The W
Views: 99865899
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.10.14 2115
The W - Current Events & Politics - What Are The Odds?
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.20
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(534 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 518 days
Last activity: 10 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.64
It seems to have been quite some time since anybody tried to talk politics on the Current Events & Politics Board - so I'll give it a go.

On Wednesday, the President admitted to the presence of secret CIA prisons - which, according to him several months ago, did not exist. He has also announced plans for a bald-faced end run around the latest Supreme Court ruling against his "war on terror" by having his GOP-controlled legislature pass a law authorizing what the courts struck down. Why is he doing this?

The unfortunate answer: because he can.

I fear that GWB now knows no fear. With a GOP-controlled Congress and an effective fear campaign playing nationwide, I do not believe he fears any recriminations, much less impeachment. Consequently, he feels free to admit to the worst excesses of power, which makes him look an honest man. He can do this with impunity, with his loyal Congressmen and his propaganda outlets (read: Fox News) ready to defend him with such terms as "patriot" and "defender of freedom".

True, there has not been a terror attack in the past five years. Why should there be? Al-Queda's members need only look at the US now to realize that our own government has done far worse damage to the country than they could have hoped. The populace is gripped in constant fear (again, assisted by the supposedly "liberal" media) and drowning in debt (amassed by a pointlessly-aggressive foreign policy and a monetary policy that favors the already-rich). The world seems to hate America more than Al-Queda - how's that for a reversal of fortune?

I hold little hope for the 2006 elections to bring relief. With the fear-based inertia that I see, I believe that not enough Republican Congressmen will lose their seats for the GOP to lose their grip on Congress. Consequently, the check on the executive branch that the legislative branch should be will continue not to be, likely leading to greater abuses of power (with GOP apologists defending it all).

Anybody agree? Anybody disagree? Jump in anywhere!

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph

Wiener Of The Day - June 10th, 2003
W Of The Day - September 11th, 2004 (add spooky music here)
Promote this thread!
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
I think the only thing I'd disagree with is the populace seemingly gripped by fear. I don't fly frequently (probably 4 times per year), but the most recent trip was right after the liquid scare. I didn't sense any apprehension in the airport, just longer lines. Even in those longer lines, people weren't grumpy -- they just seemed to accept the delay.

Therein could be the problem -- people are accepting of the changes that you've just posted. I think the upcoming elections will show that not to be the case (with a strong anti-Republican showing). The Connecticut election will be an interesting test of this idea.
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 746 days
Last activity: 746 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59
Hey, I WANT him to lock-up terrorists. If he had to build a secret moonbase to incarcirate the terrorists and staff it with robot guards who shoot lazers out of their eyes I'd still want them locked-up.

What the heck does a law-abiding citizen have to fear? Maybe YOUR fear-mongering is just as bad as those who are spouting about the terrorists-in-every-corner.



Some people have really witty signatures. I am not one of those people.

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
I fear a government that lies to citizens. I'm law abiding. I'm not a terrorist. If someone accused me of being a terrorist, there is a possibility that I could be taken away and locked in a secret prison without due process. You might never find out, because it could be a state secret. Up until recently, they might have tortued me, because we are just now reverting to the Geneva convention (while denying that we ever used torture... wtf).

The constitution is in place to keep the government from doing this.

As much as I don't want terrorists in America, I also don't want a restrictive government in America. We used to be against governments that did this crap. Why was Communism the enemy if it wasn't because they were against freedom?




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.04
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    As much as I don't want terrorists in America, I also don't want a restrictive government in America. We used to be against governments that did this crap. Why was Communism the enemy if it wasn't because they were against freedom?


Yes, Yes, and Yes. As I turned 50 today (shameless plug), I have the luxury of living through alot of what many of you really only know as history. AWA is close to my age. Some (much) of what we have done in the "war on terror" we decried when the "godless commies" did it. AS the saying goes: "I love my country but fear my government."

And "W" really believes this stuff and has the best of intentions. I think he is in the main wrong but I believe he believes in his cause.



Perception is reality
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by Guru Zim
      As much as I don't want terrorists in America, I also don't want a restrictive government in America. We used to be against governments that did this crap. Why was Communism the enemy if it wasn't because they were against freedom?


    Yes, Yes, and Yes. As I turned 50 today (shameless plug), I have the luxury of living through alot of what many of you really only know as history. AWA is close to my age. Some (much) of what we have done in the "war on terror" we decried when the "godless commies" did it. AS the saying goes: "I love my country but fear my government."

    And "W" really believes this stuff and has the best of intentions. I think he is in the main wrong but I believe he believes in his cause.

Happy birthday Dr D. I want to buy a car just so I can get a bumper sticker with "I love my country but fear my government" on it.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.03
The very first thing Bush said about the CIA Prisons were that he was able to speak about them now, because the information about them had just been DECLASSIFIED. Which means, he couldnt legally talk about them beforehand. So, while he may have denied they existed, it wasnt because he was hiding the truth, it was because he couldnt talk about them by law, since they were classified.

Secondly, the GOP controlled congress hasn't passed a balanced budget, medicare reform, social security reform and a handfull of other things Bush wanted. What makes you think that during an election year, when the support for the President is sliding, those GOP congressmen/women are going to blindly go along with anything the President wants? Its simply not going to happen. More Liberal fear mongering. Oh, sorry, forgot, liberals don't do that.

And, nobody who watches Fox News is going to be swayed by their 'propoganda'. The vast majority of their viewers already hold the same viewpoints. I am sure there isnt a left leaning viewer having his/her opinions changed by anything Fox News puts out.



DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    What makes you think that during an election year, when the support for the President is sliding, those GOP congressmen/women are going to blindly go along with anything the President wants? Its simply not going to happen. More Liberal fear mongering. Oh, sorry, forgot, liberals don't do that.

    And, nobody who watches Fox News is going to be swayed by their 'propoganda'. The vast majority of their viewers already hold the same viewpoints. I am sure there isnt a left leaning viewer having his/her opinions changed by anything Fox News puts out.






Stagger, while I mostly agree, I think they (or whoever is in power)are supposed to support the leader of their party, i.e. the President. And I am a liberal Dem and I don't fearmonger (I agree the national leadership of both parties practices this.).

ANd hopefully nobody's opinion is changed by the station they watch, but by considering all the information from various sources and making an informed opinion. Hopefully.

Finally, intelligent, informed citizens should make decisions based upon what is right, not their political leanings.

(edited by DrDirt on 8.9.06 0636)


Perception is reality
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.76
I disagree with the notion that elected Congressmen are suppose to "support the leader of their party, i.e. the President". We have three branches of government (and keep in mind, these are suppose to be EQUAL branches of government, no one branch more powerful than the other) for a reason. Congress is designed to be a check against the President's power. They are elected to represent the people in their respective district/state. They are not working for the President. At least they are not suppose to be, however I think far too often that is what happens (both parties).



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
    Originally posted by ges7184
    I disagree with the notion that elected Congressmen are suppose to "support the leader of their party, i.e. the President". We have three branches of government (and keep in mind, these are suppose to be EQUAL branches of government, no one branch more powerful than the other) for a reason. Congress is designed to be a check against the President's power. They are elected to represent the people in their respective district/state. They are not working for the President. At least they are not suppose to be, however I think far too often that is what happens (both parties).


That is all true but in this case, Congress is controlled by Republicans, the President is Republican. The President is the leader of his party, ergo they are supposed to be on the same page.



Perception is reality
skorpio17
Morcilla








Since: 11.7.02
From: New Jersey

Since last post: 2407 days
Last activity: 2407 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.40
    Originally posted by Stephanie


    True, there has not been a terror attack in the past five years. Why should there be? Al-Queda's members need only look at the US now to realize that our own government has done far worse damage to the country than they could have hoped. The populace is gripped in constant fear (again, assisted by the supposedly "liberal" media) and drowning in debt (amassed by a pointlessly-aggressive foreign policy and a monetary policy that favors the already-rich). The world seems to hate America more than Al-Queda - how's that for a reversal of fortune?

    Steph


Oddly enough there are even a bunch of Americans that hate America more than Al-Queda.

Eh...I'd rather be feared than loved.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.76
I know in this day and age, this argument is more philosophical than realistic, but I truly believe that the Founding Fathers intended for Congress and the President to act independently of each other, not for Congress to play follow the leader. Of course, with the current party system, this doesn't happen. As it is, our government has almost become a defacto parliamentary system.

I believe that too often those we elect to Congress act as lapdogs for the President. They don't support him out of conviction, but only due to the fact that they are on the same "team".



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 46 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
    Originally posted by Stephanie
    On Wednesday, the President admitted to the presence of secret CIA prisons - which, according to him several months ago, did not exist.


I don't see that. What I saw was "The White House would not confirm the report, " as reported in this article, of all places, in the Clinton News Network
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/

But I would be interested in seeing any evidence of this statement.

    Originally posted by Stephanie

    He has also announced plans for a bald-faced end run around the latest Supreme Court ruling against his "war on terror" by having his GOP-controlled legislature pass a law authorizing what the courts struck down.


Actually, the SCUSA ruling was not against the war on terror, as you contend, but agsinst the way the president wanted to operate the tribunals. Apparently these rules were good enough for Nazi war criminals in Nurenburg, but not good enough for the SCUSA. But in this article, from another clearly conservative newspaper, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928_pf.html)
Justice Breyer suggested that

"The invitation for the president to turn to Congress was extended in a short concurring opinion by one of the justices in the majority, Stephen G. Breyer, who made it clear that the concerns of critics had penetrated deeply at the court.

"Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine -- through democratic means -- how best to do so," Breyer wrote.

"The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means," Breyer concluded. "Our Court today simply does the same.""

    Originally posted by Stephanie

    He can do this with impunity, with his loyal Congressmen and his propaganda outlets (read: Fox News) ready to defend him with such terms as "patriot" and "defender of freedom".



Yes, Fox is propaganda because they actually allow people who aren't raving leftists ON THE AIR. It is shocking, I know. All good journalists should be right in the middle like Katie Couric, Dan Rather and Keith Olberman.

Of course, they do allow raving leftists along with raving rightists and a lot on either side. It would be shocking if (with the notable exception of Lou Dobbs and perhaps Glenn Beck.) CNN did so. More shocking if CBS or NBC did.


    Originally posted by Stephanie

    True, there has not been a terror attack in the past five years.


ah, glad you noticed. Don'tcha wish a certain former president could have said that about Monica time?


    Originally posted by Stephanie

    The populace is gripped in constant fear (again, assisted by the supposedly "liberal" media) and drowning in debt (amassed by a pointlessly-aggressive foreign policy and a monetary policy that favors the already-rich).



You do have the talking points down. I ain't afraid. I ride the airplanes every week. I have a 17 year old boy and I am not afraid for him. Plus, our "pointlessly agressive" foreign policy has kept those cuties over there killing (mostly) each other. Our guys and girls are trying (and some are dying - as freedom lovers have always died for freedom - it is amazing to me that as many Iraqi policement get killed, there is always a huge line for new recruits) to help forces that want to be a real country be one, but I don't believe we can change that culture. But I am glad we are trying. It may be fruitless, but it is heroic. I am sure you would have been upset about how bad we were losing to the Japs in '42 also. We spent a lot on that war too.

    Originally posted by Stephanie

    I believe that not enough Republican Congressmen will lose their seats for the GOP to lose their grip on Congress.



I fear you are not correct here, but I hope you are right.





Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 40 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
Alright...

ges7184: I believe that too often those we elect to Congress act as lapdogs for the President. They don't support him out of conviction, but only due to the fact that they are on the same "team".

That's because they (The Reps more than the Senators) need to be re-elected. Every two years a bill comes due and nothing talks louder than YOUR President's money, connections and endorsement. Even those in the party opposed privately (and even worse, publicly) to Bush - because they buy into only 35% of this Country thinks he is doing a good job - will cozy up. A Lame Duck still treads water

Only an idiot disregards Reagan's 11th Commandment; that goes for both parties. Ask Al Gore. He's on the stump trying to convince people that they're doomed, instead of polishing the silver for the Clinton's return in '08. He couldn't even win his own state

AWA: You do have the talking points down. I ain't afraid. I ride the airplanes every week. I have a 17 year old boy and I am not afraid for him. Plus, our "pointlessly agressive" foreign policy has kept those cuties over there killing (mostly) each other. Our guys and girls are trying (and some are dying - as freedom lovers have always died for freedom - it is amazing to me that as many Iraqi policement get killed, there is always a huge line for new recruits) to help forces that want to be a real country be one, but I don't believe we can change that culture. But I am glad we are trying. It may be fruitless, but it is heroic. I am sure you would have been upset about how bad we were losing to the Japs in '42 also. We spent a lot on that war too.

Yep. But the problem is that if America wants to fight a ground war in the 21st Century, we should empty the prisons, ship all the "not safe for society so let's lock them up and support them for life" degenerates to wherever death is happening and let them either put up or shut up. Expendable. They talk tough locked up, but take away the safety of guards and regulations, can they perform? If we are going to export freedom, I say show the world OUR criminals. It would suck if they bent over like bitches at the first sign of some guy with a rocket launcher - oh well. What can you do?

Drops some bombs, maybe. Again, it's the 21 Century. The Air Force stands down while a Volunteer Army goes door to door with targets on their backs. That's why we haven't won a war in 60 years - it's Political and not Military. One would think someone would come to the conclusion that Politics and the Mutually Assured Destruction premise doesn't work these days - there are countries out there, with the bomb, that aren't afraid to die

Steph - if you want to fear something, that should be it. Global Politics / Foreign Policy has done a total 180 - which is why Clinton looks like a champ, in retrospect. He kept his head buried in the sand, while all the countries called "Third World" evolved during the post - Cold War era. "Peace Time President" - but the 90's is when we should have taken a brutal stance on "terrorism" and ended this early. The country was prosperous back then, parents found Prozac to make their kids behave and Viagra to bring back the fun - no one wouldn't have noticed outright genocide. Now, The Bush Administration is too weak -and maybe too far into it - to make the right decisions. Economically, the country is in better shape than it ever was during the 90's.

The Economics of the 90's may or may not be debatable - but look at it this way. Clinton's economic policy couldn't withstand a bust of phony companies. How do you think "tax the rich to kill the deficit" economics would have worked with gas at $3 a gallon and Hurricanes? Or 9/11. I'm pissed that Bush and a GOP Congress fucked off and didn't do anything about Entitlements for the Baby Boom generation...that's going to be a killer.

I've always thought that having 40 or so years of employment in the American Century should be enough to refrain a generation of failed Hippies from forcing me to foot the bill for their "golden years", but that's a whole 'nother topic, kiddo.

A Hillbilly 's Old Lady is going to be President! IN YOUR LIFETIME! Movie of the Week! The old Lady part...not the Hilllbilly. We've seen that movie

Dr Older than Dirt: Finally, intelligent, informed citizens should make decisions based upon what is right, not their political leanings.

Well Goddamn. With a statement like that, I feel like sending you a Corvette - that has to be on account of a mid-life crisis induced Utopia. You, not me. My 36th is Sunday and I've already outlived Jesus.

Never underestimate the PT Barnum crowd. Almost 50 million people voted for John Kerry. 51 million voted for Bush. Probably the same numbers would vote for Bill Clinton for King or GWB for Dictator. If that was feasible, of course. But the point is swing votes - those that get led by the nose by the media or the uninformed who protest and demonstrate

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.80
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Yes, Fox is propaganda because they actually allow people who aren't raving leftists ON THE AIR. It is shocking, I know. All good journalists should be right in the middle like Katie Couric, Dan Rather and Keith Olberman.


No, they allow such wonderfully unbiased folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and John Gibson to have air time. If I were a conservative, I certainly wouldn't want those folks speaking for me.

Olberman is not a journalist - at least, not in his current position. Rather - deservedly - is no longer a factor. And Couric annoys even a "raving leftist" like me.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Of course, they do allow raving leftists along with raving rightists and a lot on either side. It would be shocking if (with the notable exception of Lou Dobbs and perhaps Glenn Beck.) CNN did so. More shocking if CBS or NBC did.


Remind me - what network is Tucker Carlson on? What network is Joe Scarborough on? What network was Mike Savage on (and who did he replace) - at least, until he completely exposed himself as the hate monger he really is?

NBC has given PLENTY of conservatives air time.

And Ann Coulter was EVERYWHERE until she pulled a Mike Savage. The only places I've seen her since are Fox News and Trinity Broadcasting Network.

(edited by Leroy on 8.9.06 1937)

"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 40 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
And Ann Coulter was EVERYWHERE until she pulled a Mike Savage. The only places I've seen her since are Fox News and Trinity Broadcasting Network.

Ha ha ha. She really stepped on her dick badmouthing the 9/11 widows. Even people that agree with Annie's hairbrained crap consider her Persona Non Gratis

FLEA


(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 9.9.06 0701)


Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.12
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by AWArulz
      Yes, Fox is propaganda because they actually allow people who aren't raving leftists ON THE AIR. It is shocking, I know. All good journalists should be right in the middle like Katie Couric, Dan Rather and Keith Olberman.


    No, they allow such wonderfully unbiased folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and John Gibson to have air time. If I were a conservative, I certainly wouldn't want those folks speaking for me.

    Olberman is not a journalist - at least, not in his current position. Rather - deservedly - is no longer a factor. And Couric annoys even a "raving leftist" like me.


Oblerman is no more or less a 'journalist' than O'Reilly and Hannity. I dont listen to or watch Gibson, so I cant comment on him. But, O'Reilly takes issue with a large portion of the GOP's stance on a number of issues. However that fact is overlooked by about 98% of the people who are NOT to the right of the political spectrum. Olberman, O'Reilly and Hannity, none of these are journalists to begin with, they are commentators. As such, I allow them a bit of slack because when I tune in, I KNOW they are going to have a slant. Which is why I dislike most mainsttream media, because when the slant is there on occasion, when it should not be.






      Originally posted by AWArulz
      Of course, they do allow raving leftists along with raving rightists and a lot on either side. It would be shocking if (with the notable exception of Lou Dobbs and perhaps Glenn Beck.) CNN did so. More shocking if CBS or NBC did.


    Remind me - what network is Tucker Carlson on? What network is Joe Scarborough on? What network was Mike Savage on (and who did he replace) - at least, until he completely exposed himself as the hate monger he really is?

    NBC has given PLENTY of conservatives air time.

    And Ann Coulter was EVERYWHERE until she pulled a Mike Savage. The only places I've seen her since are Fox News and Trinity Broadcasting Network.

    (edited by Leroy on 8.9.06 1937)


Yes, NBC, that same Republican network who let Katie Couric babble on for the past 6 years, deriding Bush at every opportunity. NBC, the same network that owns MSNBC, which coincidentally is where Olberman makes his living. All networks have a balance of right vs left. Some are more heavily stacked on one side than others. But, in the end, its all about entertainment anyways, because most people who want to be informed wont watch Hannity (and Colmes) or Bill O'reilly, or Olberman, or Tucker Carlson.

Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 21 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.99
The thing is, I think Americans are finally starting to wake up and realize that Bush actually is as incompetant as the rest of the world has known he is for the past six years. The Dems will, at worst, win enough congressional seats to nearly retake the House, and should win at least 4-5 seats in the Senate. At best, they'll retake both chambers of Congress and then the fun really starts because Bush will actually be forced to act like a real president and compromise on some of his idiotic policies.

Re: the CIA prisons. It's easy to say "well, we need them for terror suspects, and I don't care if those guys aren't being treated well," but doesn't that go against the fundamental tenet of innocent until proven guilty? Lord knows the police screw up enough arrests that due process is required in our legal system for 'regular' criminals.



Scene: Mark DeRosa's brain. The year is 2005.
Part of Mark DeRosa's brain: Come on, another position change? One day it's second base, the next day right field, now it's third? Why, I oughta go into Buck's office and throw his talking fish on the floor!
Other part of Mark DeRosa's brain: Hold on, other part of the brain. We're making $500,000 this year. Last year we made $725,000. All for playing a damn kids' game. This is, as they say in Brainland, a no-"us"-er. We're not going to complain.
Part of Mark DeRosa's brain: You're right, dude. Let's go back to looking at this crazy porn Teixeira gave us!

--- firejoemorgan.blogspot.com
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
Flea:
I know my statement is naive but until we pitch the lefty vs. righty crap and start examining issues based upon facts, weigh solutions, and determine and outcome we are blind. Both sides have some good ideas/solutions and both are full of plenty of BS. I just wonder when the correct answer to a question became a liberal/conservative thing.

Oh and make the "vette cherry red and convertible.



Perception is reality
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 40 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
Flea:

I just wonder when the correct answer to a question became a liberal/conservative thing.


January 20th, 1981. That's the day half the liberals finally gave up and found God. And Reagan's America. We ain't been right since

Oh and make the "vette cherry red and convertible.

Hell, directions on "How to Get Laid" will be in the glove compartment, just in case. On the house. I'm no Communist

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 6.20
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Osama Dead?
Next thread: Hugo Chavez calls George Bush "The Devil".
Previous thread: ...they just seem a little weird
(534 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
25 years is too much.....
The W - Current Events & Politics - What Are The Odds?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.183 seconds.