Smoke another bowl, and simmer down.uk-anubis-uk wrote:
O yeah and i remember now America only came and helped in the War because YOU got attacked by Japan!!!!!!!
Read this, learn something
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Read this, learn something
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Please , let me ask you about serfdom and your history. This sounds pretty close to a slave to me.uk-anubis-uk wrote:
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
A serf could not leave the land without the landlords permission, nor could he marry off his daughters unless the lord allowed it. Perhaps worst of all, serfs could not petition the courts for relief from abuse they might receive from their lord. Serfs had to give a large chunk of their crop to the overlord, contribute free labor and pay fees for a long list of items.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-03 11:39:54)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Technically thats only indentured servitude.Kmarion wrote:
Please , let me ask you about serfdom and your history. This sounds pretty close to a slave to me.uk-anubis-uk wrote:
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
A serf could not leave the land without the landlords permission, nor could he marry off his daughters unless the lord allowed it. Perhaps worst of all, serfs could not petition the courts for relief from abuse they might receive from their lord. Serfs had to give a large chunk of their crop to the overlord, contribute free labor and pay fees for a long list of items.
Uh yea sure, whatever you wan't to call it.jonsimon wrote:
Technically thats only indentured servitude.Kmarion wrote:
Please , let me ask you about serfdom and your history. This sounds pretty close to a slave to me.uk-anubis-uk wrote:
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
A serf could not leave the land without the landlords permission, nor could he marry off his daughters unless the lord allowed it. Perhaps worst of all, serfs could not petition the courts for relief from abuse they might receive from their lord. Serfs had to give a large chunk of their crop to the overlord, contribute free labor and pay fees for a long list of items.
And what is the techinical term for this.
1381 Peasants Revolt, South East England, 50,100,000 rise, 1500 are executed by crown.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-03 11:48:02)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
thier own tribal leaders sold their people into slavery, so technically, the africans started the slave trade!!!!uk-anubis-uk wrote:
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
America started the Slave Trade!!!!
shhhh.........(but the europeans had slaves first)
America started the slave trade, wtf??? Slave trading existed long before America existed, maybe even before recorded history. Egyptians sold Nubian slaves, Romans sold slaves of all sorts, and just about any other empire in history has enslaved and sold slaves.
And serfdom, indentured servants and slavery are all quite different, get your facts straight. They are all hardships, but are different.
And serfdom, indentured servants and slavery are all quite different, get your facts straight. They are all hardships, but are different.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
It was pretty funny hearing it tho..lolEVieira wrote:
America started the slave trade, wtf??? Slave trading existed long before America existed, maybe even before recorded history. Egyptians sold Nubian slaves, Romans sold slaves of all sorts, and just about any other empire in history has enslaved and sold slaves.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol i think your figuers are wrong, i some how doubt england had 50 million ppl in 1381 seeing as we only have 64 million in our country now. If england had 50 million back then i can tell you that we would have conquered even more of the world.Kmarion wrote:
Uh yea sure, whatever you wan't to call it.jonsimon wrote:
Technically thats only indentured servitude.Kmarion wrote:
Please , let me ask you about serfdom and your history. This sounds pretty close to a slave to me.
A serf could not leave the land without the landlords permission, nor could he marry off his daughters unless the lord allowed it. Perhaps worst of all, serfs could not petition the courts for relief from abuse they might receive from their lord. Serfs had to give a large chunk of their crop to the overlord, contribute free labor and pay fees for a long list of items.
And what is the techinical term for this.
1381 Peasants Revolt, South East England, 50,100,000 rise, 1500 are executed by crown.
lol exactly right, that other guy is an idiot, i think maybe he means Americans gave slaves freedom last, but im not entirely sure that is true either, i dont know much about the slave trade.EVieira wrote:
America started the slave trade, wtf??? Slave trading existed long before America existed, maybe even before recorded history. Egyptians sold Nubian slaves, Romans sold slaves of all sorts, and just about any other empire in history has enslaved and sold slaves.
And serfdom, indentured servants and slavery are all quite different, get your facts straight. They are all hardships, but are different.
lol.. wow I'd say soVilham wrote:
lol i think your figuers are wrong, i some how doubt england had 50 million ppl in 1381 seeing as we only have 64 million in our country now. If england had 50 million back then i can tell you that we would have conquered even more of the world.
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/slavery.htm
Is the link .
But you get the point.
I think it's closer to 20,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler
but still 1,500 of their followers, they were hanged without trial
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-03 13:21:30)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I dont think Americans invented the Internet - i think a Russian Physisicist did
Nope. Sorry man, you worked for 14 years making Japanese cars. It doesn't matter if the raw materials are 100% American, you are assembling a Japanese car. In another words, the Japanes are selling back to you your own parts, assembled in a car, with a hefty profit. But hey, thats globalization for ya!|AIA| DAS wrote:
Here is a question for you. We both know where Honda and Toyota started, but if they buid cars in the US with a parts content of 75% US parts or better... Doesn't that technically make it a American car?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
This guy is right, the Japanese designed the car that is the crucial point, without the design there is no car!EVieira wrote:
Nope. Sorry man, you worked for 14 years making Japanese cars. It doesn't matter if the raw materials are 100% American, you are assembling a Japanese car. In another words, the Japanes are selling back to you your own parts, assembled in a car, with a hefty profit. But hey, thats globalization for ya!|AIA| DAS wrote:
Here is a question for you. We both know where Honda and Toyota started, but if they buid cars in the US with a parts content of 75% US parts or better... Doesn't that technically make it a American car?
The majority of these cars are designed by engineers for American Honda Motors in Torrence California...At this point the only thing on the car still designed in Japan is the Logo...Vilham wrote:
This guy is right, the Japanese designed the car that is the crucial point, without the design there is no car!EVieira wrote:
Nope. Sorry man, you worked for 14 years making Japanese cars. It doesn't matter if the raw materials are 100% American, you are assembling a Japanese car. In another words, the Japanes are selling back to you your own parts, assembled in a car, with a hefty profit. But hey, thats globalization for ya!|AIA| DAS wrote:
Here is a question for you. We both know where Honda and Toyota started, but if they buid cars in the US with a parts content of 75% US parts or better... Doesn't that technically make it a American car?
Well thats good to know however back to the original point... Honda arent even a great car make anyway, i can think of atleast 10 betters.|AIA| DAS wrote:
The majority of these cars are designed by engineers for American Honda Motors in Torrence California...At this point the only thing on the car still designed in Japan is the Logo...Vilham wrote:
This guy is right, the Japanese designed the car that is the crucial point, without the design there is no car!EVieira wrote:
Nope. Sorry man, you worked for 14 years making Japanese cars. It doesn't matter if the raw materials are 100% American, you are assembling a Japanese car. In another words, the Japanes are selling back to you your own parts, assembled in a car, with a hefty profit. But hey, thats globalization for ya!
Well Ok, now you're just pissin on my shoes...The best selling (Consumer Owned) car in America is the Honda Accord. The best selling car (overall Sales) is a Toyota Camry.Vilham wrote:
Well thats good to know however back to the original point... Honda arent even a great car make anyway, i can think of atleast 10 betters.|AIA| DAS wrote:
The majority of these cars are designed by engineers for American Honda Motors in Torrence California...At this point the only thing on the car still designed in Japan is the Logo...Vilham wrote:
This guy is right, the Japanese designed the car that is the crucial point, without the design there is no car!
That shows the Japs are smart, they use their cash to buy the best engineers America has to design cars for them, at their american subsidiary. But in the end, its a Japanese car designed by Americans. And they sure do a great job, I won't trade my Civic nothing except a newer one. And mine was imported from the US.|AIA| DAS wrote:
The majority of these cars are designed by engineers for American Honda Motors in Torrence California...At this point the only thing on the car still designed in Japan is the Logo...Vilham wrote:
This guy is right, the Japanese designed the car that is the crucial point, without the design there is no car!
Last edited by EVieira (2006-08-04 10:03:58)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Jeeps and Harley's
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Im not talking about sales, im talking about GOOD cars. A cheaper car will always have more sales than an expensive one, however that doesnt make it a better car. Thats like saying a Beatle is better than a DB9, which it clearly isn't.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Well Ok, now you're just pissin on my shoes...The best selling (Consumer Owned) car in America is the Honda Accord. The best selling car (overall Sales) is a Toyota Camry.Vilham wrote:
Well thats good to know however back to the original point... Honda arent even a great car make anyway, i can think of atleast 10 betters.|AIA| DAS wrote:
The majority of these cars are designed by engineers for American Honda Motors in Torrence California...At this point the only thing on the car still designed in Japan is the Logo...
Hondas are amazing cars. Perhaps the best on the market. Only competition in quality I can think of would be toyota.Vilham wrote:
Im not talking about sales, im talking about GOOD cars. A cheaper car will always have more sales than an expensive one, however that doesnt make it a better car. Thats like saying a Beatle is better than a DB9, which it clearly isn't.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Well Ok, now you're just pissin on my shoes...The best selling (Consumer Owned) car in America is the Honda Accord. The best selling car (overall Sales) is a Toyota Camry.Vilham wrote:
Well thats good to know however back to the original point... Honda arent even a great car make anyway, i can think of atleast 10 betters.
I understand that Honda has an american Branch, but they are still owned ultimately by Honda Motors and they are a Japenese make.
But by the same token, they weren't property. Their lords had a responsibility to protect them from harm, and provide them with necessities they could not obtain doing their duties (for example, in Russia the lords were responsible for supplying firewood).Kmarion wrote:
Please , let me ask you about serfdom and your history. This sounds pretty close to a slave to me.
A serf could not leave the land without the landlords permission, nor could he marry off his daughters unless the lord allowed it. Perhaps worst of all, serfs could not petition the courts for relief from abuse they might receive from their lord. Serfs had to give a large chunk of their crop to the overlord, contribute free labor and pay fees for a long list of items.
I'm not saying that his statements were accurate in spirit, but your comparison is foolish.
I think you just reinforced my statement... The very definition of a good quality car is a testament to how long it lasts, i.e. how many miles, fewest repairs, etc.etc. A Beatle is MUCH better than a DB9 when it comes to that...Vilham wrote:
Im not talking about sales, im talking about GOOD cars. A cheaper car will always have more sales than an expensive one, however that doesnt make it a better car. Thats like saying a Beatle is better than a DB9, which it clearly isn't.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Well Ok, now you're just pissin on my shoes...The best selling (Consumer Owned) car in America is the Honda Accord. The best selling car (overall Sales) is a Toyota Camry.Vilham wrote:
Well thats good to know however back to the original point... Honda arent even a great car make anyway, i can think of atleast 10 betters.
Last edited by |AIA| DAS (2006-08-05 07:40:31)
That depends. A good racing car can die quick, because the company can afford to trade longevity for performance.
BREAKINGBubbalo wrote:
That depends. A good racing car can die quick, because the company can afford to trade longevity for performance.
NEWSFLASH-----BUBBALO Has A Differing Opinion, And misses the point completely...
*Yawns*
Yes however that isnt performance, which is how a car is measured. Lets put it this way. You have 100,000 pounds and you can buy a car, the choice is the Beatle or a DB9. If you say you would buy the beatle you must be a fool.|AIA| DAS wrote:
I think you just reinforced my statement... The very definition of a good quality car is a testament to how long it lasts, i.e. how many miles, fewest repairs, etc.etc. A Beatle is MUCH better than a DB9 when it comes to that...Vilham wrote:
Im not talking about sales, im talking about GOOD cars. A cheaper car will always have more sales than an expensive one, however that doesnt make it a better car. Thats like saying a Beatle is better than a DB9, which it clearly isn't.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Well Ok, now you're just pissin on my shoes...The best selling (Consumer Owned) car in America is the Honda Accord. The best selling car (overall Sales) is a Toyota Camry.