Muslims

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Smitty-48 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:14 pm

I have no quarrel with Nelson Mandela, for engaging in assymetrical warfare, collective and individual self defence, from a tyrannical republic. Nelson Mandela, did not attack the House of Windsor, and in fact, is a Companion to the Order of Canada. :salutes:

I have no quarrel with the rich getting richer, as I see no particlar utility, in the confiscation of private wealth for its own sake; aegrescit medendo.

As to providing free milk to children, that is not the role of the state, if the state is providing free milk to children, something has gone off the rails, barring emergency and/or war measures, a stop should be put to that, forthwith.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
DrYouth
Posts: 4050
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:13 pm
Location: Canadastan

Re: Muslims

Post by DrYouth » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:27 pm

Smitty-48 wrote:As to providing free milk to children, that is not the role of the state, if the state is providing free milk to children, something has gone off the rails, barring emergency and/or war measures, a stop should be put to that, forthwith.
THE CHILDREN SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR MILK
Deep down tho, I still thirst to kill you and eat you. Ultra Chimp can't help it.. - Smitty

User avatar
TheReal_ND
Posts: 26030
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Muslims

Post by TheReal_ND » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:29 pm

How many times have I told you not to use my colors?

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Smitty-48 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:36 pm

DrYouth wrote:
Smitty-48 wrote:As to providing free milk to children, that is not the role of the state, if the state is providing free milk to children, something has gone off the rails, barring emergency and/or war measures, a stop should be put to that, forthwith.
THE CHILDREN SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR MILK

The children, are the responsibility of their parents, if their parents are unable to provide for them, and I am forced to provide for their children by confiscation of my private wealth, their children should be seized, state raised, and then conscripted into the military until such time as they have earned their keep.

Moreover, milk is not even good for you, you fat bodied little brats, if you're thirsty, drink water from the tap, which, the state should and will provide for you, although, your parents will have to pay their water bills, otherwise, it's off to the state run work farm for you, my little dearies, mwahahahaha.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18715
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Montegriffo » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:45 pm

Smitty-48 wrote:I have no quarrel with Nelson Mandela, for engaging in assymetrical warfare, collective and individual self defence, from a tyrannical republic. Nelson Mandela, did not attack the House of Windsor, and in fact, is a Companion to the Order of Canada. :salutes:

I have no quarrel with the rich getting richer, as I see no particlar utility, in the confiscation of private wealth for its own sake; aegrescit medendo.

As to providing free milk to children, that is not the role of the state, if the state is providing free milk to children, something has gone off the rails, barring emergency and/or war measures, a stop should be put to that, forthwith.
The free milk was a by-product of the common agricultural policy which had produced the so called milk lakes and butter mountains by guaranteeing farmers could sell all they could produce. It cost very little and ensured good calcium intake for us little kiddies. Plus we got an extra break to drink the cute little 1/3 pint bottles. It was just a sign of how cold hearted and ruthless she could be.

Image

Image
Last edited by Montegriffo on Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Smitty-48 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:52 pm

Montegriffo wrote:The free milk was a by-product of the common agricultural policy which had produced the so called milk lakes and butter mountains by guaranteeing farmers could sell all they could produce. It cost very little and ensured good calcium intake for us little kiddies. Plus we got an extra break to drink the cute little 1/3 pint bottles. It as just a sign of how cold hearted and ruthless she could be.
I am firmly against supply management as well, state intervention to create surpluses which then collapses the market for that product, forcing more state intervention to prop up the producers, forcing more state intervention to prop up the producers, etcetera ad nauseum, is of course nonsense, those who advocate seizing my private wealth for such schemes, and refuse to surrender the way when such schemes are rightly declined, should of course be shot, after fair warning, and perhaps a couple of whacks upside the head with the riot batons.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18715
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Montegriffo » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:08 pm

I agree, but the policy was set up as a result of the food shortages during WWII and was still producing all that milk and making farmers rich so why not give it to the kiddies to ensure good bone growth?
So much over production of wine was going on that eventually they started using it as anti-freeze for the roads.
Nowadays small farmers are going broke and kiddies drink Red Bull instead.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Smitty-48 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:19 pm

Montegriffo wrote:I agree, but the policy was set up as a result of the food shortages during WWII and was still producing all that milk and making farmers rich so why not give it to the kiddies to ensure good bone growth?
Because by 1979 the policies set to fight World War Two, had rendered the British economy into a disaster area, and it was well past time to put a stop to those war measures, since that war had been over for 34 years, and in fact, those policies had long since passed the threshold of dimishing returns, breaking out into the plains of counterproductive debilitation and decay.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18715
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Montegriffo » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:22 pm

one for Nuke,

Image

and one for StA

Image

And now I'll stop hijacking this thread

Image
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18715
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Muslims

Post by Montegriffo » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:27 pm

Smitty-48 wrote:
Montegriffo wrote:I agree, but the policy was set up as a result of the food shortages during WWII and was still producing all that milk and making farmers rich so why not give it to the kiddies to ensure good bone growth?
Because by 1979 the policies set to fight World War Two, had rendered the British economy into a disaster area, and it was well past time to put a stop to those war measures, since that war had been over for 34 years, and in fact, those policies had long since passed the threshold of dimishing returns, breaking out into the plains of counterproductive debilitation and decay.
Well the French were guiding the Common Market policies and the CAP (which came after the war) and Britain had little say in it so why not let the kiddies have the milk rather than wasting it?

Maggie did curb some of the excesses of the Common Market and I applauded her for it.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image