Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > Texas > Austin > The Sandbox - Austin
test
The Sandbox - Austin The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 279
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163254
Yssup Rider60968
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48657
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42593
CryptKicker37218
The_Waco_Kid37018
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-2011, 09:28 PM   #46
DRorchia
Valued Poster
 
DRorchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 20, 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider View Post
You got that right amigo!

Hurry home safely!
Thanks, appreciate it!
DRorchia is offline   Quote
Old 02-13-2011, 02:12 PM   #47
theaustinescorts
Pending Age Verification
 
Join Date: Jan 10, 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,249
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

Mubarak did not leave voluntarily.

Mubarak was ousted in a military coup by the Egyptian army.

If it were not for the Egyptian army the crowds in Cairo and Alexandria would still be there and so would Mubarak. The Egyptian army took a long time to come around to supporting public opinion and foreign pressure. Now we'll see what happens.


There's crushing poverty in every country in the middle east...big deal. The fact that someone would go to Iraq and witness the poverty there and then blame it on Saddam Hussein is absurd. If you go to the World Bank or IMF measures such as the Physical Quality of Life Index [or any other such fact-based economic measures] you will see that under baath rule that conditions in Iraq improved dramatically, particularly when compared to Iraq's neighbors.

Now DTorchia let's not make things personal here. I believe that you are a sincere and well-meaning person who's doing what you think is best, so I wish you would extend to me the same courtesy.

You apparantly are offended by my views, and the fact that I criticize American policy. I criticize everyone's policy when they commit aggression, including Saddam in 1980 and 1990. I am not a pacifist by any means. I strongly believe that any time someone's home or country is attacked from outside that the people living there should resist with any force or violence they can muster.

I believe that it is NEVER justified to invade or attack someone else's country...NEVER.

The difference between me and yourself is that you're gullable such that you will believe any argument your government makes to you to seek to justify why they are attacking and invading other people's countries.

I don't believe any of it.

I don't believe Abraham Lincoln's arguments why the south "had to be" invaded, destroyed, and brought to their knees... He did that because he liked the idea of it.

I don't believe Hitler when he said that Germany "had to" invade Poland... He did that because he thought it was a cool idea.

I don't believe the Kaiser when he said in 1914 that Germany "had to" invade Belgium and France... He did that because he thought it was the safest thing to do.

I don't believe that the US "had to" invade Germany in 1944 after they were already driven from all the countries they had occupied... We did it because it was what we wanted to do.

And I certainly don't believe that the US "had to" attack Iraq in 2003 for any reason AT ALL...

You however DTorchia are willing to believe any of these pretexts as long as it is your government saying these things. You are a very sincere but gullable person who doesn't want to believe that your government is wrong, or that you could be the bad guy in any of these aggressive situations.

Patriotism and nationalism is one thing, but gullability is another...

I do nonetheless honor your sincerity and good intentions.
theaustinescorts is offline   Quote
Old 02-13-2011, 02:45 PM   #48
Abc123ddd
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 31, 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 22
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theaustinescorts View Post
I don't believe Abraham Lincoln's arguments why the south "had to be" invaded, destroyed, and brought to their knees... He did that because he liked the idea of it.
You should take a moment to brush up on your history because that statement is just a little off base....
Abc123ddd is offline   Quote
Old 02-13-2011, 03:07 PM   #49
theaustinescorts
Pending Age Verification
 
Join Date: Jan 10, 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,249
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

Lincoln sent armies into the south to destroy their economies and free slaves in certain states but not others. Then once the south was defeated he moved to free all the slaves and give them the right to vote.

This is of course exactly the opposite of what he said his goals were up until the very end of the war, before he started winning it...

Once he start winning he un-masked himself as being the abolishionist revolutionary everyone in the south claimed he was in the election of 1860. It was their reason for seccession - and they turned out to be right about him.

Lincoln broke every law and became a dictator in his conduct of the war, and everything he did to free the slaves [including the passage of the 13th Amendment] was in direct violation of all statutes and court rulings. If anyone in the north openly criticized his war policy he would have them thrown in jail and accused of "sedition." It was amazing that the election of 1864 even happened under such circumstances where people were afraid to speak out against the war.
The only recourse the people of the north had was sometimes to riot in opposition to the draft.

He was a disciple of John Brown. As soon as he saw the opportunity to destroy the economic/social system of the south [which he despised] he jumped at the chance. Then he re-framed the purpose of the war from preserving the Union to ending slavery, which he could never have gotten away with earlier so HE LIED.
theaustinescorts is offline   Quote
Old 02-13-2011, 05:08 PM   #50
Abc123ddd
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 31, 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 22
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theaustinescorts View Post
Lincoln.
I might agree with you in general more than you would realize now, but on this I disagree. I believe Lincoln's struggle was to maintain the union. His enemy was not the south, it was the bankers. I'm going to copy and paste in a different perspective.

"In the years following Independence, a close business relationship had developed between the cotton growing aristocracy in the South and the cotton manufacturers in England. The European bankers decided that this business connection was America's Achilles Heel, the door through which the young American Republic could be successfully attacked and overcome. The Illustrated University History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents. These conspired with local politicians to work against the best interests of the United States. Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860. Within weeks another six states joined the conspiracy against the Union, and broke away to form the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as President.
The plotters raided armies, seized forts, arsenals, mints and other Union property. Even members of President Buchanan's Cabinet conspired to destroy the Union by damaging the public credit and working to bankrupt the nation. Buchanan claimed to deplore secession but took no steps to check it, even when a U.S. ship was fired upon by South Carolina shore batteries.
Shortly thereafter Abraham Lincoln became President, being inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Lincoln immediately ordered a blockade on Southern ports, to cut off supplies that were pouring in from Europe. The 'official' date for the start of the Civil War is given as April 12, 1861, when Fort Sumter in South Carolina was bombarded by the Confederates, but it obviously began at a much earlier date.
In December, 1861, large numbers of European Troops (British, French and Spanish) poured into Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, together with widespread European aid to the Confederacy strongly indicated that the Crown was preparing to enter the war. The outlook for the North, and the future of the Union, was bleak indeed.
In this hour of extreme crisis, Lincoln appealed to the Crown's perennial enemy, Russia, for assistance. When the envelope containing Lincoln's urgent appeal was given to Czar Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: "Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain."
Unannounced, a Russian fleet under Admiral Liviski, steamed into New York harbor on September 24, 1863, and anchored there, The Russian Pacific fleet, under Admiral Popov, arrived in San Francisco on October 12. Of this Russian act, Gideon Wells said: "They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long enough to turn the tide for the North" (Empire of "The City," p. 90).
History reveals that the Rothschilds were heavily involved in financing both sides in the Civil War. Lincoln put a damper on their activities when, in 1862 and 1863, he refused to pay the exorbitant rates of interest demanded by the Rothschilds and issued constitutionally-authorized, interest free United States notes. For this and other acts of patriotism Lincoln was shot down in cold-blood by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, just five days after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.
Booth's grand-daughter, Izola Forrester, states in This One Mad Act that Lincoln's assassin had been in close contact with mysterious Europeans prior to the slaying, and had made at least one trip to Europe. Following the killing, Booth was whisked away to safety by members of the Knights of the Golden Circle. According to the author, Booth lived for many years following his disappearance."


Keep in mind Lincoln passed the national banking act as a compromise with the bankers to increase the money supply enough to finance the war. As mentioned, after the bankers gained some form of power and the north won the war Lincoln was quickly assasinated. After that the bankers and the at the time current treasury secretary McCulloch de-monetized silver and reduced the overall money supply in America by what ended up to be 80% at the end. A depression ensued because of this sharp contraction and the bankers were free to consolidate and buy up America for pennies on the dollar.
Abc123ddd is offline   Quote
Old 02-13-2011, 09:40 PM   #51
DRorchia
Valued Poster
 
DRorchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 20, 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theaustinescorts View Post
Mubarak did not leave voluntarily.

Mubarak was ousted in a military coup by the Egyptian army.

If it were not for the Egyptian army the crowds in Cairo and Alexandria would still be there and so would Mubarak. The Egyptian army took a long time to come around to supporting public opinion and foreign pressure. Now we'll see what happens.


There's crushing poverty in every country in the middle east...big deal. The fact that someone would go to Iraq and witness the poverty there and then blame it on Saddam Hussein is absurd. If you go to the World Bank or IMF measures such as the Physical Quality of Life Index [or any other such fact-based economic measures] you will see that under baath rule that conditions in Iraq improved dramatically, particularly when compared to Iraq's neighbors.

Now DTorchia let's not make things personal here. I believe that you are a sincere and well-meaning person who's doing what you think is best, so I wish you would extend to me the same courtesy.

You apparantly are offended by my views, and the fact that I criticize American policy. I criticize everyone's policy when they commit aggression, including Saddam in 1980 and 1990. I am not a pacifist by any means. I strongly believe that any time someone's home or country is attacked from outside that the people living there should resist with any force or violence they can muster.

I believe that it is NEVER justified to invade or attack someone else's country...NEVER.

The difference between me and yourself is that you're gullable such that you will believe any argument your government makes to you to seek to justify why they are attacking and invading other people's countries.

I don't believe any of it.

I don't believe Abraham Lincoln's arguments why the south "had to be" invaded, destroyed, and brought to their knees... He did that because he liked the idea of it.

I don't believe Hitler when he said that Germany "had to" invade Poland... He did that because he thought it was a cool idea.

I don't believe the Kaiser when he said in 1914 that Germany "had to" invade Belgium and France... He did that because he thought it was the safest thing to do.

I don't believe that the US "had to" invade Germany in 1944 after they were already driven from all the countries they had occupied... We did it because it was what we wanted to do.

And I certainly don't believe that the US "had to" attack Iraq in 2003 for any reason AT ALL...

You however DTorchia are willing to believe any of these pretexts as long as it is your government saying these things. You are a very sincere but gullable person who doesn't want to believe that your government is wrong, or that you could be the bad guy in any of these aggressive situations.

Patriotism and nationalism is one thing, but gullability is another...

I do nonetheless honor your sincerity and good intentions.
O.k., I'm gullible. . My actions or service have never been based on what my "government" tells me. My interpretation of history and my forming of opinions on such comes from studying multiple sources, never just one. My service was and is voluntary in what I believe is in the best interest of my country, my family and myself.
DRorchia is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved