OMG!!! Kerry's people are getting desperate!

[Sgt_Shellback]

I agree with you. That would be a presidential election for the history books (for multiple reasons).

What would be interesting is that people wouldn't probably vote on party lines for that election.

The lines would be twisted for sure... Opposite of the Right Left we have now.

Repubs would become Dems, Dems would become Repubs... Space time would stop. and 42 would no longer be the answer... LOL

 

[Mechagodzilla]

After what happened in New York anyone who supports terrorists should fear us.

Only Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al-queda, and had no weapons to carry out it's own attacks.

The war was completely unjustified as a war on terror.

I don't think you know what their motives were... Irregardless of why they did it they, and those that support them, should be stopped.

The Al-Queda shoe-bomber, who attempted to blow himself and an airliner up, testifed in court that he did not feel any guilt because he was convinced that the US is out to destroy Islam forever out of an ignorant hatred of it. That's the closest thing we have to a motive for 9/11.

And it is important to understand that motive.
The war in Iraq is like the mid-east's 9/11. Around 11000 civilians have been killed in a war against terrorists that aren't there.

Although there is good in the fact that Saddam is gone, to a huge chunk of the mid-east, it looks like everything Al-Queda was saying is true. The US has all but obliterated one of their neighbor countries in a war sparked by America not fully comprehending the situation. To them, the pre-emptive strike is a sneak-attack against their culture, just as 9/11 was to us.

Iraq didn't do anything to harm the US, but was punished because it might. The US has no malice towards Islamic culture, but they were attacked because they might.

That's the problem with pre-emptive strikes. It's all too easy to attack someone, but it's impossible to turn back the clock if you're wrong, and a lot of innocent people might die for no reason. Pre-emptive strikes are a terrorist tactic, and are prohibited by international law. 9/11 was one. And they only create anger in those who are struck, as the striker is the aggressor, and the target becomes a source of rage to the struck.

Now a 9/11-level of anger has hit a big chunk of the mideast civilian population, an area that already holds animosity towards the US, and is a hotbed of terrorist recruitment. And instead of being angry at Al-Queda, they're angry at the US. It's definitely not good.

Obviously terrorism should be stopped, but pre-emptive strikes are the absolute wrong way to do it. Now the US looks like a terrorist to the mideast, and a dangerous cycle begins. Now, instead of pre-emptive strikes, we have a constant exchange of retaliation with both sides saying "he did it first".

You can feel comfortable knowing that Saadam is gone in part for some of your reasons too.

I definitely am happy with that outcome but, like I said, Saddam being ousted should have been the only reason to go in and attack.

Exaggerating shakey evidence of Iraq's ties to terror as motivation instead makes the US appear as a threat to the mid-east, instead of a liberator. Iraq had no terrorism, but the US attacked them under that pretense. Now, whatever good that has come from Saddam getting kicked has been replaced with the impression in the mid-east that the US has attacked an innocent country purely out of hate.

The invasion of Iraq can only make terrorism stronger, because it certainly didn't make it any weaker.

The twin towers gone is not a percieved threat. It was an attack on America. We are at war. Not by our choice but because we were dragged into it.

Yes, and now Iraq has been dragged into it too. They had nothing to do with the twin towers, the anthrax, the pentagon. None of it. Now a country with a corrupt leader has become a country without a corrupt leader that is the source of massive hatred for America.

No matter how much Iraq looked like a terrorist threat, the US should nver have attacked the country without being 100% certain with indisputable evidence.

Making terrorists and nations that support terrorists angry is not my concern. You can defend them all you want however.

Now that's a big mis-interpretation of my point. I think this post explains exactly why I don't support terrorism. I'm not defending terrorists.

I'm just trying to explain why we need to stop using pre-emptive strikes: it's only making terrorists stronger.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I am probably going to regret bringing this up again but there's new news...

CBS is going to announce a 'clarification' on the documents at 5 pm tonight (CST)... The secratary who did all the typing for the OIC said earlier today that they were forgeries.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Around 11000 civilians have been killed in a war against terrorists that aren't there.

Who are the ones killing the majority of Iraqis right now? Homicide bombers. Who shoots random mortar attacks into the middle of populated cities? Terrorists.

The invasion of Iraq can only make terrorism stronger, because it certainly didn't make it any weaker.

How about Libya giving up its WMD program because of it? Seems like a strong point to me.

CBS is going to announce a 'clarification' on the documents at 5 pm tonight (CST)... The secratary who did all the typing for the OIC said earlier today that they were forgeries.

Yeah, if they dont make this right then they are only furthering the image of the liberal media. The fact they put these documents on the air (and refused to retract them until now) is proof enough for me and most other Americans.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Who are the ones killing the majority of Iraqis right now? Homicide bombers. Who shoots random mortar attacks into the middle of populated cities? Terrorists.

And where were they before the war?
All the terrorism in Iraq now has arrived there as a result of the invasion. Large segments of the iraqi people see the US as a hostile force now, and have adopted terrorist tactics to fight them.

The war in Iraq has introduced terrorism into a country that originally had none.
As I said, it's made terrorism stronger.

How about Libya giving up its WMD program because of it? Seems like a strong point to me.

Of course it's a strong point but, in this case, the ends don't justify the means. The US has shown that it has no heed for consequences by invading Iraq.

Libya is not shutting down it's programs because it has seen the folly in attacking the US.

It's shutting them down because, even if they have no hostile intentions towards anyone, the US can and will invade them just like it did to Iraq.

It's like if I punched someone in the face and knocked them unconcious, then turned to the crowd of onlookers.

Me: That's what I do to people with assault rifles!

Guy in Crowd: What assault rifle?

Me: This guy was about to shoot us all dead!

Guy: He doesn't even have a gun though. That's a packet of Tic-Tacs.

Me: Well, he might not have had a rifle, but all of you just take a look at him. See how he's lying there? That's what will happen to you if you threaten me like he did!

Guy: Whoa, slow down, no-one here is threatening you.

Me: Maybe not yet, but I know where you all live, and I'm watching you. If I see the slightest thing out of line, you're on the floor like this guy. Or worse. I'm armed and loaded.

Guy: Someone call the police!

Me: I am the police.

Guy: Okay, we'll throw away all our guns. Please don't hurt us.

Me: Excellent. I'm making the world a safer place.

Yeah, if they dont make this right then they are only furthering the image of the liberal media. The fact they put these documents on the air (and refused to retract them until now) is proof enough for me and most other Americans.

For some reason, I really doubt that CBS invented those documents just as a ratings grab. They seriously wouldn't risk their credibility on something so high-profile.

Until we find out who first created them, I'm going to hold my judgement. It could be anyone. Democrats trying to defame Bush, or Republicans trying to make Kerry look unscrupulous. I'll wait for the facts.

 

[blahblahblah]

For some reason, I really doubt that CBS invented those documents just as a ratings grab. They seriously wouldn't risk their credibility on something so high-profile.

2000 Presidential Elections

 

[Mechagodzilla]

2000 Presidential Elections

More specific? What part are you referring to?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I really doubt that CBS invented those documents just as a ratings grab. They seriously wouldn't risk their credibility on something so high-profile.

Now wait a minute, I'm not saying they invented these documents. I am saying that they were way too gullible for a story of this magnitude. I know of at least two experts CBS called the night before the story ran. Both said that the documents were sketchy at best and CBS should hold the story until their questions were answered. CBS ran it anyways. It is quite obvious they were fakes, yet CBS still refuses to discredit the documents. The facts are in on this one, I have yet to see an expert who hasnt discredited these documents. Even the LATimes says Rather has been played for a fool.

In your analogy you forget to mention that 3 of the guy's best friends told him he had an assault rifle loaded an ready to shoot. These three friends were all high level police detectives. Also, the guy who was punched had killed a family of four in their homes the night before.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And where were they before the war?

Al Zarqawi is Al Qaeda. He is fighting the US in Iraq rather than the US. In Iraq we have a highly trained army, in the US we have police officers and firemen.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I don't think CBS invented them but they a forged. What prompted CBS to come out tonight was that the two companies CBS went to to authenticate the documents before airing them were going public that they told CBS they weren't real.

CBS never said tonight why they aired them as real even when their experts had told them they were fake but said they would be looking into that.

Whoever they got them from may be in hotwater. Forging govt documents is illegal and people on the hill are already getting out the war drums.

We may see a case where CBS is ordered by a judge to reveal a source they don't want to reveal so it could get interesting.

Edit: Seinfeld... I couldn't agree more. It's better to fight your enemies at their doorsteps rather yours.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Forging govt documents

Specifically military documents involving a Presidential canidate.

 

[blahblahblah]

More specific? What part are you referring to?

Every major news station declared that Al Gore won the Presidential elections in 2000. They relied on a inaccurate polling techniques and were pressured to be the first station to announce they had determined a winner. Of course, the news media doesn't like to dwell on its blunders so you don't hear too much about it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Al Zarqawi is Al Qaeda. He is fighting the US in Iraq rather than the US. In Iraq we have a highly trained army, in the US we have police officers and firemen.

Yes, except the there were no US forces in Iraq before the war.
The war brought america into the mideast, and Al-Queda and all the other terrorists have swarmed into Iraq to make themselves look like the saviours of the people. Obviously, many have bought into that and have taken up arms against the US too.

If Iraq hadn't been invaded, there would have been no terrorism in the country. That's fact.

Again, the war in Iraq has only strengthened terrorism.

 

[seinfeldrules]

all the other terrorists have swarmed into Iraq to make themselves look like the saviours of the people.

They really prove that point when they kill 60 Iraqi citizens and 1 or 2 Americans in a homicide bomb attack.

If Iraq hadn't been invaded, there would have been no terrorism in the country.

It would have been in America instead.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Every major news station declared that Al Gore won the Presidential elections in 2000. They relied on a inaccurate polling techniques and were pressured to be the first station to announce they had determined a winner. Of course, the news media doesn't like to dwell on its blunders so you don't hear too much about it.

But didn't it turn out in the end that Gore had actually won the most votes, but the votes from many black voters were excluded for some reason?

I'd consider it more of a blunder that anyone made any announcement under such complex circumstances surrounding such a vital event.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But didn't it turn out in the end that Gore had actually won the most votes, but the votes from many black voters were excluded for some reason?

Whoa, whoa. It was a screw up in Florida that the Supreme Court decided on. They didnt just go out and decide to throw away 'black' votes.

 

[blahblahblah]

But didn't it turn out in the end that Gore had actually won the most votes, but the votes from many black voters were excluded for some reason?

I'd consider it more of a blunder that anyone made any announcement under such complex circumstances surrounding such a vital event.

That is irrelevent to this particular discussion. The fact is that the news media declared Gore was the winner when they didn't have definitive evidence. Or even semi-definitive evidence for that matter.

It was all media pressure to be the first news station.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

They really prove that point when they kill 60 Iraqi citizens and 1 or 2 Americans in a homicide bomb attack.

Actually, they do. The more grisly deaths associated with the War in Iraq, the better for them. It adds more chaos to the country, more numbers to the death toll. Their message to the Iraqi people is: "There were no civilian casualties before America invaded! Now there are thousands! Just look at all the innocents that have been killed in the effort to free Iraq!"

It would have been in America instead.

So it's better to lure all the terrorists into a formerly terrorist-free Iraq, to kill US troops and Iraqi civilians than have them kill American civilians? Sure, it's good for americans to live, but is the best strategy really to sic the terrorists onto other humans? What happened to ethics?

I'd rather have it so that the terrorists didn't kill anyone. And without the war, they wouldn't have this easilly accessable outlet for their terrorist attacks.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That is irrelevent to this particular discussion. The fact is that the news media declared Gore was the winner when they didn't have definitive evidence. Or even semi-definitive evidence for that matter.

It was all media pressure to be the first news station.

That's my point. They shouldn't have declared Gore the winner, and they shouldn't have rushed to correct themselves by declaring Bush the winner so quickly afterwards.

If everyone had just waited for the solid facts, we'd probably have Gore as president right now.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

That's my point. They shouldn't have declared Gore the winner, and they shouldn't have rushed to correct themselves by declaring Bush the winner so quickly afterwards.

If everyone had just waited for the solid facts, we'd probably have Gore as president right now.

Bush won with more popular votes than Clinton did...

The supreme Court of FL reviewed the tallies afterwards and found that the votes were not counted correctly however....

























































They found more votes for Bush.

 

[CptStern]

I guess the fact that his brother was the governor of florida is a coincidence right?


btw I'm still waiting


any of you? seinfeldrules care to answer? how about Shellback?

 

[blahblahblah]

I guess the fact that his brother was the governor of florida is a coincidence right?


btw I'm still waiting


any of you? seinfeldrules care to answer? how about Shellback?

Yup, the governor of Florida paid the voters to vote for Bush. The supreme court of Florida answered the question. Do you think Bush bribed the spreme court? Related, are you implying corruption with our Judicial system?

 

[Korgoth]

They really prove that point when they kill 60 Iraqi citizens and 1 or 2 Americans in a homicide bomb attack.



It would have been in America instead.

So then why did we invade iraq? It wasn't to free the iraqi people, obcviously, because now were fighting out terror war in their homes/streets.

Obviously wasn't the wmd threat either. So I ask you, why did we invade iraq?

 

[Korgoth]

Yup, the governor of Florida paid the voters to vote for Bush. The supreme court of Florida answered the question. Do you think Bush bribed the spreme court? Related, are you implying corruption with our Judicial system?

How about the woman who spear headed the vote recount in florida being a former bush campaign manager?

 

[blahblahblah]

So then why did we invade iraq? It wasn't to free the iraqi people, obcviously, because now were fighting out terror war in their homes/streets.

Obviously wasn't the wmd threat either. So I ask you, why did we invade iraq?

At the time, Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq. This intelligence failure has been made known and explained away (through lack of funding, group think, etc). Though I do suspect that a small part of him wanted him to finish his father's business. However, the key thing is that Bush thought their were WMD's in Iraq.

 

[blahblahblah]

How about the woman who spear headed the vote recount in florida being a former bush campaign manager?

Find me an unbiased person who could have done the recounts. Perhaps a democrat campaign manager.

Anybody who voted in the 200 Election obviously cared about it. Anybody who participates in providing election counting obviously cares about it as well (trust me, they don't pay well). Not to mention she was only in charge of the vote recount.

It's not like somebody locked her in a room and told her to count ballots. I still remember the news coverage about it. They had at least several people looking at every single ballot coming to a consesus on who voted for whom.

[Edit]: Whoops, that meant to be an edit.

 

[Korgoth]

At the time, Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq. This intelligence failure has been made known and explained away (through lack of funding, group think, etc). Though I do suspect that a small part of him wanted him to finish his father's business. However, the key thing is that Bush thought their were WMD's in Iraq.

Ok then, fair enough. But instead of calling it an intellegence failure, why is he calling it a war for the iraqi people, then turning around saying were fighting our terror in iraq instead of at home.

Come on, it can't be both, if it were truly for the iraqi people we wouldn't want the terrorists to fight us there and cause them (them=iraqi people) trouble. He can't have his cake and share it with chenyburton too.
:E

 

[blahblahblah]

Ok then, fair enough. But instead of calling it an intellegence failure, why is he calling it a war for the iraqi people, then turning around saying were fighting our terror in iraq instead of at home.

Come on, it can't be both, if it were truly for the iraqi people we wouldn't want the terrorists to fight us there and cause them trouble. He can't have his cake and share it with chenyburton too.
:E

PR, my friend. In business and politics you never say anything negative. Failure is a negative word.

Since no WMD's were found, Bush quickly changed his PR campaign to cover up for the blunder. Even though the intelligence failure was caused by other people (besides Bush), people would have (will) attributed this failure to Bush.

 

[Korgoth]

PR, my friend. In business and politics you never say anything negative. Failure is a negative word.

Since no WMD's were found, Bush quickly changed his PR campaign to cover up for the blunder. Even though the intelligence failure was caused by other people (besides Bush), people would have (will) attributed this failure to Bush.

I know its PR, my question was just to get people thinking. I'd also say bush isn't %100 free of any blame here. Whether or not his intellegence was bunk, he was so die hard about attacking Iraq I don't think it would have mattered if he was told by his intel one way or the other. I believe we still would be there, no matter.

And then I ask, if the intellegence sucks so bad, how can bush claim to be so good for national security? That is his whole reelection bid. Its not like if there were to be a terror attack bush himself is going to go out and stop it. No, he relies on his intellegence, and he claims its good, but obviously not.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I guess the fact that his brother was the governor of florida is a coincidence right?

Oh, come on. Is it a coincidence that there was a Democratic Senator (Bill Nelson) from Florida? Hmm, lets call out the conspiracy buffs now! All those votes from Gore were really his lies!

 

[blahblahblah]

I know it PR, my question was just to get people thinking. I'd also say busy isn't %100 free of any blame here. Whether or not his intellegence was bunk, he was so die hard about attacking Iraq I don't think it would have mattered if he was told by his intel one way or the other. I believe we still would be there, no matter.

And then I ask, if the intellegence sucks so bad, how can bush claim to be so good for national security? That is his whole reelection bid. Its not like if there were to be a terror attack bush himself is going to go out and stop it. No, he relies on his intellegence, and he claims its good, but obviously not.

I don't think Bush would have invaded if he didn't think he had a legitimate excuse.

Intelligence spending is determined by Congress. :O Bush is saying that he will reform the intelligence organizations in the US, and that he is the best possible man for it.

I personally throw anything that means these following words from the presidential canidiates, "terrorism", "national security", "intelligence". The majority of those changes are going to be changed/implemented by congress and will be forced upon either president to enact.

 

[Korgoth]

I don't think Bush would have invaded if he didn't think he had a legitimate excuse.

Intelligence spending is determined by Congress. :O Bush is saying that he will reform the intelligence organizations in the US, and that he is the best possible man for it.

I personally throw anything that means these following words from the presidential canidiates, "terrorism", "national security", "intelligence". The majority of those changes are going to be changed/implemented by congress and will be forced upon either president to enact.

Well then, barring those terms. Bush doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on imo. He boasts his national security advantage, which is moot considerign the worst attack on american soil occured under his watch. He boasts being strong against terror, then sends less troops than there are police in NY to afghanistan to answer for 9/11 only to use more forces in Iraq (which had nothing to do with bin laden/9/11).... And bush and intelligence just doesn't work together in the same sentence heheh
.

I then decide I want to see his views and actions on other issues. Which I find him boasting his education plans with "no child left behind", only to turn around and find him cutting education spending.

His economics are weak, bar 9/11, the economy was still a sinking ship after he took office. It doesn't matter if clinton had anything to do with this or not, clinton and kerry are two different people and clinton will never be president again so it doesn't matter. Fact is, bush hasn't plugged the whole and because of this we've lost millions of American jobs to outsourcing while the tax break rewards for companies who send jobs overseas still exist.

The rest of bush's re-election ideas and programs seems like i've heard them before.... Yup in 2000, he acts as though he hasn't been president the last 4 years. Why hasn't he implemented these ideals? Why does he all of a sudden want to get tough now?

So you see blahblahblah, I honestly can not find one reason why I would wish to vote for bush/cheney. This is forgiving and forgetting their no bid contracts, enron scandals, defense spending kick backs, and even the war in Iraq and I can not find one reason. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from, and why i'm so upset with this administration.

Our views may differ, in the end however, we both want whats best for our country. You'll go your way and i'll go mine. And thats what makes freedom so splendid!

 

[CptStern]

Yup, the governor of Florida paid the voters to vote for Bush. The supreme court of Florida answered the question. Do you think Bush bribed the spreme court? Related, are you implying corruption with our Judicial system?

somebody sure is:

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

After Annan rejected their request, saying the administration must make the application, the Democrats asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to do so.

The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.

In a letter dated July 30 and released last week, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats about the invitation to OSCE, without mentioning the U.N. issue.

"I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process," said Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, who spearheaded the effort to get U.N. observers.

"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she said in a news release.

they were semi successful

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

No offense neutrino as I am a democrat myself, but taking one biased article than posting 30 other biased sources isn't much better. heh

The issue is it was faked. The Col's partner at the time stated clearly that he didn't even have a typerwriter in his office, let alone type. All his previous documents were all handwritten. Not only that but he wasn't even in the military at the date that the memo was written, which stated he was.

Do I think kerry had anything to do with it? No, not really, my bet is the clinton people were up to their old games. I'm from boston btw, I'm a JFK democrat.

I'm voting for bush, only because I know personally kerry's record. Since I have had to deal with it personally in my working life for waaay to many years. The problem is noone can afford to run against him thanks to his wife. So us bostonians are stuck with him.

People think kerry will bring us back to the clinton fiscal stability. The issue is he may do that but only by increasing taxes way higher than they were during even the clinton years. He is one of the main reasons this state is called taxachucettes.

I would have rather had edwards than kerry any day. How those 2 got paired up is beyond me.

somebody sure is:

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

After Annan rejected their request, saying the administration must make the application, the Democrats asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to do so.

The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.

In a letter dated July 30 and released last week, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats about the invitation to OSCE, without mentioning the U.N. issue.

"I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process," said Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, who spearheaded the effort to get U.N. observers.

"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she said in a news release.

they were semi successful

Again what this is is only conjecture to try to defame the republicans during an election year. It's actually part of my parties 'talking' points. Including the CBS document, event hough most of us admit its fake. Our party reps still want us to focus solely on it and the race card. This is by far the worst democratic run campaign I have ever seen. I have not yet seen one of my newsletters contain anything about policies its all been smearing points. Sad really, instead of growing into the new age democratic party post clinton. We have now clonded the republican party of the 60's and 70's with the anger. I'm not sure whose idea it was. But its the same type of campaign that the right wingers tried to run against us in the 90s vs clinton. They failed misreably.

I'm not sure if this is self suicide by the clinton people in order to get hilary in for 2008 or what. Although if she does run, I'm the first in line voting for her. I will not however ever in my life as a JFK democrat vote for kerry, ever. Especially after seeing what he's helped do to massachucettes.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Nice to see an objective view... Thanks for posting.

Edit: After your Edit... I'll be looking at Hillary too. (For those with their minds in the gutter... Knock it off) :E

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

Yes Hillary would be an excellent president, she is ruthless, yet is big on freedom and human rights and dignity. She is a very eloquent debater, and even more eloquent when she speaks publically. She can handle the media and the pundants equally. She took new york in a storm, one of the only democrats to do it, during the bush years. I think she would not waver to idle threats and considering the failures of her husband in terorism: work as hard as she can to make sure she does everything in her power in the war on terrorism. Rememebr she is a new yorker now, she has to hear from them if she doesn't.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Yes Hillary would be an excellent president, she is ruthless, yet is big on freedom and human rights and dignity. She is a very eloquent debater, and even more eloquent when she speaks publically. She can handle the media and the pundants equally. She took new york in a storm, one of the only democrats to do it, during the bush years. I think she would not waver to idle threats and considering the failures of her husband in terorism: work as hard as she can to make sure she does everything in her power in the war on terrorism. Rememebr she is a new yorker now, she has to hear from them if she doesn't.

Only thing that concerns me with her is gun control... I doubt she'd make a pre-election commitment to the left wing to put in laws in her first term but I could see her doing it as a lame duck like her hubby did...

Other than that she does seem to be for getting Washington out of the States business.

 

[Korgoth]

Nice to see an objective view... Thanks for posting.

Edit: After your Edit... I'll be looking at Hillary too. (For those with their minds in the gutter... Knock it off) :E

Is he truly objective or do you just say that because he's voting for bush?
:E

What about these people, are they equally as objective?
http://repagainstbush.meetup.com/members/

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Is he truly objective or do you just say that because he's voting for bush?
:E

What about these people, are they equally as objective?
http://repagainstbush.meetup.com/members/

If you can't tell objective from subjective you'll have to deal with that problem on your own.

 

[Korgoth]

If you can't tell objective from subjective you'll have to deal with that problem on your own.

You dodged my question again! Plus I thought the cheesy emoticon would signal my joking manner in posting that. Sorry you missed it, here it is again :E