Member Discussions

Ntanel enters the discussion.
* Ntanel stabs the discussion repediently with his dagger to no avail. *
Ntanel screams, 'Die discussion! Die!'
* The discussion continues to expand until it uses up all the available space on the Internet, destroying it. *
Ntanel whispers, 'All I wanted was people to play nice!'
Ntanel is dead.

- Meanwhile, in the real world -
Al Gore yells, 'NOO!!! They killed my invention! Those b@st@rds!'

--

Ntanel entra la discusión.
* Ntanel apuñala la discusión repediently con su puñal a ninguna utilidad. *
Los chillidos de Ntanel, 'Muere la discusión! ¡Muera!'
* La discusión continúa ensanchar hasta que utilice arriba todo el espacio disponible en el Internet, lo destruyendo. *
Los chuchicheos de Ntanel, 'Todo quise era personas de jugar agradable!'
Ntanel está muerto.

- Mientras tanto, en el mundo verdadero -
Los gritos de sangre coagulada de Al, 'NOO!! ¡Ellos mataron mi invención! ¡Esos b@st@rdos!'

--

Ntanel entra a conversa.
* Ntanel apunhala a conversa repediently com seu punhal a nenhum proveito. *
Gritos de Ntanel, 'Morrem conversa! Morra!'
* A conversa continua a expandir até que usa para cima todo o espaço disponível na Internet, destruindo-o. *
Cochichos de Ntanel, 'Todo que eu quis era as pessoas jogar amável!'
Ntanel está morto.

- Entretanto, no mundo real -
Gritos de Gore de Al, 'NOO!! Mataram minha invenção! Esses b@st@rdo!'

--

Ntanel entre la discussion.
* Ntanel poignarde la discussion repediently avec son poignard sans résultat. *
Les cris de Ntanel, 'Mourir la discussion! Mourir!'
* La discussion continue à augmenter jusqu'à ce qu'il épuise
tout l'espace disponible sur l'Internet, le détruisant. *
Les chuchotements de Ntanel, 'Tout j'ai voulu étais des gens pour jouer agréable!'
Ntanel est mort.

- Pendant ce temps, dans le vrai monde -
Les hurlements d'Al gore, 'NOO!! Ils ont tué mon invention! Ces bât@rds!'

--

Ntanel trägt die Diskussion ein.
* Ntanel sticht die Diskussion repediently mit seinem Dolch nutzlos. *
Ntanel Schreie, 'Stirbt Diskussion! Sterben Sie!'
* Die Diskussion breitet weiter aus, bis es alle verfügbaren Plätze auf dem Internet aufbraucht, zerstörend es. *
Ntanel Flüstern, 'Alle, die ich gewollt habe, war Leute, nett zu spielen!'
Ntanel ist tot.

- Mittlerweile, im wirklichen Welt -
Al Geronnenem Blut Aufschreien, 'NOO!! Sie haben meine Erfindung getötet! Die B@st@rde!'

--

Il Ntanel entra la discussione.
* Ntanel pugnala la discussione repediently col suo dagger a inutilmente. *
Le grida di Ntanel, 'Muore la discussione! Morire!'
* La discussione continua a allargarsi finché usa su tutto lo spazio disponibile sull'Internet, lo distruggendo. *
I bisbigli di Ntanel, 'Tutte il ho voluto era delle persone di giocare piacevole!'
Il Ntanel è morto.

- Nel frattempo, nel mondo reale -
Le urla di Sangue coagulato di Al, 'NOO!! Hanno ucciso la mia invenzione! Quei b@st@rdi!'

--

Ntanel входит в обсуждение.
* Ntanel наносит удар обсуждению repediently с его кинжалом напрасно. *
Ntanel крики, ' Умирают обсуждение! Умрите! '
* Обсуждение продолжает расширяться, пока это не израсходовало все доступное место(космос) на Интернете, уничтожая это. *
Ntanel шепоты, ' Все, что я хотел, были людьми, чтобы играть хороший! '
Ntanel мертв.

- Тем временем, в реальном мире-
Эл Гор вопит, ' NOO!!! Они убили мое изобретение! Те ублюдки! '

The truth is that I can pull a quote or document for each you supply -and vice versa. Personally I tend to believe the documents filled at that time rather than current recollections (see the IOL article) of either party in this long (decades, this is not a new charge) battle between embittered parties. I don't know what happened and neither do you -the difference is that you think you do.

You threw up a bunch of links and all of them support my post that you responded too.

To recap:

All the Navy documents support the Kerry side.

False. They haven't been released. Kerry unlike Bush will not sign a release form.
But of the ones that are released (by Kerry), the most especially damaging one to the Kerry side the document that attributes the boat damage to PCF3 to Kerry's PCF94. One of your links regurgitates that misinformation.

All the people who were present during the actions give the same description of events as Kerry does.

False. The links you posted explicitly say otherwise.

None of the people in SVT were present during these actions

False. The links you posted explicitly say otherwise.

The original claims of the SVT didn't dispute the chain of events, actually: they had more to do with the motivation for those events.

False. They links you provided prove it.

The only indisputable fact is that Kerry volunteered for combat duty.

False. There are many indisputable facts. Interestingly the fact you suggest is indisputable above may well be disputed by Kerry himself. According to his own book, 'When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing.'

In my opinion, I will add that volunteering once might pass for youthful fervor but doing so twice would speak a different story.

Bush volunteered for duty twice almost exactly like Kerry. It's an indisputable fact that he enlisted and that he requested to be transferred to combat air wing that went into Vietnam.

Trivia question:
Dick Cheney received 5 deferments. We know this because it's repeated constantly by the democrats and the leftist press.
How many deferments did Kerry receive?

Personally I tend to believe the documents filled at that time...

I would too. But we ain't never going to see them because Kerry is hiding them, unlike Bush.

Actually, all of the documents that have been released thus far support the fact that Bush did not show up for duty as required. Those memos from CBS, forgeries or genuine, are only a tiny, relatively insignificant piece of that evidence. I personally found the investigation done by the Globe just previous to the CBS one to be much more incriminating.

However, some of those documents I referred to WERE monospaced. There were typewriters in use back then that used monospaced, superscript-able fonts identical to those in the documents. The Fox News PAC argues that, since those typewriters weren't very common back then, then it's unlikely that he would have had one. However, the documents are there, so apparently he did.

Furthermore, all the real experts are saying that it is literally impossible to make a conclusive determination one way or another without the original documents, which even CBS doesn't have (they're all photocopies of photocopies of photocopies.... etc). So you can't legitimately call them "forgeries" when all the experts are saying there is no conclusive proof of that. Plain and simple.

As for CBS releasing the names of the people who provided those documents, that would violate the principal of confidentiality, held sacred by journalists. Tell ya what, though: If neo-conservative nutjob Robert Novak releases the name of the senior Bush Administration official who leaked the name of the undercover CIA operative whose husband angered the Bush White House, a crime which amounts to treason, THEN I'll gladly call on CBS to release the names of the people who it obtained the memos from. You can't have it both ways.

You threw up a bunch of links and all of them support my post that you responded too.

They described the situation, which is different. We'll talk when you've calmed down.

All the Navy documents support the Kerry side.

False. They haven't been released. Kerry unlike Bush will not sign a release form.
But of the ones that are released (by Kerry), the most especially damaging one to the Kerry side the document that attributes the boat damage to PCF3 to Kerry's PCF94. One of your links regurgitates that misinformation.

All the people who were present during the actions give the same description of events as Kerry does.

False. The links you posted explicitly say otherwise.

None of the people in SVT were present during these actions

False. The links you posted explicitly say otherwise.

The original claims of the SVT didn't dispute the chain of events, actually: they had more to do with the motivation for those events.

False. They links you provided prove it.

This is what the IOL essay speculated on. We read the exact same documents and come to different conclusions -although, again, these documents were overviews of the situation rather than specific rebuttals.

The only indisputable fact is that Kerry volunteered for combat duty.

False. There are many indisputable facts. Interestingly the fact you suggest is indisputable above may well be disputed by Kerry himself. According to his own book, 'When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing.'

That's just pathetic. He obviously thought so on the second tour of duty, too?

Bush volunteered for duty twice almost exactly like Kerry. It's an indisputable fact that he enlisted and that he requested to be transferred to combat air wing that went into Vietnam.

And he skipped his drills because he was just so disappointed that he couldn't go to Vietnam, right? Please cite your sources for this claim.


Personally I tend to believe the documents filled at that time...

I would too. But we ain't never going to see them because Kerry is hiding them, unlike Bush.

Hopefully he'll release them.

How many deferments did Kerry receive?

Reportedly one to finish his Undergraduate degree. This was of course before he went to Vietnam..


.

(they're all photocopies of photocopies of photocopies.... etc). So you can't legitimately call them "forgeries" when all the experts are saying there is no conclusive proof of that. Plain and simple.


And if you run with this to the logical conclusion, based on your own argument, if they're photocopies of copies of copies.... then you can't conclusively prove them to be genuine either, so CBS ( or SeeBS as Tyche has so appropriately called them ) had no business running with this story to begin with until they could prove it solidly one way or the other. They can't, and thus they were derelict in their duty to the people to report fairly and accurately on the issue.

CBS vetted the documents with independent sources and determined with a reasonable level of confidence that these documents are accurate. Furthermore, they let the Bush White House take a look at the documents before releasing them, and they didn't raise any objections. Even Fox News (or Faux News as I call it :P) admits that.

CBS reported on the documents. They did not say whether or not they proved anything one way or another. They were reported as evidence, which is what they are. They might not be as good evidence as CBS originally thought, but it's still newsworthy and they were right to report it.

Fact is, the Republicans are trying to tear CBS apart for reporting something that damages Bush's carefully tailored image, just as they're doing to John Kerry and John Edwards, just as they did to Howard Dean, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Bill Mahr, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, James Carville, CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, General Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Chelsea Clinton, Theresa Heinz Kerry, John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, all Americans who live on the west and east coasts, Robert Byrd, Richard Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Lou Dobbs, Jaques Chirac, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, Jon Stewart, and pretty much anyone else who has ever had the audacity to question them.


Did I miss anyone?

You missed yourself and everyone involved in the Roswell coverup, but hey, that's ok. You've got too many wild and unfounded conspiracies to keep track of as it is. Why burden you with another?

SeeBS hasn't proven squat, and at this point they never will. So they were wreckless and irresponsible in their reporting. It's really that simple.

As for the big list of people you've named, they all brought their problems upon themselves for whatever it is you're indirectly acknowledging they've done by listing them as targets of the "vast right wing conspiracy". Not that I can recall anything the Republicans ever said bad about JFK or Chelsea, but then you've never let the facts cloud your judgement before. Why start now.

Wow, all my work and no response. Hulk sad.

They described the situation, which is different. We'll talk when you've calmed down.

Well it's the logic filtered through a opaque poltical lense that's bugging me. Usually you are much more reasonable than that, Muir.

All the Navy documents support the Kerry side.
All the people who were present during the actions give the same description of events as Kerry does.
None of the people in SVT were present during these actions
The original claims of the SVT didn't dispute the chain of events, actually: they had more to do with the motivation for those events.

This is what the IOL essay speculated on. We read the exact same documents and come to different conclusions -although, again, these documents were overviews of the situation rather than specific rebuttals.

Oh you can certainly come to a lot of conclusions, but coming to conclusions that deny even the existence of these men is not one I saw the essay speculating on.

A single contrary example easily smashes and blowns that of the water like a PTF boat running into a mine:
Thurlow is a member of the SVT.
Thurlow receive a bronze star for one of these actions.
Thurlow tells a different story.
A navy document supports Thurlow's story.

One of the problems is that Kerry's book tells a different tales than both the Navy documents and the SVT people. Just for example:
'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky,' - from John Kerry's diary written on Dec 11, 1968
Kerry's first Purple Heart was awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968
Ouch! JFK has trouble recollecting he was under heavy enemy fire only 9 days earlier.

BTW, There is very reasonable and plausible theory for Kerry's 1st purple heart that has all 4 witnesses telling the truth and only Kerry constructing a whopper.

>False. There are many indisputable facts. Interestingly the fact you suggest is indisputable above may well be disputed by Kerry himself. According to his own book, 'When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing.'

That's just pathetic. He obviously thought so on the second tour of duty, too?

It is clear that he joined the swift boats in June 68 and they were at the time doing coastal patrols. In Navy speak I understand a tour of duty is an overseas deployment that lasts 6 months. From the Kerry website: On June 6, 1968 Kerry arrives in Long Beach the day after Senator Robert F. Kennedy is killed in Los Angeles. Thus ended his first tour of duty, and his change of duty I've linked to apparently marks the start of his second tour of duty.

>Bush volunteered for duty twice almost exactly like Kerry. It's an indisputable fact that he enlisted and that he requested to be transferred to combat air wing that went into Vietnam.

And he skipped his drills because he was just so disappointed that he couldn't go to Vietnam, right? Please cite your sources for this claim.

Attempt to change the subject noted.

Now read what I have claimed....It's an indisputable fact that he enlisted...
(I apologize for linking to a vitriolic Bush-hater site - but the document is there at http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc26.gif)

...and that he requested to be transferred to combat air wing that went into Vietnam.
Newsweek - Three of Bush's fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.

Sorry I don't have a document on the second as it doesn't exist. I do have three ANG officers stating that he did volunteer for Vietnam. I suppose the notion that 3 veterans with the same recollection is disputable if you can come up with someone who served with Bush who recalls this differently. (You know like the SVT persons who served with Kerry and questioned his service)

Ergo, I believe I have shown proof of what I have stated. Your ball.

How many deferments did Kerry receive?

Reportedly one to finish his Undergraduate degree. This was of course before he went to Vietnam..


Kerry had four student deferments, and only enlisted in the USN reserves when his fifth student deferment was denied, as you say to do post-graduate studies [in Paris].

So the correct answer to the trivia question is...
Kerry requested 5 and received 4.
Cheney requested 5 and recieved 5.

As for the big list of people you've named, they all brought their problems upon themselves for whatever it is you're indirectly acknowledging they've done by listing them as targets of the "vast right wing conspiracy". Not that I can recall anything the Republicans ever said bad about JFK or Chelsea, but then you've never let the facts cloud your judgement before. Why start now.

Yes, they did bring the problems upon themselves by saying something that disagrees with the Republican agenda. It has been a Republican tradition for decades to smear and tear apart anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Robert Novak (yes, the same neo-con who outed the undercover CIA agent on behalf of the Bush administration) was a columnist back when JFK was running for president, and was quite vocal in his attacks and criticisms of him both during and after the campaign.

As for Chelsea, Rush Limbaugh went after her with various rumors and inappropriate jokes on his TV show (before it was cancelled) on numerous occasions. I remember, cuz my grandparents watched it religiously, so I had to sit through it whenever I visited.


As for the "right-wing conspiracy", I think there is a lot of evidence of something like that, though admittedly nothing conclusive. But there are a lot of fishy things going on, such as how the 2000 thing played out in Florida, how coordinated the false attacks on Clinton were (and now are on Kerry), Iran Contra, Nixon's Plumbers, the group of Republicans who were caught hacking into Democratic party servers in 2002 downloading strategic information (kinda like a cyber-Watergate), the gerrymandering in Colorado and Texas at the behest of Tom Delay, the web of connections with the Saudi royal family, Fox News, etc. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "conspiracy" as Hilary has, but it sure does raise some eyebrows.


(Comment added by sir_kris on Sun Sep 12 20:42:09 2004)

Oh, and let's not forget the Kennedy assassination.


(Comment added by sir_kris on Sun Sep 12 20:43:05 2004)

And the treasonous outing of that undercover CIA operative by a senior Bush administration official.


(Comment added by sir_kris on Sun Sep 12 20:47:43 2004)

And the fact that the Republicans are flexing their muscles in Congress to force the use of voting machines that don't leave a verifiable paper trail that can be recounted if need be. Also interesting how the manufacturer of the machines being implemented in several battleground states is a corporation that has contributed thousands of dollars to the Bush campaign, and whose CEO has stated publicly that he looks forward to delivering the election to Bush this fall.

There you go again with this vendetta of yours against Fox News. Opposing viewpoints bother you that much do they? You already admit you don't watch them, so you're in no position to make judgements on their content or their opinions.

False attacks on Clinton? You mean how he committed perjury, and was tried for it? I seem to recall this was a matter of public record in a trial transcript. So unless we injected him with drugs and forced him to lie, he did it to himself. He was rightfully impeached for it, but your own Democrats who claim to cherish the law were the ones who refused to convict him.

As for the rest of your outlandish charges, they don't even merit a response. I mean come on, we plotted the assassination of JFK now too? I don't know what you're smoking up there in Washington, but you should stop. Soon.

(Comment added by Samson on Sun Sep 12 22:14:11 2004)

And with regard to the touchscreen voting machine thing, we do agree on one thing: It's a scary thought that someone wants this to go through with no paper trail. Which is why I support having such machines print a "ballot receipt" when you're done voting.

We disagree on why this is scary though. I for one don't want to see another Al Gore scenario develop where the Democrats try to steal another election.

I do not care for either canidate, but as a voting citizen I must pick the lesser evil.

The republican party has yet to benefit the country in my opinion, so I have a very hard time even wanting to listen to their views on policies and various topics around the world.

While many hated Clinton because he "lied" his term in office was one of the better periods of time in the United States. I'm sure the republicans will jump all over that statement, but its pretty much fact, if you follow economic trends around the US.

This presidential race has become rediculous in my eyes. Two canidates slandering each other more than I have seen in years. Then to have supporters of both parties get into debates such as these 150 post long threads going back and forth about who lied who flipped flopped ect ect ect.

No one seems to have any logical opinion on the issues as an american anymore, we are to busy bickering about what broadcasting company is in the wrong, or they do this because they fend the X party. The kind of crap Ive been hearing at work, and in public is a great example of why we were attacked as a country.

We deserve everything we get. What goes around comes around, this mostly being held in the hands of our leaders. Lets worry about who would benefit our country better and not who lies or changes their mind more...

False attacks on Clinton? You mean how he committed perjury, and was tried for it?

Well, that wasn't the only thing they attacked Clinton over. There was Whitewater, Flowergate, Travelgate, Filegate, etc.

We disagree on why this is scary though. I for one don't want to see another Al Gore scenario develop where the Democrats try to steal another election.

Well, the "Al Gore scenario" involved a big ruckus and lots of lawyers. Without a paper trail, neither size could even attempt to do recounts. If they even realized something fishy was going on. The quiet, efficient supression of democracy. As for trying to "steal" the 2000 election, I'm just going to say that you're way off base and leave it at that to avoid yet another pointless discussion.

If stealing an election means making sure all the votes are counted and the person with the most votes is elected, then so be it. By that standard, you're right that we failed to steal the election in 2000. :P

I'm sure the families of those who were killed in 9/11 would love to see what you just said. This is why arguing such matters with deluisional minds is pointless. It always comes back to that tired old comeback claiming we deserved it. I'll remember you said that the next time something like this happens, and I'll come here to dig up your words when it's your own family and friends who are directly affected by it.

And Clinton did lie. He committed perjury. It's a matter of record. Indisputable fact. If you wish to defend a known criminal, go right ahead. You seem to be capable of accepting any kind of leader, even one who admits he committed war crimes. All because you hate Bush and can't even define why.

In my opinion, the Republican party is the only reason we even still have a country. John Kerry and the other Democrats are trying to subvert our sovereignty by turning over control of the military and other government functions to the United Nations. Well, excuse me if I have issues with forfeiting my sovereignty to a corrupt world organization who pays more attention to France and Germany than anyone else.

All because you hate Bush and can't even define why.

Maybe he can't, but I can.

Bush is the most evil form of human existence. He is a self-righteous hypocrite. He calls actual countries evil, as though an entire piece of land with people in it can be attributed with the abstract term "evil". Does that mean every single person in that country is evil? Or just the majority? He kills people, yet insists that he believes in Jesus. Not that I believe in Jesus, but I'm pretty sure he never meant, "Show them the other cheek," as a slogan for bombing the *CENSORED* out of other people. And I'm definitely sure that, though we should defend ourselves, launching pre-emptive strikes against nations that had nothing to do with the attacks on us would definitely not coincide with what Jesus would do.

I hate all these Bible-thumping idiots that say, "What would Jesus do?" and go and do the exact opposite. Bush is one of them. He even said Jesus was the greatest "philosopher" in a debate in 2000 (what an ingenius way to get votes). If Bush is so in love with Jesus, he should start practicing what Jesus preaches and stop the war. Unfortunately, it's too late for that. And what about all the people he had executed in Texas? Logically, Christians shouldn't believe in the death penalty, because "Thou shalt not kill," certainly doesn't state that it is okay to kill people as a punishment. If there are any punishments, I'm pretty sure the Bible also says that "God" is the man for that job, not Bush. So what does this make Bush? A power-hungry hypocrite whom enjoys playing God. Oh, I'm sorry, that whole Ten Commandments thing was in the Old Testament, so they don't count anymore, except when it comes to shoving them in peoples' face and putting them in government buildings like courthouses. Idiots.

Too bad every other Christian in the country who supports Bush is too stupid to realize that they're all going against what their Bible, and, in essence, their "God", wants. Perhaps, if there's a hell, they will all burn in it for using religion as a means to kill innocent people.

Did I miss anyone?

I'm sure. This sums up your rant in a nutshell.
http://jlsysinc.gotdns.com/media.jpg

Well, excuse me if I have issues with forfeiting my sovereignty to a corrupt world organization [UN] who pays more attention to France and Germany than anyone else.

You have no idea what the UN does, do you? The most powerful members of the UN are the US, Russia and China. In addition, Germany isn't even a permanent member of the security council so they can't veto any decisions (like the US does).

Geez.

.

I hate making the same post twice:
http://www.mudconnector.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=promotions&message=11650

---
-"You might say that mudconnector's forums certainly go downhill when the election in the US closes in", snorted the orc.
-"But I will prove you all wrong. Just wait for the time when the swedish election will arrive!", he continued before he exploded in an insane fit of laughter.
---

Obviously the Book is way too heavy for you to thump. I'd suggest Clifford the Big Red Dog or Mein Kampf might be more your speed.

OTOH, the suggestion that someone who hates Christians with a passion is likely to be a Bush hater is certainly sound theory from what I can see.

I only hate most Christians.

To Tyche re: John Kerry's draft deferments. I was of draft age during Vietnam & student deferments were renewed every year, so 4 student deferments during your undergraduate years was commonplace. The deferments were granted on the basis of GPA & full time status, so they were renewed when grades were sent to the draft boards. The fact he was refused a fifth deferment when he went to grad school was also common, unless you were going to medical school, as the Army would want you to become a doctor so they could get their hands on you. The fact that he enlisted after being denied, was the smart thing to do if you were 1A. You spent at least an extra year in the military, but it gave you some say in how you served, as opposed to letting the Army decide.

That aside, I would also like to point out that no one DIED when Clinton lied. This country will be better off on a NO CARB diet. NO Cheney, NO Ashcroft, NO Rummy, & NO BUSH!!!

(Comment added by Macbeth on Mon Sep 13 18:59:49 2004)

By the way, you didn't "request" 2S (student)deferments, they were automatic, if you were a full-time student, & had a 2.00 GPA. If you didn't meet those qualifications, you were immediately called up for an Army physical (ala "Alice's Restaurant") & then you were either classified 1A (available for duty), 1Y (does not meet present standards, but subject to another physical in one year to be re-examined) or 4F (physically unfit to serve). The only time you "requested" a deferment was special circumstances: i.e. sole surviving son, special occupation, conscientious objector.

And I would simply respond that it's on the record that Clinton lied. Nobody has provided one shred of proof that Bush lied, let alone committed a crime in furtherance of a lie.

As for the UN, I know what they do. They sit on their hands while innocent people are murdered by homocide bombers in Israel, while passing resolutions condemning Israel for defending themselves. They sit on their hands "debating" over what to do in Iraq while France threatens to use its Security Council veto to stop anything we might do to proactively defend our nation. They engage in corruption at the highest levels when Koffe Annon makes deals with the devil over an oil for food program. They idle away 15 years vasciliating and passing multiple resolutions over how to handle Iraq, while looking the other way when Clinton bombs Kosovo. So don't lecture me on what a great and wonderful organization this is. And don't even dare to tell me I should allow them to have any say in how our military is deployed throughout the world.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Congratulations.


Bush lied about a war that has resulted in over a thousand U.S. deaths. Bush lied about the so-called "economic recovery". Bush lied when he said he didn't have any warning about 9/11. Bush lied when he said he would create jobs, not elimindate them. Bush lied when he said he would provide adequite funding to local fire fighters. Bush lied when he said he would provide funding to local police. Bush lied when he said he would increase funding for homeland security. Bush lied when he said our borders are more secure now than 3 years ago (they're less secure). Bush lied when he said the Iraq war would pay for itself (with the oil). Bush lied when he said he would fire whoever leaked the name of the undercover CIA operative. Bush lied when he said he served this country honorably. Bush lied when he said he doesn't want to be considered a "war-time President". Bush lied to get into office in the first place.

Bush lied. And he will continue to lie until we kick his neo-conservative ass out of the Whitehouse and all the way back to Crawford, Texas.

Fishy,

I offer my sincere apologies on behalf of the insensitive, barbarous villain who has hired muscle to threaten you with slow, painful death if you refuse to read this thread.

I will do my best to minimize your suffering; while I cannot pry away the device that forcibly keeps your eyelids open -oh how I wish I could- I will try to ascertain that the content will remain fixedly at MUDslinging.

Your Brother In Pain And Torture,

Muir