And the government sinks to a new low...

[Dark Reign]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq....kay/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq.wmd.kay/index.html)

[Pure_Evil]

:hmmm: going to refrain from comment... for now

[Burn the Witch]

Makes you wonder doesn't it. The top weapons inspector, Dr. David Kelly, committed suicide a short time ago over allegations of him leaking information concerning weapons to a BBC reporter....

....I'm tired of pointing fingers, its just a mess.

[JIMINATOR]

yeah, i saw the first line, didn't bother with the rest.
the same old spin garbage coming up when they are caught in a lie.
can you say it? its about oil and money.

[PimpDaddy]

Only gonna say I sure wish Sadam was back in power torturing,maming,raping,gassing,corrupting,bullyin g,murdering....those were the good ol' days weren't they ??

[Pure_Evil]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Jan 29 2004, 05:32 PM
Only gonna say I sure wish Sadam was back in power torturing,maming,raping,gassing,corrupting,bullyin g,murdering....those were the good ol' days weren't they ??
He's gone now right?? So's his familly? Right? and about 2 Americans a day??

When is enough enough? How many Americans died on US soil by Sadaam? We can have over 400 Americans die for the people of Iraq, yet Bin Ladden lives and he was responsable for many American deaths on US soil!!! Yet we wont use the same force for Bin Ladden that we used to save Iraq???

Come on Pimp, this is old.

[Burn the Witch]

Yeah, look, lets learn a lesson from history here. Without looking to offend anyone here, a country will accept democracy when its ready for it. Look, for example, to Weimar Germany in 1918. The Germans did not want democracy in 1918, Royal Imperialism was still extremely popular there and Weimar lasted just over 10 years, none of which were paticularly successful. The result was world war two, which lead to the deaths of millions of Germans, roughly 6.5 Million Jewish and over 20 million Russians.

On the subject of Russia, they were so far behind they didnt even achieve democracy till the 1990's, after Communism lost to US Capitalism. Marx's vision of a stateless society, which, although not parliamentary, was a pure form of democracy, was not concieved, but Lenin and to a far more extreme extent, Stalin took over, and the result was a totalitarian dictatorship.

Now, Saddam had to be removed, that is true, but currently in the East Religious Fundamentalism is at its peak. They are simply not ready for democracy yet. I give it 15 years, tops before any form of democracy in Iraq fails.

[Jesse James]

We are trying to get other countries up and going while we can't find our own a$$. Personally, I am not impressed with this government, it first started out as a search for Bin Laden, but for whatever reason, we went after Saddam instead. :WTF: The only reason we are trying to help Iraq so much is so we can have our oil.

[Burn the Witch]

The only reason we are trying to help Iraq so much is so we can have our oil.

You mean their oil?

[UZI]

And the press says, put your hands on your hip.

And the press says, put you hands on your head.

Press says, put your hands on your chest.

Think for yourself --- Ahhhhh got you. Didn't say the press says!

[Burn the Witch]

Yeah man, its his choice to agree with what the press says, just because the press says the government is bad, it doesnt make it true, but the press (independant press may i add) is integral to democracy as it keeps a high level of scrutiny on all areas of politics.

[PimpDaddy]

Originally posted by Pure_Evil+Jan 29 2004, 06:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pure_Evil @ Jan 29 2004, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PimpDaddy@Jan 29 2004, 05:32 PM
Only gonna say I sure wish Sadam was back in power torturing,maming,raping,gassing,corrupting,bullyin g,murdering....those were the good ol&#39; days weren&#39;t they ??
He&#39;s gone now right?? So&#39;s his familly? Right? and about 2 Americans a day??

When is enough enough? How many Americans died on US soil by Sadaam? We can have over 400 Americans die for the people of Iraq, yet Bin Ladden lives and he was responsable for many American deaths on US soil&#33;&#33;&#33; Yet we wont use the same force for Bin Ladden that we used to save Iraq???

Come on Pimp, this is old. [/b][/quote]
We can&#39;t just pack up and split. I&#39;m not a military analyst, nor am I a politician (thank god) - neither are you Pure, nor anyone in this forum (although there seems to be all sorts of people with answers). Doesn&#39;t anyone understand that the people running this show are not imbiciles (unless you listen to the left). There is a method to their madness and who the he11 knows what it is. I don&#39;t like it either. I agree with Twitch...that whole rotten section of that region will never accept democracy, they&#39;re stuck in the 18th century. Our government will never tell us why they&#39;re doing what they&#39;re doing and there are no easy answers except for those of you who post things like "Bush is an idiot"(wow that&#39;s a good answer) or "We just want their oil" (We coulda HAD their oil after the first Gulf war if we wanted it). If nothing else, I think we are there to show strength in that region...that when we&#39;re attacked (remember 9/11 anyone), or threatened (scumbag Hussein) the U.S. will not cower and run to the worthless U.N. for help. We will stand for what&#39;s right. If we don&#39;t do that, every worthless piece of &#036;hit dictator, despot and imperial ruler will terrorize us. That&#39;s where I&#39;m comin from. I HATE war as much as the next person, but sometimes ya hafta do it.

Flame on

[Dark Reign]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Jan 29 2004, 10:32 PM
Only gonna say I sure wish Sadam was back in power torturing,maming,raping,gassing,corrupting,bullyin g,murdering....those were the good ol&#39; days weren&#39;t they ??
I am happy that we have rid Iraq of Saddam. I truly am. There could have been no other way. And I am glad that we got him.

What disgusts me about these new findings is that there were no weapons of mass destruction. NONE. ZERO. Before the war even started, Bush and the whole White house gang pressed the issue that Saddam had WMD&#39;s. Colin Powell went to the U.N. with "photographic evidence" that there were WMD. They did not say that there "might have" or "could be" WMD, oh no. They said it was clear that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and we needed war.

And so the U.N. sends inspectors over to Iraq, and Saddam let&#39;s them look around. And what do they find? Nothing. But of course, it be typical of the U.S. to be critical of the findings.But even then, public opinon began to sway on the issue.

But ahh, the Bush adminstration has found a new card to press- The Iraqi citizens. Brutalized, tortured, gassed, and pretty much murdered by their own leader, the war shifted to more of a "We need to save the Iraqi&#39;s" slant. I will admit, it was smart. How could you argue about not saving the lives of possibly hundreds, nay thousands, of people from being tortured or murdered.

And so, without even Congress consent, we invade. Hooray&#33; We will show that evil terrorist connected regime who&#39;s boss. and thusly, we roll over Iraq and Saddam flees. Assured they will find WMD as they said from the beggining, we begin the search. Weeks later, nothing. More weeks later, still nothing. Months later, ahh here we go&#33; Labs that "might" have been used to make WMD. Emphesis on the word "might." Zoom forward to a few weeks ago or so, and still nothing AT ALL. No nuclear missles being built, no sarin gas canisters, no ****ing weapons of mass destruction.

So there we are at the state of the union, which conveniently came at the start of the presidental races. Troops are dying say, an average of about 5 a week, but hey that number is decreasing, right? The national debt is soaring, but hey don&#39;t worry about it, it&#39;s the good ole days&#33; We should have enough money for billions more for Iraq, and even billions more for a trip to Mars&#33; (Which I support, but unfortunatly now is not the right time to do it). And so you should trust Bush when he says "Tax cuts"
The terrorists of Iraq are getting stompted, even though were still loking for that critical "Saddam-Osama" link that was also pressed. The grand ole&#39; Patriot Act, which while is poorly working, is taking a nice fat dump on civil liberties, is to expire next year, but ahh what the heck, let&#39;s get it reinstated, because we sure have stopped terrorism using it.

But the one part of that whole collection of empty promises and garbage wasn&#39;t even mentioned. Bush didnt say a THING about the weapons of mass destruction. NOTHING AT ALL. He didnt even have the goddamn balls to admit that he and the adminstration might have been wrong. That is what I just cannot stand.

I don&#39;t care who is in office, whether it is a Republican or Democrat or whatever, but as long as it is not Bush. Anyone but Bush. Or Cheney.
But the sad sad thing is, he will get the office next year, and I doubt that I am the only one afraid that he will **** us over, and leave the country in shambles.

[Dark Reign]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy+Jan 30 2004, 01:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PimpDaddy &#064; Jan 30 2004, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Pure_Evil@Jan 29 2004, 06:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PimpDaddy@Jan 29 2004, 05:32 PM
Only gonna say I sure wish Sadam was back in power torturing,maming,raping,gassing,corrupting,bullyin g,murdering....those were the good ol&#39; days weren&#39;t they ??
He&#39;s gone now right?? So&#39;s his familly? Right? and about 2 Americans a day??

When is enough enough? How many Americans died on US soil by Sadaam? We can have over 400 Americans die for the people of Iraq, yet Bin Ladden lives and he was responsable for many American deaths on US soil&#33;&#33;&#33; Yet we wont use the same force for Bin Ladden that we used to save Iraq???

Come on Pimp, this is old.
We can&#39;t just pack up and split. I&#39;m not a military analyst, nor am I a politician (thank god) - neither are you Pure, nor anyone in this forum (although there seems to be all sorts of people with answers). Doesn&#39;t anyone understand that the people running this show are not imbiciles (unless you listen to the left). There is a method to their madness and who the he11 knows what it is. I don&#39;t like it either. I agree with Twitch...that whole rotten section of that region will never accept democracy, they&#39;re stuck in the 18th century. Our government will never tell us why they&#39;re doing what they&#39;re doing and there are no easy answers except for those of you who post things like "Bush is an idiot"(wow that&#39;s a good answer) or "We just want their oil" (We coulda HAD their oil after the first Gulf war if we wanted it). If nothing else, I think we are there to show strength in that region...that when we&#39;re attacked (remember 9/11 anyone), or threatened (scumbag Hussein) the U.S. will not cower and run to the worthless U.N. for help. We will stand for what&#39;s right. If we don&#39;t do that, every worthless piece of &#036;hit dictator, despot and imperial ruler will terrorize us. That&#39;s where I&#39;m comin from. I HATE war as much as the next person, but sometimes ya hafta do it.

Flame on [/b][/quote]
We can be strong and brave, but not run into every single threat head-on. That&#39;s not courage. That&#39;s just stupid.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that it was good for us to help the Iraqi&#39;s, but if the adminstration is so concerned with helping people under ruthless dictator&#39;s, where is the push for all those other countries ruled under cruel power?

[Dark Reign]

Originally posted by UZI@Jan 30 2004, 12:50 AM
And the press says, put your hands on your hip.

And the press says, put you hands on your head.

Press says, put your hands on your chest.

Think for yourself --- Ahhhhh got you. Didn&#39;t say the press says&#33;
Oh stop blaming it on the press. That&#39;s a terrible excuse. There are plenty of biases on both sides, and it&#39;s dumb to argue that it&#39;s all a liberal bias. Look at the Washington Post, Fox News, New York Times, and more.
The press may not get everything right, but most of the time, they are. They don&#39;t tell you what to think, they present it to you, and let you decide what to make of it, and if you want, you can listen to what they think about it.
Good lord, I&#39;m sick of the constant press bashing.

[PimpDaddy]

We need the press to report, not politicize or omit facts or slant it one way or another. Give us the facts PLEASE &#33;&#33;

[UZI]

The press may not get everything right, but most of the time, they are.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That&#39;s a good one. Tell another joke.

[Dark Reign]

Originally posted by UZI@Jan 30 2004, 01:49 AM

The press may not get everything right, but most of the time, they are.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That&#39;s a good one. Tell another joke.
Wow what a surprise, saying something without even backing it up. Yeah, ok.

But hey opinon is opinon, and your entilted to yours.

[Dark Reign]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Jan 30 2004, 01:32 AM
We need the press to report, not politicize or omit facts or slant it one way or another. Give us the facts PLEASE &#33;&#33;
I concur. There is a place and time for stuff like that, and the news section is not it. But I yet to see such damneding evidence that they cut out facts or make stuff up.
Yes, some do. But the majority of journalists keep to the ethic code.

[UZI]

My data is this. My brother was a journalist. He quit and changed careers because of the BS.

I have been interview more than once. They didn&#39;t get it right.

I have been through media training with my company because I and others are potential interviewees. The training is given by actual jounalist, TV and newspaper. First lesson they teach --- the interviewer is out to make news, not give facts.

Fact. 60 minutes and 20/20 will not sign an agreement to show any of their interviews un-edited. This is why many companies refuse interviews with them including mine.

Wake up. The media is big business and big money. Newspapers (just like the New York Times and others you listed) endorse political candidates. If the story isn&#39;t sensationalized, no one watches and they don&#39;t make money.

What do you think &#39;ratings&#39; are all about.

Weather you like it or not, not a single press person was given access to the intelligence data on Iraq or any other conflict in the last 20 years. Hell, some of the sealed documents from WWII and the cold war are just getting revealed for the first time in the years 2000+. Where do they get information that they published --- "Sources". That&#39;s all you got to go on. That&#39;s pretty weak.

[PimpDaddy]

Originally posted by Dark Reign+Jan 29 2004, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dark Reign @ Jan 29 2004, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PimpDaddy@Jan 30 2004, 01:32 AM
We need the press to report, not politicize or omit facts or slant it one way or another.&nbsp; Give us the facts PLEASE &#33;&#33;
I concur. There is a place and time for stuff like that, and the news section is not it. But I yet to see such damneding evidence that they cut out facts or make stuff up.
Yes, some do. But the majority of journalists keep to the ethic code. [/b][/quote]
How &#39;bout this one Dark.... (Granted this was during the campain of 2000 but you will get the idea)

George Bush comes to town and over 10,000 people show up to cheer him on and show their support. Take a guess at what the headline was ??

25 protesters show up to harrass Bush &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; and the story goes on about the rent-a-protesters.
And I think that most journalists would like to have ethics but they are simply writing what their editors want to see. (Keep in mind that the most recent survey shows 85% of the nations print editors voted democratic in the last election)

I&#39;m sounding so dam political and I hate it. I can&#39;t stand politics but I can&#39;t leave it alone either. Ignorance is bliss. I think I&#39;ll just become ignorant, it&#39;s easier.

[Death-Dude]

Originally posted by UZI@Jan 29 2004, 06:50 PM
And the press says, put your hands on your hip.

And the press says, put you hands on your head.

Press says, put your hands on your chest.

Think for yourself --- Ahhhhh got you. Didn&#39;t say the press says&#33;
Actually, I watched the whole thing live, directly from the horses mouth, and the subsequent comments and questions.

[Jesse James]

Please, the press is one big joke, why I hardly watch or listen to the news, when we caught saddam hussien and where rambeling about it for hours on the news they started to say stuff like we DRAGGED him out of his spider hole, and he FOUGHT back. But about an hour earlier, they said he gave up without a fight. Why did they say that? :WTF: To keep us interested in them, that&#39;s why, just the plain facts please, let the people decide what they want to believe.

[Burn the Witch]

The patriots act is one of the greatest infringements on civil liberties ever, its a disgusting act and even though it may mean well it can be taken advantage of in numerous disgusting ways by people not so scrupulous.

Patriotism, or the purpose of dying in the name of ones country, is essentially an aspect of Nationalism. It certainly doesnt fit with modern Liberalism, although possibly Conservatism which is more to the right of the spectrum it has several aspects in common with. Nationalism itself isnt as such an ideology, its just a more moderate (although not a very apt word for it) form of Fascism. Patriotism is just two steps away from Fascism, remember that.

Bush acted like a child. Someone blew up the World Trade Centers, well boo-hoo. I feel terrible for all the people who died in that tragedy, but Bush, in deciding to go to war, has just lost more American lives. The comments about Bush being stupid are silly, he is President. Do you really think if he was stupid he would be President? If you think Bush, as the leader of the most powerful country in the world is stupid, then how dumb are you?

It is true that originally the plan was to attack Iraq to stop Saddam attacking the US first. Bush, unfortunately missed Ossama, who "claimed" to have been behind the attacks on September 11th. He then went after Saddam. Its hard to see Us foreign policy as little more than a form of neo-colonialism (Chomsky).

I&#39;ll tell you a story, in Britain, half way through WWI, Britain needed help. They enlisted the Arab people to assist us, in return for land. Britain then, in the Balfour (who was a pretty average Prime Minister) Declaration, we promised the same area of land to the Jewish, in the hope that American Jews would pressure America to join the war. It worked, but oh ****&#33; We promised the land to two peoples, both who are mortal enemies&#33; Good job Britain&#33; Now what? A war zone. Where British, American soldiers, and civilians are dying every day.

The fact is the United Nations is there to keep the peace. America is under whatever treaty that prevents it going to war solo. America (and Britain) both broke their promises, and have carried along with this policy of unilateralism. UN law is superior to any other laws of its members, so work it out....to my knowledge the UN does not subscribe to a policy of "subsidiarity".

However hard it is for us to understand, people may actually have been happier in Iraq under Saddam. Again I stress Religious Fundamentalism is far more rife in the East than any form of Liberal Democracy. No democracy forced upon its people has ever worked (again I stress, Tsarist Russia, Weimar Germany). If the people don&#39;t work together to achieve this, it will never happen. Do you really think everyone is happier now Saddam has gone? His (substantial) remaining supporters are killing British/American Troops out there&#33;&#33;&#33;

Now I see the shi&#39;ite wants power in Iraq. Well, great. In 15 years or so, when the whole democracy collapses, Iraq can return to its natural progression towards democracy, after its peaceful future has been knocked back almost two decades.

Its become apparent to me I just used dialectical materialism (sp?), or historical determinism. I feel so dirty :blink:

[UZI]

Burn the Witch
I agree with some of what you say (actually much of it). I also believe you understand the point that Pimp Daddy and I are trying to make about the media. So enough said.

The war in Iraq is simpler than folks want to make it out to be. It was simple Military Strategy (I studied this in ROTC). You have to back up your threats, and the best defense is an offense. Iraq at one point had WMD, they used them against Iran and Kurds. Intelligence data indicated they were still there. We know now that for the next 10 - 15 years (when democracy fails), they will not be able to develop them or sell them. Iran has now invited inspectors in to help them disarm. Libya has now done the same. North Korea has now agreed to multi-national talks and is heading in the right direction.

Fundamentalist in the Middle East will always hate America, no matter what we do. They will always bide their time. In a few years, the war on terror will lose its momentum because folks will no longer have the stomach for it. No different from when Reagan set the same tone, and then we fell asleep in the 90&#39;s.

When that time comes, I will really hate the people who say "Why didn&#39;t you do something. You knew this was a possibility. You should have done more. You probably already knew that the attacks were coming. Why did you protect that guys rights instead of reading his computer hard drive."

[Pure_Evil]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy+Jan 29 2004, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PimpDaddy &#064; Jan 29 2004, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Pure_Evil@Jan 29 2004, 06:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PimpDaddy@Jan 29 2004, 05:32 PM
Only gonna say I sure wish Sadam was back in power torturing,maming,raping,gassing,corrupting,bullyin g,murdering....those were the good ol&#39; days weren&#39;t they ??
He&#39;s gone now right?? So&#39;s his familly? Right? and about 2 Americans a day??

When is enough enough? How many Americans died on US soil by Sadaam? We can have over 400 Americans die for the people of Iraq, yet Bin Ladden lives and he was responsable for many American deaths on US soil&#33;&#33;&#33; Yet we wont use the same force for Bin Ladden that we used to save Iraq???

Come on Pimp, this is old.
We can&#39;t just pack up and split. I&#39;m not a military analyst, nor am I a politician (thank god) - neither are you Pure, nor anyone in this forum (although there seems to be all sorts of people with answers). Doesn&#39;t anyone understand that the people running this show are not imbiciles (unless you listen to the left). There is a method to their madness and who the he11 knows what it is. I don&#39;t like it either. I agree with Twitch...that whole rotten section of that region will never accept democracy, they&#39;re stuck in the 18th century. Our government will never tell us why they&#39;re doing what they&#39;re doing and there are no easy answers except for those of you who post things like "Bush is an idiot"(wow that&#39;s a good answer) or "We just want their oil" (We coulda HAD their oil after the first Gulf war if we wanted it). If nothing else, I think we are there to show strength in that region...that when we&#39;re attacked (remember 9/11 anyone), or threatened (scumbag Hussein) the U.S. will not cower and run to the worthless U.N. for help. We will stand for what&#39;s right. If we don&#39;t do that, every worthless piece of &#036;hit dictator, despot and imperial ruler will terrorize us. That&#39;s where I&#39;m comin from. I HATE war as much as the next person, but sometimes ya hafta do it.

Flame on[/b][/quote]
First off, no flames from me bro :WTF: I don&#39;t know where you even get that.

And sorry, jobs done, pack up our sh it and move out. Sorry, it&#39;s not our buissness to show the world how to live, let the people of Iraq fend for themselves.


Face it, money runs the show, that&#39;s the bottom linethe government is supposed to be of the people, for the people, not just the wealthy people, but money is what drives the government and the press.

Note, not once did I mention Bush :WTF:


If nothing else, I think we are there to show strength in that region...that when we&#39;re attacked (remember 9/11 anyone)

My whole point was if out government used the same force to get Bin Ladden as it did Saddam, I would&#39;ve been happier. But no, we used a small force for the person responsable for slaughtering Americans, and a large force for the one who slaughtered Iraqis. Am I the only one who sees this as F-ed up :WTF:


I&#39;m not a military analyst, nor am I a politician (thank god) - neither are you Pure, nor anyone in this forum
So excuse me, I can&#39;t question the people who are supposed to be working FOR me? I&#39;m supposed to follow them blindly??

Maybe when the economy turns arround and our soldiers stop dying defending a nation that hates us I&#39;ll stop bitching. But as long as my friends and familly are struggling, and the men and women who defend my freedom are dying for people who flat out hate them, I&#39;m going to bitch. Deal with it&#33;

:drink:

[UZI]

Pure,
I don&#39;t think that most of the people of Iraq hate us. Of the reservist from our town who have come home, they say that the majority of the Iraqi people support the troops, appreciate what we have done for them and want to see a better and safer Iraq. As we saw on the East Coast and now in Ohio, it only takes one A&#036;&#036;hole with a gun to terrify a nation and to fuel the press.

Only my opinion: If we knew how to get Osamah (Sp?), I think we would have already done it. He just has too many locals who are loyal to him. We have all become frustrated with the fact that we can&#39;t catch the bastard, but I have a hard time believing that it is due to a lack of trying. The next best thing (which we are doing) is making him keep his head down.

[UZI]

OK, my next bitch. The cost of the war is peanuts compared to the cost of one terrorist act in the US. Sept. 11th and the continued security we are having to keep up here in America is trillions. You would not believe the amount of money that Houston is having to spend on the Super Bowl security. Another terrorist act here in the US would cause far more ecomonic damage than 90 - 100 billion. Don&#39;t loose the forest for the trees.

A lot of the money for Iraq is going to US contractors (reconstruction) and companies that make stuff for our military.

[PimpDaddy]

Originally posted by Pure_Evil@Jan 30 2004, 12:12 AM

[QUOTE=Pure_Evil,Jan 29 2004, 06:16 PM]

Flame on
First off, no flames from me bro :WTF: I don&#39;t know where you even get that.


Pure, the Flame on comment was not directed at you specifically. It was a blanket statement for the flames that are sure to follow after I stick up for our government. In every one of my posts, I offer my opinion - I demean no one, but if I have an opinion, some people don&#39;t like it so they attack the person. Somehow their opinion is better than anyone elses.

Re-read my posts - I attack no one. I offer an opinion and try (futily most of the time) to back them up. I wish more people would.

[Jesse James]

If the Iraqi people support us so much then why did they shoot our helicopters down and blow us up and destroy our equpiment? You gotta remember, we put Saddam Hussien in charge of Iraq, trusting him to lead a safe and happy leadership. We also gave the "weapons of mass destruction" so to speak to him. I agree with Pure, let the people deal with their own problems, we got our own a&#036;&#036; to find yet.

[Goober]

Getting back to the original topic. Here is another article that more fully explains what David Key actually said about the WMD&#39;s including statements about how Iraq was believed to have them during the Clinton administration.
Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61949-2004Jan29.html)

The link may ask for your year of birth and zip...just make something up
It&#39;s a short read and pretty good.

[PimpDaddy]

Thanx Goob

[UZI]

LazerRange

Sadam rose to power within the internal Iraqi faction that took control of the country in a Coup. Russia and France are the countries that supplied WMD technology and support. Unfortunately, the US did aid Saddam against Iran --- but it did not involve WMD.



Just as a topic of interest, what does everyone think about people from the middle east coming to the US and gaining a college education in engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. and then bringing this information back to their country. I remember having a couple middle east students in my nuclear reactor design (it was a cake class that most engineers took in their senior year because it was mostly running calcs and numbers) class when I was getting my mechanical engineering degree at LSU. We had a stocked radio active containment well in the nuclear science building.

[Thundarr]

I&#39;m going to see Michael Moore speak tomorrow night... I know this is long, but it&#39;s worth a read...



I&#39;ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush - by Michael Moore

January 14, 2004

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That&#39;s right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country&#33;

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I&#39;m convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George &#33; W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won&#39;t be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It&#39;s the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, &#33; Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain&#39;t you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of -Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don&#39;t get handed a gift like this very offten. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It&#39;s hard, when you&#39;re so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midw&#33; estern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I&#39;m going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under &#036;50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark h&#33; as been "positioning himself slightly to Dean&#39;s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he&#39;s going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is gooing to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush&#39;s second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter&#33; General Clark told me that it&#39;s people like him who are truly anti-war because it&#39;s people liike him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you&#39;ve seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It&#39;s their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn&#39;t just mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan&#39;s case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our soci&#33; ety a better place. He didn&#39;t have to get involved in that struggle. He&#39;s a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action
personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It&#39;s not in the homes and streets of America. It&#39;s called the Army, and you can join any time&#33;"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (10, Dean himself), a better version of a good thin&#33; g: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He&#39;s a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of
General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin&#39; my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I&#39;ve seen floating around the web ("Mike&#33; He voted for Reagan&#33; He bombed Kosovo&#33;"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn&#39;t too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What&#39;s the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people. Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don&#39;t feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let&#39;s face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you&#33;" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) - and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him , to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state&#39;s
presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart. VoteSmart (http://www.vote-smart.org)

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let&#39;s join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

[PimpDaddy]

Well I could stomach about 3 paragraphs Thundar :rofl: I feel myself becoming so much more open minded :thumbs:

No offense here at all Thundarr, but an endorsement by Michael Moore is&#39;nt exactly a ringing endorsement.

[Thundarr]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Jan 31 2004, 12:13 PM
Well I could stomach about 3 paragraphs Thundar :rofl:&nbsp; I feel myself becoming so much more open minded :thumbs:

No offense here at all Thundarr, but an endorsement by Michael Moore is&#39;nt exactly a ringing endorsement.
I knew you&#39;d at least read part of it, and I&#39;m glad you did, no offense taken at all&#33; I do appreciate that we all have different points of view. I like Michael Moore. I don&#39;t always agree with him, but many times I do... So bummed that the place where he spoke Saturday filled up so fast... :bawling: No offense to those who like George W., but I must disagree...

What Prez Bush Has Been Up To (http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/2232_large.shtml)

Requires Quick Time Player to view... :oooo: :hmmm:

[Pure_Evil]

You should post some of the others Thundarr. :angel:



As I listen to my friends lose their jobs, get their pay frozen, get asked for givebacks, lose their pensions, I wonder.... WHEN THE **** IS OUR GOVERNMENT GOING TO WAKE UP AND TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Goober]

Originally posted by Pure_Evil@Feb 4 2004, 04:35 AM
You should post some of the others Thundarr. :angel:



As I listen to my friends lose their jobs, get their pay frozen, get asked for givebacks, lose their pensions, I wonder.... WHEN THE **** IS OUR GOVERNMENT GOING TO WAKE UP AND TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
The question should be "what CAN the government do?"

1. Jobs are being outsourced to cheaper overseas contractors...This is not the governments fault, but that of corperations looking to stay competive. When the first corperation started buying, assembling, etc overseas the rest had too also, just to remain in business. This started long before the Bush or even the Clinton administrations.

I mean really, what do you expect. For instance...should I have my programing done by a local man whom I pay approximately &#036;50 per hour (including benefits) or a man in India for &#036;20 or less. The same goes for manufacturing jobs and all the rest that have crossed the border. It all comes down to dollars, and big corperations think more of dollars than what they are doing to their own country.

The only thing that would stop this would be for the government to stop ALL overseas imports from countries that don&#39;t import an equal amount of goods from our country, and I don&#39;t think anyone in our government will ever have the cajones to even suggest that.

[Pure_Evil]

Originally posted by Goober+Feb 4 2004, 07:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Goober @ Feb 4 2004, 07:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Pure_Evil@Feb 4 2004, 04:35 AM
You should post some of the others Thundarr. :angel:



As I listen to my friends lose their jobs, get their pay frozen, get asked for givebacks, lose their pensions, I wonder.... WHEN THE **** IS OUR GOVERNMENT GOING TO WAKE UP AND TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
The question should be "what CAN the government do?"

1. Jobs are being outsourced to cheaper overseas contractors...This is not the governments fault, but that of corperations looking to stay competive. When the first corperation started buying, assembling, etc overseas the rest had too also, just to remain in business. This started long before the Bush or even the Clinton administrations.

I mean really, what do you expect. For instance...should I have my programing done by a local man whom I pay approximately &#036;50 per hour (including benefits) or a man in India for &#036;20 or less. The same goes for manufacturing jobs and all the rest that have crossed the border. It all comes down to dollars, and big corperations think more of dollars than what they are doing to their own country.

The only thing that would stop this would be for the government to stop ALL overseas imports from countries that don&#39;t import an equal amount of goods from our country, and I don&#39;t think anyone in our government will ever have the cajones to even suggest that. [/b][/quote]
they can&#39;t stop it, but they can tariff imports so that the cheaper goods from overseas aren&#39;t quite as cheap, that would encourage US companies to manufacture more products here. That&#39;s what other countries do to our goods and services.

If they take all of that money that they give to the third world nations that make these products and invest it in the US companies, maybe we could produce things here more efficiently. There are lots of ways the government can help US industry, but at this time, they focus more on world issues and the top %10 of our nation&#39;s Wealthy. the governement can start with Healthcare and workers comp insurance, 2 of the largest cost in employing a person in the United States, Then work on lowering the cost of education, finally, how about low- income housing?? In my town, they just built "low- income housing" :rofl: condo&#39;s that started at &#036;120,000.00 who the hell considers that low?? Add on condo association fees and that&#39;s not low income to me.

[Thundarr]

Originally posted by Goober+Feb 4 2004, 07:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Goober @ Feb 4 2004, 07:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Pure_Evil@Feb 4 2004, 04:35 AM
You should post some of the others Thundarr. :angel:



As I listen to my friends lose their jobs, get their pay frozen, get asked for givebacks, lose their pensions, I wonder.... WHEN THE **** IS OUR GOVERNMENT GOING TO WAKE UP AND TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
The question should be "what CAN the government do?"

1. Jobs are being outsourced to cheaper overseas contractors...This is not the governments fault, but that of corperations looking to stay competive. When the first corperation started buying, assembling, etc overseas the rest had too also, just to remain in business. This started long before the Bush or even the Clinton administrations.

I mean really, what do you expect. For instance...should I have my programing done by a local man whom I pay approximately &#036;50 per hour (including benefits) or a man in India for &#036;20 or less. The same goes for manufacturing jobs and all the rest that have crossed the border. It all comes down to dollars, and big corperations think more of dollars than what they are doing to their own country.

The only thing that would stop this would be for the government to stop ALL overseas imports from countries that don&#39;t import an equal amount of goods from our country, and I don&#39;t think anyone in our government will ever have the cajones to even suggest that. [/b][/quote]
Goob and Pure are both right... However, I know many Liberals are pro union, but I am NOT and I think that labor unions are part of the reason this country is losing so many jobs... They cost the companies that employ union workers so much that they make American products and service cost more to produce and provide which makes us less efficient...

There was a time and a place for labor unions. It was back when children were forced to work and workers were injured on the job and had no recourse and no safety regulations, etc, etc... But that time is no more... Yes, I do believe that the US gives away too much money to other countries too..

OMG, &#036;120,000 Low income housing??? They&#39;ve GOT to be kidding&#33;

I&#39;ll post some of the other Bush In 30 Seconds, too...

[Thundarr]

BTW, this is for those who call Clinton a draft dodger... George W. wasn&#39;t much better IMHO...
__________________________________________________ __________________

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.

2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn&#39;t he take this exam from a doctor?)

5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking.

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.

[PimpDaddy]

The same newspapers that today are demanding to get to the bottom of this, already did get to the bottom of it, and came to the conclusion there was nothing untoward or incorrect here. Yet, they&#39;re raising the question all over again.
It&#39;s been dealt with and if this is at the top of the list and the best they&#39;ve got, I&#39;m not worried about it. What they&#39;re also trying to do here is trying to hide the real John Kerry

What’s To Like?
By The Prowler
Published 2/3/2004 12:07:35 AM


Sen. John Kerry&#39;s campaign says their candidate has nothing to hide. They point out that Kerry&#39;s local paper, the Boston Globe, had recently printed a seven-part series that revealed everything embarrassing. "The man has been in the U.S. Senate for more than a decade," says a Kerry staffer on Capitol Hill. "We&#39;ve seen all there is. The man is clean."

Perhaps. But despite all the fanfare and the seeming coronation as the Democratic Party&#39;s nominee, Kerry isn&#39;t very well liked.

"What you&#39;re going to see is more and more stories about Kerry is just reviled by his fellow Democratic Senators and by others," says a campaign staffer for Sen. John Edwards. "The man is genuinely disliked for just being a big phony."

As an example, the staffer pointed to the veterans from Vietnam Kerry has surrounded himself with. "Almost to a one, these guys have said that they had reached out to Kerry over the years and never heard back from him. Suddenly he&#39;s running for president and he&#39;s all hot and heavy to use them to his advantage."

Another example, Kerry&#39;s seeming total lack of interest in the legislative process of the Senate. Fellow candidate, former Vermont Gov. Howie Dean lambasted Kerry for not getting enough bills passed. Kerry countered that it wasn&#39;t the name on the bill that mattered, but getting what you wanted into the bill that passed. It isn&#39;t clear, even from some of Kerry&#39;s former Senate staff, that he did much of that.

"I remember when Kerry saw the writing on the wall for welfare reform back in 1996, he desperately tried to get his name connected to one of the reform packages or a Democratic alternative to it that was floating around," says a former staffer. "The problem was, it wasn&#39;t an issue he&#39;d cared about, nor did he do any work on it. There wasn&#39;t a single Democrat in leadership that was going to give him a nod on the issue. The same goes for a raft of issues he now claims he played a key role shaping. The man just tries to ride other people&#39;s coattails."

Now, perhaps, he&#39;s looking to ride the biggest Democratic coattail around. According to a Kerry campaign volunteer, the campaign has been playing with a campaign button or bumper sticker that would play off the initials of the candidate.

The slogan? "A New Century. A New JFK."

[Pure_Evil]

Originally posted by Thundarr@Feb 4 2004, 02:47 PM
However, I know many Liberals are pro union, but I am NOT and I think that labor unions are part of the reason this country is losing so many jobs... They cost the companies that employ union workers so much that they make American products and service cost more to produce and provide which makes us less efficient...

There was a time and a place for labor unions. It was back when children were forced to work and workers were injured on the job and had no recourse and no safety regulations, etc, etc... But that time is no more...
OMG, &#036;120,000 Low income housing??? They&#39;ve GOT to be kidding&#33;

I&#39;ll post some of the other Bush In 30 Seconds, too...
OK, for the Union remark, here&#39;s reason why Unions are still needed.

I keep in touch with my former employer, one of the top Architectural Millwork companies in the US and a union shop.

Every year, during the early winter, there is a lay-off, and because of the union, their jobs are secure, they always get called back after 1-2 months when work picks up. Last year, they went 3 months, upon return, they were asked to give back their contract raise for 2004. Now, the average pay is about &#036;17.50 per hour, keep in mind that 60% of their workers have ove 10 years in, and 80% are classified as Journeyman ( highly skilled) that raise is about 35 cents a hour, and is for 35 people. Also keep in mind that the 3 CEO&#39;s of the company are drivig brand new BMW Suv&#39;s with company liscence plates. :hmmm: based on a 40 hour work week, for 35 people, the company would save &#036;25,480.00 :hmmm: how much is one of those SUV&#39;s?? Because of the union, the people kept their raise, but of course, they were given no Christmas bonus, or proffit sharing check after that. Now they are working overtime as well. Sorry, I don&#39;t see a greedy union, I see one that&#39;s protecting it&#39;s people.


Workers comp tale:

In the building where I work now, there is a Architectural millwork shop that employs about 40 people. 2 days ago, they sent their people home, why? Because workers comp shut them down. Last year, they paid about &#036;30,000 for workers comp ins. when they renewed this year, the bill was &#036;67,000 :blink: needless to say, they couldn&#39;t pay it and were shut down until they came up with part of it. That company is about 4 years old and is struggling already, now a rediculous increase in insurance almost closed them. To me, these are the issues that are giving too many struggling companies death blows and our government should be stepping up&#33;

[Thundarr]

Originally posted by Pure_Evil+Feb 6 2004, 07:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pure_Evil @ Feb 6 2004, 07:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thundarr@Feb 4 2004, 02:47 PM
However, I know many Liberals are pro union, but I am NOT and I think that labor unions are part of the reason this country is losing so many jobs...&nbsp; They cost the companies that employ union workers so much that they make American products and service cost more to produce and provide which makes us less efficient...&nbsp;

There was a time and a place for labor unions.&nbsp; It was back when children were forced to work and workers were injured on the job and had no recourse and no safety regulations, etc, etc...&nbsp; But that time is no more...&nbsp;
OMG, &#036;120,000 Low income housing???&nbsp; They&#39;ve GOT to be kidding&#33;

I&#39;ll post some of the other Bush In 30 Seconds, too...
OK, for the Union remark, here&#39;s reason why Unions are still needed.

I keep in touch with my former employer, one of the top Architectural Millwork companies in the US and a union shop.

Every year, during the early winter, there is a lay-off, and because of the union, their jobs are secure, they always get called back after 1-2 months when work picks up. Last year, they went 3 months, upon return, they were asked to give back their contract raise for 2004. Now, the average pay is about &#036;17.50 per hour, keep in mind that 60% of their workers have ove 10 years in, and 80% are classified as Journeyman ( highly skilled) that raise is about 35 cents a hour, and is for 35 people. Also keep in mind that the 3 CEO&#39;s of the company are drivig brand new BMW Suv&#39;s with company liscence plates. :hmmm: based on a 40 hour work week, for 35 people, the company would save &#036;25,480.00 :hmmm: how much is one of those SUV&#39;s?? Because of the union, the people kept their raise, but of course, they were given no Christmas bonus, or proffit sharing check after that. Now they are working overtime as well. Sorry, I don&#39;t see a greedy union, I see one that&#39;s protecting it&#39;s people.


Workers comp tale:

In the building where I work now, there is a Architectural millwork shop that employs about 40 people. 2 days ago, they sent their people home, why? Because workers comp shut them down. Last year, they paid about &#036;30,000 for workers comp ins. when they renewed this year, the bill was &#036;67,000 :blink: needless to say, they couldn&#39;t pay it and were shut down until they came up with part of it. That company is about 4 years old and is struggling already, now a rediculous increase in insurance almost closed them. To me, these are the issues that are giving too many struggling companies death blows and our government should be stepping up&#33; [/b][/quote]
I definitely agree about the insurance companies charging ungodly amounts of money for policies, but most of the reason the costs go up is because of fraud... I used to work for an insurance company in the claims department we did liability, auto and work comp. You&#39;d be surprised how many claims people make that are fraudulent and the companies only catch a small percentage of the fraud that actually occurs... But that does not entirely excuse the ridiculous rates they charge, I will say that... On the CEO&#39;s vehicles, yeah, that sucks and it&#39;s stupid for them to drive such extravagant vehicles... I&#39;m not sure what could be done to make that stop, though... Another thought on that, though... Union leaders make good money too and I&#39;m guessing they aren&#39;t driving Escorts or anything like that...

Back to unions, though... I think it&#39;s great that those workers&#39; jobs were protected, but not all union workers are deserving of union protection... Sometimes workers who have a lot of seniority aren&#39;t necessarily the best of workers... A company should be able to have more control over performance rewards and what not and unions take some of that control away... If a worker isn&#39;t pulling their weight, the union protects them too... They still get the same raises that everyone else is getting and a union contract makes it harder for a company to weed out poor performing workers which makes that company less efficient and therefore less competitive... (it&#39;s not impossible for them, just harder) I also used to be in a union. I worked for UAW Legal Services Plan... I wasn&#39;t UAW(we were in a different union) but we provided free legal services to UAW members since that is one of their contract benefits. We had to drive UAW made cars to work but we didn&#39;t get a UAW discount to buy the cars like the UAW members did... We made a ton less than most of the employees we provided benefits for... Many of the UAW workers were making easily twice what we were and we were legal secretaries. Some of the workers were even making more than the attorneys at our office... BUT, I do think that WalMart needs a union, they do some things that are just plain wrong but they get away with it because they are WalMart. They&#39;ve been fighting to keep unions out of their business for a while now...

Oh year, here&#39;s some more Bush in 30 Seconds...Contest Winner (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/01_large.shtml)

What Are We Teaching Our Children? (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/06_small.shtml)

Bring It On (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/2472_large.shtml)

Polygraph (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/04_large.shtml)

Army of One (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/11_large.shtml)

Bankrupt (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/12_large.shtml)

Bush&#39;s Repair Shop (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/15_large.shtml)

Pop Quiz (http://bushin30seconds.org/view/2374_large.shtml)

[UZI]

Well, that about does it for the "Bush didn&#39;t complete his reserve duty" bull.

It appears that the official Pay Records of Bush showing up for his service in Texas and Alabama were found and released this week.

Here are the official quotes.


Lt. Col. Scott Gorske, a 23-year Guardsman with experience in personnel issues, said there is no requirement for National Guard members to drill every month. They are required to train a certain amount of time each year. It appears Bush met that requirement, said Gorske, who reviewed the documents.

A memo written by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr. at the request of the White House said a review of Bush&#39;s records showed that he had "satisfactory years" for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74 "which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."

Appears the guy who wrote the book was wrong. Not the first time. Even Kerry is now backing away from the issue:

Official Quote from Kerry:


"I just don&#39;t have any comment on it," he told reporters between campaign stops in Tennessee and Virginia. "It&#39;s not an issue that I chose to create. It&#39;s not my record that&#39;s at issue and I don&#39;t have any questions about it."

The press and the Democratic Comittee are still trying hang on to it. It sort of hurts their pride when the truth has to be shoved down their throat.

Oh well, egg on the face of the DOC and press once more.

[Death-Dude]

Originally posted by UZI@Feb 10 2004, 09:24 PM
Well, that about does it for the "Bush didn&#39;t complete his reserve duty" bull.

It appears that the official Pay Records of Bush showing up for his service in Texas and Alabama were found and released this week.


Official pay records mean nothing....except that he was paid. They can&#39;t even find one guy to come forward to say they saw him there. For a year. Every other guy gets accounted for, doesn&#39;t it at least seem strange to you that no head-count, roll call witnessing of his presence can be documented? Nobody to say, "Yeah, I was there when he was"? Whether you believe him or not, and I don&#39;t know as I wasn&#39;t there, don&#39;t you think there&#39;d be some conclusive record of his attendance?

[UZI]

Actually pay records are proof of attendance according to the Military and this has been confirmed by the Military.

Reserves dude, not full blown active duty. We are talking some weekends and a full week once a year. He was stationed in Alabama for only three months, which means he was only suppose to be there a few days spread out over that period. Fellow vets have already stepped forward and confirmed that he was present for service in Texas, which was the bulk of his service duty. You continue to buy into this bull crap picture the press has created --- like he was suppose to be there every day over the three month period. We are talking a few days over 30 years ago. Back then he was nobody to vets in Alabama. Just a guy who shows up for some days. Crap, tell me you remember every person you met a couple days over 30 years ago.

You can continue your doubts, but as far as the Military and the official verdict he was right and the DOC was wrong.

[Death-Dude]

Originally posted by UZI@Feb 10 2004, 09:59 PM
Actually pay records are proof of attendance according to the Military and this has been confirmed by the Military.&nbsp;

Reserves dude, not full blown active duty.&nbsp; We are talking some weekends and a full week once a year.&nbsp; He was stationed in Alabama for only three months, which means he was only suppose to be there a few days spread out over that&nbsp; period.&nbsp; Fellow vets have already stepped forward and&nbsp; confirmed that he was present for service in Texas, which was the bulk of his service duty.&nbsp; You continue to buy into this bull crap picture the press has created --- like he was suppose to be there every day over the three month period.&nbsp; We are talking a few days over 30 years ago.&nbsp; Back then he was nobody to vets in Alabama.&nbsp; Just a guy who shows up for some days.&nbsp; Crap, tell me you remember every person you met a couple days over 30 years ago.

You can continue your doubts, but as far as the Military and the official verdict he was right and the DOC was wrong.
Ok, ok, but don&#39;t take it as an attack, respond about the statements, not the stater. The contention isn&#39;t about his pay....he got paid for being on the rolls. You keep saying I &#39;buy into&#39; the press, but, as you, I get info from lots of places, and I interpret it as I deem fit. You get your info from the press and elsewhere, too, no? So far, from the things I&#39;ve seen, nothing is conclusive about his service, which does raise questions. I&#39;m not saying that I&#39;ve, or anyone else has, answered those questions. If he served, then fine. I&#39;ve talked to Reservists, 4 of them, about the documenting of their service, and they said they can produce paper for the time they&#39;ve spent. Every day of it. I&#39;ve also talked to some Vietnam vets, and even a Korean war vet, and they think his service record is at least suspect. (That&#39;s not what they said, one said,"rich kid slipped through a loophole, what else is new?") And they&#39;re not surprised, for they say many, many well-connected one-As, GOP and Dem alike, got preferential treatment when it came to military service. That tells me that it as least possible. It wasn&#39;t his Texas service in question....but, as you say, he was remembered by several for being there....why not for the span of his service that is in question? As I say, I don&#39;t know, I can only form an opinion. You think I&#39;m a blind Democrat, but I&#39;m not...Democrat, that is. I think both parties are too dependent on big corp money, and I think that that hurts us all. When Clinton said he didn&#39;t inhale, my BS meter sounded. Same for Monica, and the definition of "is". To me, W.&#39;s service seems suspicious. If they get concrete evidence of that tomorrow, I&#39;ll be satisfied with it. And, sure, the Dem&#39;s are trying to make hay with it, what would you expect?

[ME BIGGD01]

1-goto war with iraq--whoop their ass and take over--this is my way
2--reality--kick their ass--destroy their land and rebuild it with american suckers tax money besides lose americans lives while the rest of the world stands clear and just insults us for it.---the american way
3--make iraq a civilized nation--how?--give the promise that any nation that attacks any amercan owned soil or human and pay the ultimat consequence with missles that will wipe out their nation. (remeber how fast japan complied)--my way
4--goto war complet first mission and end the war that trully has not ended for political reasons while we are losing good americans lives while congress passes 83billion of american taxpayers who are losing their jobs to support the rebuilding of another one day ungratefull country.--the american way


as far as bush goes, i will take him over any of the democrats, anyday. no worry here as none stand a chance and they know it.

as far as any of the candidates, they all suck including bush. i think anyone should stand up and speak up how they feel but please know the facts before making a post. this is how wrong info gets spread.

for anyone who thinks war is wrong, they are wrong. war is ugly and if america didnt go to war, you would all have blonde hair blue eyes.

i am losing faith in americans because they are so blind. anyone who thinks a democrat is going to make the world great is a fool and i would like to remind those that it was the clinton era that made us a weak and unaware. our economy is doing great and improving considering what america has gone through the past few years. you are ignorant if you blame bush for this because he has over come many things when he took office. some people do not see the truth because it is easier to blame 1 person.

[UZI]

Death Dude,

I apologize if in any way my words are perceived as a personal attack. I honestly don&#39;t mean it to be like that. I don&#39;t think I am making my point very well, so I will try again.

Here is my point and beef. It is character assasination (with circumstancial evidence at best). Its guilty until proven innocent. And the press has been on this tear, unchecked for a darn long time now. And they are doing it to innocent people on both sides. Unless you got real proof, you don&#39;t have the right to publically assasinate someone&#39;s character. That is not the intention of freedom of press or speech. I just want the facts, not some one&#39;s suspicion, opinion, best guess, reading of the stars etc. etc. etc. The whole political process makes me want to puke. And it is getting worse. I agree with Pure Evil, it is not about the poeple anymore.

Fact: Jobs are going overseas because Americans want everything for cheap. Sure blame it on Bush, Blame in on free trade, Blame it on the Democrats, blame it on corporate america. How many of us are willing to pay &#036;4000 for a new computer instead of &#036;1000. How many of us jump to save &#036;20 - &#036;30 on a video card. How many of us wait until a week after Christmas to pay half price for clothes. How many of us are willing to only use public transportation. My friends, we consumers are the driving force for jobs going overseas. All of the plastic and components in your computers and video games are made by those "polluting companies" the environmentalist want to fine and close down. I work in Business, I have run the margins many times. You can&#39;t make money paying American Labor cost, health insurance, etc etc and still meet Walmart rock bottom pricing. Oh sure, blame Bush for rising cost of health care. Yeah, that didn&#39;t start until he took office. Blame Bush for the rising cost of College Tuition. Yeah, that just started in 2001 --- Right? Yeah, blame Bush for the job layoffs and lack of tax revenue from 9/11 --- hell why couldn&#39;t he fix the entire CIA, FBI, Air passenger screeners, nail Ben L., etc etc in 8 months time. Besides, he already knew about the attacks and was hiding it from the American poeple, just because he likes the horror of it all.

Do the numbers, &#036;100 Billion is a tiny fraction of the GDP. Where does all of the taxpayer money get wasted --- in our own town. Its the local corruption that stacks all the way to the Federal Level. Your government lives in your community. And guess what, they hate their job too and spend their time playing Sam and posting in forums during working hours.

It is so damn easy to blame everyone else for everything --- and the press is right there at the top fanning the flames. No one, absolutely no one gets into our Government without being elected by our national process, or being appointed by those elected, or hired by them. The top 1% of wage earners (The rich as they are often called) in this country do not get extra votes. If you think it is about Democrats and Republicans, I say it is bull.

In summary, I am sick of all this BS. Finger pointing, character assasination, people who kill children, sick minded perverts, opinions (not facts) from people in the media who have no clue what the F they are talking about, politics, greed, TV giving poor ethics and values to our youth, youth that are brought up in broken homes, reality TV, people who don&#39;t want terrorism but don&#39;t have the stomach to fight it. So all of you out there blaming the Government for everything --- all of us helped to make it what it is.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people.

If I see one more topic started by an American where someone starts off pointing their finger at someone else, I am simply going to quit GM. Because it is purely BS and it makes me too aware of why we are where we are today. It destroys my faith in our ability to get better, and I can&#39;t have that in my life.

[PimpDaddy]

Unfortunately, the majority of the population doesn&#39;t even realize they&#39;re being duped...The masses are a&#036;&#036;es. We are lucky to get a 50% turnout at the polls for a presidential election &#33;&#33; Of the 50% that DO participate, 1/2 of them don&#39;t have a freaking clue....Ummmm let me see, yeh me thinks i seen him on t.v. last night, me vote 4 him. me heard bad things about those mean republicans on peter jennings or tom brokaw or maybe those 30 second bash bush because we don&#39;t have any answers ourselves commercials. WAKE UP PEOPLE &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Pure_Evil]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Feb 11 2004, 09:43 PM
Unfortunately, the majority of the population doesn&#39;t even realize they&#39;re being duped...The masses are a&#036;&#036;es. We are lucky to get a 50% turnout at the polls for a presidential election &#33;&#33; Of the 50% that DO participate, 1/2 of them don&#39;t have a freaking clue....Ummmm let me see, yeh me thinks i seen him on t.v. last night, me vote 4 him. me heard bad things about those mean republicans on peter jennings or tom brokaw or maybe those 30 second bash bush because we don&#39;t have any answers ourselves commercials. WAKE UP PEOPLE &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
make the election popular vote and more will turn out, after the sham that was the 2000 election, what do you expect&#33;

[PimpDaddy]

I don&#39;t think that would any impact whatsoever on turnout. Election days on Saturday would help, but again, the masses are a&#036;&#036;es and all we would gain is more idiots voting.

Pure - you&#39;ve really got to get over the 2000 election :rofl: The electorial college is the rules both parties have to follow - and multiple recounts in Florida show Bush was the legitimate winner.

[Death-Dude]

Originally posted by ME BIGGD01@Feb 11 2004, 12:35 AM
for anyone who thinks war is wrong, they are wrong. war is ugly and if america didnt go to war, you would all have blonde hair blue eyes.

So, are you saying that - because some wars have been inevitable, or otherwise justified, that all wars are? I would disagree with that, if that&#39;s what you mean.

[Pure_Evil]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Feb 12 2004, 06:20 AM
I don&#39;t think that would any impact whatsoever on turnout.&nbsp; Election days on Saturday would help, but again, the masses are a&#036;&#036;es and all we would gain is more idiots voting.

Pure - you&#39;ve really got to get over the 2000 election :rofl: The electorial college is the rules both parties have to follow - and multiple recounts in Florida show Bush was the legitimate winner.
No&#33; No&#33; No&#33; Never&#33; :rofl:

Pimp, even if Gore won, I&#39;d still be pissed at the proccess.


P.E., not a Republican, not a Democrat, just a American&#33;http://goodiesforu.com/animation/animatedgifs/flag/0097.gif

[ME BIGGD01]

i am not sure how to answer the question. which war are you referring to?

i will say all wars america has fought were for a good cause. i guess vietnam could be debated because i think that was a disgrace and a political screw up. we could of easily wiped them out but some people hate to look at the realities of it. i think desert storm was also well purposed but people think we should of did it all then. this is actually why we are back in iraq now because we ended desert storm because saddam said he would comply with un. since they did not comply and totaly disregarded sanction after sanction. it&#39;s too easy to say bush wanted this war and created it disregarding the facts of why we went to war the first time and the rules that were placed to end it. now look at nkorea. this why i feel the way i do where i seems i am some nut. here is another country with sanctions but they do not comply which tells me sanctions and anything with the un fails. it&#39;s like finding a crackhead stealing your car stereo and when you grab him and say don&#39;t steal anymore and he says i promise i wont. you know they are going to steal yours or someone elses stereo down the road. my way is catch the crackhead stealing my stereo and shoot a bullet right through his skull. that problem would be solved and no one will ever get their stereo stolen from that person again. now the liberal way is killing him is wrong and me the killer is nothing but a a killer. liberals do not look at the picture of what was actually done here with me killing this person. they look at a car steroe is worth the most 300 dollars and i ended his life for a 300 dollar stereo. thats all they would see. i you all understand my little analogy there and then think of these terror countries when we americans have to do what we have to do.

(I in know way intend to offend anyone with my oppinions. i know in the past these type of discussions have made me get pretty heated. if you feel i am offensive, kiss my just kidding--i am sorry and remeber this is only my oppinion and the way i feel and should not matter to you in no way shapeor form. same also goes for anyones oppinion.)

[PimpDaddy]

It got quiet in here :rofl:

[ME BIGGD01]

:online2long: i can not believe this thread is still alive.


these threads are nutty and we all should be playing or doing laundry

[JIMINATOR]

i am sure all that text means something, but it is way too much to read...
I think instead i will play sam and watch some pron...
just tell me when the election is finally over...
maybe the people in florida will get a clue this year....

[Thundarr]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Feb 13 2004, 04:39 PM
It got quiet in here :rofl:
Pimp, oh I was on my way back, believe me&#33;&#33; You forget that I have my boss&#39;s office 15 feet away so I don&#39;t get as much chance to fget into GM as I&#39;d like...


BiggD..."now the liberal way is killing him is wrong and me the killer is nothing but a a killer. liberals do not look at the picture of what was actually done here with me killing this person. they look at a car steroe is worth the most 300 dollars and i ended his life for a 300 dollar stereo. thats all they would see. i you all understand my little analogy there and then think of these terror countries when we americans have to do what we have to do."

You need to be a little more careful with the sweeping generalizations of liberals... There are liberals who support the Death Penalty, too... (perhaps not for stealing a &#036;300 stereo, but you get the idea) Not every Liberal is a bleeding heart Liberal&#33; I consider myself pretty darn liberal but I would have voted for John McCain over Al Gore had he won the Republican Nomination....


Pimp Daddy...Unfortunately, the majority of the population doesn&#39;t even realize they&#39;re being duped...The masses are a&#036;&#036;es. We are lucky to get a 50% turnout at the polls for a presidential election &#33;&#33; Of the 50% that DO participate, 1/2 of them don&#39;t have a freaking clue....Ummmm let me see, yeh me thinks i seen him on t.v. last night, me vote 4 him. me heard bad things about those mean republicans on peter jennings or tom brokaw or maybe those 30 second bash bush because we don&#39;t have any answers ourselves commercials. WAKE UP PEOPLE &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Pimp, If you are insinuating that people who do not vote Republican are being duped or are idiots, you are sorely mistaken&#33;&#33;&#33; :mad: I know plenty of people who do not vote Republican and who think that the Republicans followers are the ones who are being duped... We do NOT rely on network news as our only source of information, nor do we blindly follow everyone else in our thinking... I voted in the Democratic Caucus last Saturday here in Michigan and I did not see or speak to a single person who "didn&#39;t have a clue" so watch it with your generalizations...

I&#39;m not trying to take this thread personally but really I hate to see people make such harsh generalizations about a group of people they so obviously know very little about.... I know few Liberals who are not college graduates or who have not been through a great deal of multi-cultural experiences living in many different parts of the US and many other countries for good amounts of time which I think hardly makes them to be simple-minded people.... NOT ALL LIBERALS are HIPPIES&#33;&#33;&#33; :jammin: :wootrock:

[ME BIGGD01]

ok, i see your point but you have to agree there are some really really liberal people. i guess that&#39;s why most associate the term liberal as i did.

[Pure_Evil]

I hate the terms liberal and conservative&#33; Can&#39;t we just be Americans so we can all wear the same lable?? :dunno:


:online2long: I spent 45 min reading John Kerry&#39;s web site :online2long:


Bush&#39;s tomorrow :online2long:

[PimpDaddy]

Thundarr, I didn&#39;t insinuate that just libs are duped. I said only 1/2 of the people don&#39;t even bother to show up and of the people that do, 1/2 of them don&#39;t have a clue.They pro&#39;lly don&#39;t even know the difference between a give me more government liberal and a give me my money back conservative.

[Thundarr]

Originally posted by PimpDaddy@Feb 13 2004, 09:42 PM
Thundarr, I didn&#39;t insinuate that just libs are duped. I said only 1/2 of the people don&#39;t even bother to show up and of the people that do, 1/2 of them don&#39;t have a clue.They pro&#39;lly don&#39;t even know the difference between a give me more government liberal and a give me my money back conservative.
Fair enough&#33; :thumbs: