WORD*-le of redneck, if you accept the -*BAD WORD*-le of !@#$%^&*hole =)

Oh my that is funny, (I'm from Arkansas..) Actually, you guys continue to laugh it up on the internet, we'll continue to laugh it up in the house, senate, supreme court, and presidency. I'll also comment how pathetic this thread is. That is all.

Ok thats it.. I say we elect hulk hogan as our next president. Whatcha gonna do Europe, when the HULKSTER COMES FOR YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU HULKAMANIA SWEEPING THE GLOBE WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

If only IQ was an actual measurement of how "smart" a person was.... Anywho, seriously, I wanna see some action !@#$%^&*it, if you think you're in a country full of idiots, go ahead and join Monte in Canada, or Bacchus in France, since those countries supported kerry they are obviously smarter than the US. I'm sure you'd be happier surrounded by "smart" people, just like yourselves..

Whew, so many !@#$%^&*holes in one forum, its stinkin up the joint!

Heh, I really hope you're joking Akai, really, honestly hope so.

Akai, labeling someone "stupid" for voicing their opinions through a vote infact shows YOUR lack of intelligence.

I'll accept the -*BAD WORD*-le of 'hick' if you accept the one of '!@#$%^&*hole'

Lol, "intelligence" at its finest. "The person I wanted to win didn't win because the majority of everyone else voted for the guy I dont like.. THEY MUST ALL BE STUPID" ROFL. Ever consider you're the stupid one? If you don't like the decisions of the majority, there isn't anything keeping you all from packing up and getting a 1 way ticket to be bacchus's roomie. If you're in a foreign country, there's a reason you arent allowed to vote in the US elections, its the same reason that you're countires are no longer super-powers. Enjoy.

Bush won, so basically the US population sent a giant "!@#$%^&* you" to the world. Don't like it? Tough !@#$%^&*. I couldn't be happier.

Still no justification. If you have one member contributing nearly 1/4'th of the total budget of an organization, and the #2 contributer bumping that to nearly 1/2 (japan with roughly 20% contribution) just because they have the "largest economy", there's no fairness in that. Yeah.. each country pays their portion.. etc etc.. but when one countries portion is 1/4'th of the total budget, and another countries is 1/16'th, and those countries have equal power... I'm sure you can see the problem. The point I was trying to convey monte was that I wouldn't be suprised if countries like France.. who really can't be justified as a super power any longer, are using the only power they have left (the UN) to attempt and influence their political goals, with no interest to the greater good. It isn't.. we should remove France and give Japan their position. No they aren't.. I see what you're saying.. "Since they make less, they are actually giving MORE percentage wise than the US..." Sorry, if one country is giving 5 million, and the other 50 million, I don't care how much of a percentage the 5 million is, the 50 million is 10x more helpful. So wait.. you're against that idea? Surely you don't believe that everyone should just butt out and let countries push their way into world politics by gaining nuclear weapons and hanging them over free countries heads.. Thats whats being accomplished, and I'm more than happy to have my country be the "worlds policeman" European countries needs to butt out of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.. I don't want them being the worlds policeman... I realize thats what a nice majority of people think, but frankly you have no proof beyond theories. When/if America monopolizes oil production in Iraq.. i'll agree with you, up until this point that hasn't happened. huh? Europe as a group has been experiencing terrorism for nearly 600 years, well before the US even existed. With events like the school children massacre in Russia, train bombings in Spain, how can you even make a claim like that? This isn't about "My region has less than your region..." Trust me, if France was to ever do something that the terrorists didn't like, french blood would be spilled on french soil. Hopefully it doesn't take something like that to wake the french people up, but I'm afraid it just might, the French have a long history of needing something catastrophic to occur for them to wake up, much like the US.

I never said France had to.. I've said from the begining that its perfectly legit for France to have differing opinions. But now that the decision is made, we're a year into the engagement, and its in the best interest of every party involved for this thing to work out positivly, why is it France still refuses to participate? To this day they still hold veto power over ANY resolution the US brings to the table. "But worthless.. it was the US that started the war.. not france, why should they help?" At very least.. because we helped them when they were in a war that we didn't create, but they did.. At very least because its in the worlds interest to have a stable Iraq.. AT VERY LEAST because thats what friends do... While I do see your arguement, Monte, what I'm trying to say is.. A stable Iraq is in the interest of the world community. For france to continually refuse to help in the effort is !@#$%^&*anine. Name me a major "peace keeping effort" in the last 20 years that hasn't been spearheaded by the united states. Frankly, the majority of the UN security councle is against the US.. you said it yourself. These countries do not have the power, economically, militarily, or socially, to undermine the United States.. so you better bet your bottom dollar that they would do it using the UN as a front. Of all those resolutions you posted that the US has veto'd.. ive seen a central issue in them being the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Am I suprised? Nope.. after all it took US intervention to prevent the Jews from being absolutly wiped from the face of this earth. European powers could have stopped this from happening when they saw the signs.. instead they tried appeasement. Here's some statistics for you.. The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs. - 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries./1 -- 17.1% of the United Nations Children s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries./1 -- 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance./1 -- 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons./2 -- 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health./2 -- 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country./1 -- 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel. In 2004, the US has contributed 22% of the TOTAL UN BUDGET. France.. 6% Yeah.. the US is an insignifigant member... We're not trying to be the world's policeman.. we're trying to eliminate terrorism. I can really understand why Europe isn't that interested.. they've grown so accustomed to terrorism that they see it as a "nuesance".. much like John Kerry does.. Terrorism is NOT a minor issue. Europeans might be ok living with the possibility of a psycho blowing himself up on their busses, or flying airplanes into their buildings, but I will never see the day where i become accustomed enough that I will learn to just live with it..

There has been rumors of Mcvey having Al-Qaeda ties. The bombing would for sure fit under terrorist attack, however. Please, Don't be an internet grammar policeman.

We're not asking for a blind following, we're asking for support. Its one thing to disagree with the decision.. its another to do what France is doing, which is using the action in Iraq for a political agenda. They arent interested in anything else other than see'ing the US fail.