|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted August 01, 2002 06:15 AM |
|
|
Privatehudson
stated “Snogard You can be sure sometimes of their intention. no-one can honestly be trying to minimize civilian lives if they crash a passenger laden jumbo into a densely populated building twice! (and one at pentagon) someone trying to avoid casualties would surely go for cargo planes.” You can’t be more right on m8 BTW it might have been possible that we were separated at birth as my ancestry is from England
Romana
stated “Anger is a choice. Choose wisely.” While that is a nice sentiment it is really quite incorrect psychologically speaking. No one can chose their initial emotions but they can choose what they do with them and how they act in response. Anger is a natural and actually healthy emotion. Anger only become wrong if we use it to unnecessarily harm others or try to escalate our own anger into burning and irrational rage.
Cat
I really appreciate the clarification. I thought you were intentionally calling me a goon. I don’t know about in other countries but here calling some one a goon is less than flattering I apologize for responding in kind…I thought you started name calling but now I see it was an honest mistake. Glad that is resolved
I think you may be right that some policy decisions are for self-centered interests. But I do think that many are made others policy decisions are actually with altruistic intentions also. Also self interest…well that is really the primary responsibility of any nation is to see to the interests of their own country provided they are not harming others needlessly. On the other hand, being someone who is very pro- capitalist…I think when people work towards their own self interest (which is very different than self-centeredness) that the common good is served in a very profound manner.
I don’t know…I think we should be giving arms to Israel….I mean consider the difference out there…it is like a regular football team taking on another football team that has 100,000 people. Israel is quite alone out there and without assistance I am sure it would result in the final genocide for the Jews in that region.
I got to say that was funny when you stated “ Blair also seems to think this is a good idea, but then he seems to be Bush's "Monica", so that doesn't surprise me” though I think that is a stretch. Please don’t get me started on the disgraceful President Clinton…I have never been more embarrassed and saddened about an American President than he. Personally I got choked up during the Presidential address to congress after the vicious attack and President Bush addressed Blair who was present and stated something like “America has no greater friend than Britain”. Maybe that was due to my English roots…but it was a powerful movement for me and I think many Americans.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 06:18 AM |
|
|
Odvin
While I agree with you when you said “I'm sure it is impossible to destroy terrorism”. Though when you commented “Only time will perhaps do something with this conflict”…I find that doubtful as most cultural/religious wars have been going on for centuries. I think we can’t ignore it, but instead must do what we can to stop it everywhere.
Personally I have been so thankful for all the nations that have assisted the US in this effort. I am sure many lives were saved in this cooperative effort. I know in the US that many terrorist plans have been stopped and the war on terrorism is at least stopping some of the evil plans that are afoot.
I am sure we will be struck again either internally or externally but that does not mean that are current efforts have failed….it is just there will always be wars and rumors of wars….there will always be dictators…there will always be terrorists….cause lets face it…we humans aren’t as evolved as we like to think.
Bort
I agree we haven’t seen a lot of Powell lately…but I think he was major factor in bringing together the nations before we officially launched our War on Terrorism. I am sure there is probably some disagreement between him and the rest of the administration as you have implied.
But that is another reason why you have to respect Bush….he was not afraid to bring together a team that was diversified. I mean with Powell and his more moderate/left of center stance on issues ….not to mentions the former governor of New Jersey (I am forgetting her name) and her stance on some issues such as being pro-choice. I mean look at the former administration of Clinton…did you see any stanch pro-lifers or more moderates/left of center appointees? I didn’t. I think that speaks volumes when an administration can have the ethnic and political diversity that Bush has done. Granted the diversity is not comprehensive cause he didn’t appoint someone like Kennedy
I got to say that I was a little disappointed Bort…I was hoping you would give us one of your in-depth and stimulating analysis of some more food….perhaps pizza next time
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 06:28 AM |
|
|
Snogard
Stated ""Absolute" and "relative" have to co-exist; without one, we cannot possibly understand the other... "logically". I suppose that's how logic works - by comparing "absolutes". You mentioned, "most relativists here continually make absolute statements", that is only partly true. Each statement is absolute, but all the statements are relative to each other. You said relativists "have no authority other than to state their solely individulized perspective", well I'll say not only the relativists, but all of us (in a sense). The moment we "accepted" a certain perspective, it's individualized. The so call authority only extend so far as our "believes"."
Interesting..don't know if I agree but I will have to reflect upon that. Well stated.
As far as logic=truth...I would have to say...no they don't equal each other. But I do think that truth must at least be logically defensible. I do believe that ultimately truth can rarely be reached without some improvable premises but none-the-less it can be logically supported.
|
|
Gangrail
Promising
Famous Hero
Dead Man
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 06:47 AM |
|
|
No Private
I didn't say all Iraq I said the snows that support him and think he is god. I know not all Iraq likes or follows him. And war is stupid and costly in human lives. But he and his followers are useless piece of snows. Actually I was expecting to get nailed by my earlier post lol. But I am so sick of the stuff these dictators are getting away with. And the USA is one of a few countries that can shut them up. Slapp them in the mouth hard enough and they will stop. His followers will remove him after enough of lives are lost that should have never been lost. I lost six uncles in WWII so I do know the cost of war. But if he isn't stopped he will be a real problem later.
This is my last post on this subject. 
____________
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 10:57 AM |
|
|
Only thing I wanted to say snogard..you took my signature the wrong way..if you write it this way it's out of context and I would agree with you ..But if you take the first part in consideration i would have to disagree
*AM I making sense here????* Rant rant rant rant
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 12:27 PM |
|
|
Gangrail
That has merits but the problem with bombing Iraq is that you cannot be selective in whether you put supporters or opponents back into the stone-age.
DArGOn
At last something we can disagree on! Israel in my opinion may be outnumbered, but the funding pumped into it more than counter-balances this. The problem facing Palestinians is the lack of support from outsiders to improve their life and lack of support from the surrounding Arab Nations to take their land back. The west and especially America in my opinion should cease to fund exclusively the Israeli’s and move to an agreement with the Arab/Islamic (there is a difference) countries whereby there is funding made available to both sides, but only to restart the peace process. America and the West also fund Egypt, Jordan and other smaller nations in the area and pressure on them could also be applied.
Without funding Israel would collapse under an assault so this fact should be used to get them to cease revenge attacks and seek a way to stop the violence in the area by peaceful means. The Islamic nations must cease to fund and equip terrorists. Only then can a peace be sought. We cannot go on blaming the two sides for the conflict when we refuse to stop funding both sides to continue it with our money and our weapons.
The problem of the 100,000 player soccer team is slightly out of context. The greatest problem the Islamic/Arab nations have faced in wiping Israel off the map is simply themselves. They have never in 50 years managed to arrange a conflict where they are all working to the same timetable, same goals and same ideals. Each leader is constantly looking to make himself a new Saladin and unite the Arab/Islamic world behind him.
The above I think should be used as leverage on the two sides to enforce a peaceful settlement that both sides can agree on. If you stop funding both sides, neither will have an opportunity to crush the other. If the current situation continues, how long will it be before it is Israel who is committing genocide/war crimes on the Palestinians if this continues?
Oh and Romana your sig makes perfect sense – it basically means you can react to any situation as you choose to, you are never forced to be angry. All it can sometimes take is a break or a deep breath and then you can make yourself more coherent and less spitefull.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 12:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I got to say that was funny when you stated “ Blair also seems to think this is a good idea, but then he seems to be Bush's "Monica", so that doesn't surprise me” though I think that is a stretch. Please don’t get me started on the disgraceful President Clinton…I have never been more embarrassed and saddened about an American President than he. Personally I got choked up during the Presidential address to congress after the vicious attack and President Bush addressed Blair who was present and stated something like “America has no greater friend than Britain”. Maybe that was due to my English roots…but it was a powerful movement for me and I think many Americans.
This i find really interesting:
That fact that you dont like Clinton at all, while over here id say most people prefer Clinton to Bush. I mean i dont think its just the general public view either, ive seen several MPs slate him quite badly. But so do a lot of americans
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 03:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This i find really interesting:
That fact that you dont like Clinton at all, while over here id say most people prefer Clinton to Bush. I mean i dont think its just the general public view either, ive seen several MPs slate him quite badly. But so do a lot of americans
If there weren't term limits in the US, Clinton would have had a very good chance of a third term.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that is another reason why you have to respect Bush?.he was not afraid to bring together a team that was diversified. I mean with Powell and his more moderate/left of center stance on issues ?.not to mentions the former governor of New Jersey (I am forgetting her name) and her stance on some issues such as being pro-choice. I mean look at the former administration of Clinton?did you see any stanch pro-lifers or more moderates/left of center appointees? I didn?t. I think that speaks volumes when an administration can have the ethnic and political diversity that Bush has done.
I don't "have" to respect Bush.
Is there a "staunch" pro-choice candidate in the Bush administration? The governor you are thinking of is Christine Whitman. She is the head of the EPA, where she has nothing to do with abortion issues. Personally, I find the idea of the former head of New Jersey being in charge of the environment...
William Cohen, the Secretary of Defense during Clinton's second term was 1. a republican (he used the be a republican senator from Maine) and 2. had been critical of Clinton during his first term.
Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury was considered to be a centrist, and, for instance, often spoke against/opposed government "intervention" into the economy (this is often considered a Republican trait)
Not to mention the reappointment of Alan Greenspan who was originally a Reagan appointee. There were probably others, if you look down into the "token appointment" jobs and I'm there might have been some from the first term as well, but I don't remember who he had during the first term.
So let me ask you... is there a democratic senator in Bush's cabinet?
I don't know why people seem to think that Clinton was this ultra left wing radical. I thought he was actually a bit too far to the right...
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
posted August 02, 2002 04:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Only thing I wanted to say snogard..you took my signature the wrong way..if you write it this way it's out of context and I would agree with you ..But if you take the first part in consideration i would have to disagree
*AM I making sense here????* Rant rant rant rant
Er... sorry, I'm not too sure what you're referring to? Anyway, thank you everybody, it has been a great discussion!
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 03, 2002 06:42 AM |
|
|
Is it just me or are people getting names mixed up quite often on this thread….Person A says something and poster B makes a reply to Person
C when it was really person A who said it Just an observation.
Privatehudson
Well regarding Israel…I do admit that my religious beliefs may color my perception of the issue. Having said that….I think that it needs to be stated that Palestinians have never had a nation of their own. So their basic demand to have one is quite unreasonable in my opinion. It is like in US…we have every nationality you can imagine and if some of them started demanding that the US recognize them as a nation and give them land well I think that would be unreasonable. Personally I don’t understand why some of the other Arab nations don’t step up to the plate and give them some of their land to settle in.
Furthermore even if they did have their own nation at one time, I still think it would be unreasonable…lets face it most national boundaries were fought over at one time or another (USA, Mexico, Canada, etc. etc.) and many lands were conquered and thus we have the current nation.
Now I could be incorrect but it seems to me that the Palestinian terrorists are continually killing Jews…to which Israel responds as anyone one would who had been attacked. I mean we lost a lot of people on 9/11 but I am sure when you take the size of Israel into account the loss of lives due to a terrorist attack is quite huge on a percentage basis. It actually surprises me that so many people seem tolerant of the terrorism that occurs in Israel. For example, if England were attacked by terrorists they would be quick to respond in kind and find/kill the perpetrators. But when it comes to Israel it seems many people take a blind eye.
Israel’s retaliation appears to me to be very measured and reasonable. When a Palestinian murders Israelites you don’t see Israel killing people from Iran …no they go after the Palestinians.
Arab nations might not be under a single leadership…but from my understanding most of them want Israel gone…and if US wasn’t backing Israel I am sure you would quite quickly see a united attack on Israel. Personally I am of course for peace also, but how that is accomplished I think is the difficult thing. Like I stated earlier…call me a pessimist…I think their will always be hatred between the two religions/cultures.
In regards to funding…there are plenty of wealthy Arab nations who I don’t think would need any financial support to quickly annihilate Israel.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 03, 2002 06:44 AM |
bonus applied. |
Edited By: dArGOn on 3 Aug 2002
|
Arachnid
I think it is generally known that at least Europe seems to not like Bush. But then why should they….as a whole Europe is much more liberal/socialist and Bush is more conservative/capitalist. Clinton and democrats in the US are much closer to the European political system than Bush so it makes since that they prefer Clinton.
AS far as Americans…he has had the highest ratings compared to most presidents EVER….he has consistently gotten a 75-90% approval rating since 9/11.
Bort
Clinton may have been elected a third term but I doubt it. On the other hand Reagan would surely of won a third term. But then I like term limits no matter who is in office…they protect the citizens I think.
You missed my point about Christine Whitman, or Powell for that matter... of course tehy doesn’t have anything directly to do with the abortion issue…for that matter very few people have any affect upon the abortion issue. Abortion is one of the most heated political topics and for him to appoint her…well was unheard of.
As far as the Clinton appointees that you mentioned… The one truly right leaning appointee was Greenspan…and that to me was just smart politics….Greenspan is a bedrock of our economy…to get rid of him would of done great damage to the economy and thus the Clinton administration. William Cohen yeah he was a Republican in title but pretty moderate if not an Independent. Still I will give Clinton marks for that. Don’t know enough about Rubin to speak intelligently.
Clinton to me was ultra liberal…but he was a great politician…so in one breath he would say that the time of big government is over and then take steps to make some of the largest tax increases in history. He was ready to socialize medicine which is a very large segment of our economy. You can’t get much more liberal than that…at least at this time in the US.
I really don’t understand democrats defense of the guy…he had more scandals than ANY president…he had more “gates” than Alcatraz. I mean there are respectable democrats out there of course…but he was one of the worst as far as character. I don’t go around defending Nixon….didn’t care much for the first Bush either. Sometimes you got to call a spade a spade.
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted August 03, 2002 09:52 PM |
|
|
Dargon..I gave you a QP not because i agree with you 
But because of your persistance and the way you kept this IMO good discussion going ..In the beginning you were kinda a bit rude..hiihihih..but it's turned out to be an interesting discussion
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 03, 2002 10:17 PM |
|
|
Sometimes you should call a spade a snowing shovel. (sorry, but I really hate that call a spade a spade phrase)
Reagan probably would have won a third term, but I think so would have Clinton. You've got to remember, that whether or not you personally liked him, Clinton's popularity was very high, even more so during and after the Lewsinsky thing. Remember, one of the big criticisms of Gore was that he squandered Clinton's popularity. I'm not denying that Bush has high poll numbers now, but remember, he lost the popular vote and barely won the electoral vote, so I don't think it is at all unlikely that he would have lost to Clinton as opposed to the considerably less popular Gore.
As to his scandals, what do we have? Lewinsky? Give me a break, he lied about sex. Go find me somebody who hasn't at some point in their life lied about sex and I'll show you a 4 year old. Whitewater? Even if all of the allegations are true, which the investigation came up negative on, it's no worse than insider trading. None of Clinton's scandals compare to Watergate or, to the one that I find most despicable, Iran-Contra.
That said, do I think he was a boyscout? No, by no stretch of the imagination, but I don't think he was any worse than the run of the mill politician.
As to why democrats defend him, it's because whatever he was doing was working, plain and simple. The 8 years he was in office was practically a golden age. The phrase bandied about at that point was "it's the economy, stupid," and I think that still holds.
As to Cohen, yes, he's a moderate, but he's still a Republican. You implied that he had packed his cabinet with hard line democrats and I was using him to point out that this was not the case at all and I think that by appointing somebody from the other party to such a prominent post (I mean, let's face it, there's State, Defense, Treasury and then all the weiner posts) was going further than what Bush has done in putting together a diversified candidate.
I also hardly think that Whitman is left leaning by virtue of being pro-choice since that's really only one issue. There are quite a few republicans that are pro-choice as well as quite a few democrats that are pro-life. In general yes, pro-choice is associated with the left, but your stance on this one issue doesn't an entire political philosophy make.
(also, is Powell pro-choice? I didn't know that.)
Interesting that you didn't like the first Bush. I did. Go figure.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 03, 2002 11:03 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 3 Aug 2002
|
As per Dargon's request
Pizza. Everyone, worldwide knows what it is in the literal sense, but at another level, pizza means so many different things to so many different people. For the college student, it is a much needed break from studying or dining hall food. For a teenager it represents an inexpensive date. The anorexic sees her imagined cellulite reflected in the melted cheese. The glutton sees a temptress, a succubus, Jezebel reborn. The bulemic sees it twice. Many see it as a tangible symbol of American decadence. Others see it as an edible form of the American dream. The bachelor sees proof of his loneliness, the working single mom a way to avoid having to cook.
How can so many see so many things in what is essentially an open faced sandwich? Perhaps it is because pizza is so many different things. Six cheeses, pepperoni, sausage and stuffed crust and you have an excersize in gastronomical excess. Go light on the cheese or leave it off entirely, and top your pizza with roasted veggies and you have a light meal that's easy on the diet. Open a microwave pizza and you have a meal for one, get a couple large pizzas delivered and you have an instant party. Though it can easily be an economical choice, get some good crust, brush it with garlic and olive oil, use fresh mozzerella and maybe some sun dried tomatoes and you have a gourmet meal. Pizza is as adaptable as it is delicious.
In fact, pizza could be used as the food of diplomacy. Everybody loves pizza, no matter where they live or hail from. Rich or poor, educated or ignorant, oriental or occidental, few can resist the delights of leavened bread, pressed flat and topped with crushed stewed tomatoes, melted, bubbling cheese and whatever one's heart could possible desire. Treaty negotiations would go so smoothly if there were only a pizza in the middle of the table (although, it should be noted that World War II actually started because of a disagreement in the topping choices). Atrocities would seem so much less relevant if the guilty party would only send an apology pizza afterwards. Foreign aid would be so much more appreciated if it came in the form of piping hot pizza, delivered oven fresh.
Alas, it will never happen. The bombs keep falling, children keep dying, Michael Jackson keeps recording albums. All because of the vicious burger industry. Just as the oil industry crushes attempts at developing alternative energy choices, so does the burger industry crush the scrappy pizza baker, who is just trying to cram another treat down America's overstuffed snackhole.
Pizza. Known by all, understood by so few.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 03, 2002 11:08 PM |
|
|
Ok perhaps the fact that i'm not religous also clouds my judgement. I did not suggest funding Israel and Arab nations for war, rather for peace. Israel needs to either treat the Palestinians better than it does - I mean in terms of rights rather than reaction to attacks, or give a proportion of it's land to the Palestinians so that they can live on their own. Putting settlement slap bang in the middle of Arab land is hardly a way to endear yourself to the local palestinians.
The land point is an interesting one. Perhaps the only reason no-one claims any part of America back is because the only people with any right to do so were almost anhialated by the policies of 19th Century America ie the native Americans. The difference in Palestine is that these people may have been ruled for generations, but they have lived in that area for over a thousand years! Suddenly a uncaring world hands the land the land they lived in to someone else to rule, without even bothering to consult them. The great tragedy of the situation is that having wronged Jews in Europe, the Europeans and Americans then tried to make up for this by wronging the palestinians.
Not every country responds in Israel's fashion, which is what is causing so much contreversy. Britain when bombed by the IRA never once bombed and shelled entire towns and villages. With a few notable exceptions (bloody sunday) the British have dealt with the IRA within the law and without massive civilian casualties. Israel blasts pretty much everything that may contain a terrorist, no matter how many innocents may be present.
It is unfortunately a common misconception that England/ Britain is not under attack and never has been. Terrorism HAS been rife in NI since the 1960's. Never once did we respond in kind by deliberately killing innocent civilians, or callously bombing entire towns.
Not all arab nations want to remove Israel. Although involved in 2 wars Jordan has spent much of that period avoiding war when it has been able to and has been the most lenient of arab nations.
What people often also don't understand is that the hatred between the 2 religions is not old and constant. Prior to WWII, whilst they may not have exactly loved eachother there was little conflict and rivalry.
Oh and Bush? Personally the guy worries the hell out of me. one day he will mistake the button for ordering nukes with the one for calling the maid!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 03, 2002 11:53 PM |
|
|
oh bloody hell hudson just made the two points i wanted to make, i have nothing now to say
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 04, 2002 12:17 AM |
|
|
which 2 m8
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2002 07:03 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 4 Aug 2002
|
Romana
I am not sure what QP is but if it is good thanks
Arachnid
Every time I see the cartoon in your sig line it makes me laugh
Bort
Sorry didn't realize a spade is spade would irritate you like that I will try to refrain from using it in our dialogue
You did change my perspective about Clinton's cabinet (who was it earlier in this thread that in all their great omniscience said I could never have my mind changed?). It was more diverse than I remembered.
Regarding the first Bush...man we just can't agree on anything...lol. I didn't care for him for two reasons...one he didn't complete the job with Iraq...I know it was a complex situation but none the less if he would of finished the job we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in today. Second and more importantly in my opinion...he lied. He said he wouldn't raise taxes and he did.
I will grant you that Clinton had high numbers...a fact that infuriated one such as myself to no end...lol. But also I think a lot of American's were experiencing severe "Clinton Fatigue". He might of won though...solely cause the economy was in a good situation and as much as I dislike it, it seems most republicans and democrats vote from their pocketbook versus some of the higher ideals that I wish people would care more about.
Yes Bush lost the popular vote...which ironically I don't think I am in favor of retaining the electoral college. Actually in one sense I am surprised Bush didn't win more votes given Gore's lack of personality and low political mastery...but on the other hand VPs generally never lose if they served under a popular president especially when the economy is good.
In regards to only ONE of the multitude of scandals under Clinton...ah dear Monica. First a lie is a lie (I know it is similar to a spade is a spade...hope didn't irritate you..hehe). Second he perjured himself...remember this whole thing arose cause of sexual harassment charges. Lastly...this is the one that takes the cake...he had to surrender his law license...get that...lawyers of all people were going to kick him out! That one still has me rolling...lawyers..generally known as being the lowest on the moral/ethical food chain found him ethically wanting...cracks me up.
Also I can never quite enjoy a cigar the same way after hearing what kind of abuse he perpetrated upon those poor innocent cigars.
Let me rant a little more...hehe...The whole bombing an aspirin factory (so called terrorist structure) to distract people ON the big day of releasing the BIG Monica evidence still makes me ill. Well the guy just made me sick constantly...that whole crotch shot on the front page of a major mag has to be one of least classy thing a president could think of doing in our day. I could go on and on but this isn't a Clinton thread.
I wish we wouldn't lower the bar for politicians. There are honorable people out there and we should want our leaders to be of the highest integrity. Where are the Washingtons and Lincolns of our day?
To the best of my knowledge Powell is pro-choice. You are correct that there are pro-life dems and pro-choice dems...but I still think it is one of the biggest issues that tends to divide the parties. In our time I highly doubt we will ever see a Republican nominated presidential candidate who is pro-choice nor vice versa with the Democrats..So the symbolic chances Bush took in doing that was quite huge...which is funny that though I respect him doing that...I wish he didnt...man I am a confused individual...lol
BTW got to apologize to all the people who don't live in USA and may find this USA political discussion boring/irrelevant.
Thanks for the pizza description...both brilliant and eloquent What is your career anyways? If you are not in some form of writing career you should think about picking it up...you would be huge in advertising also
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 04, 2002 07:11 AM |
|
|
np m8 just why did you not answer me?
I feel ignored.......
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
