Liberals can't defend America by Hero

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, why in God's name would the DOD keep a successful missile defense secret, particularly after so many test failures?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, why in God's name would the DOD keep a successful missile defense secret, particularly after so many test failures?

One, because I was not being serious. Two, because keeping it secret keeps our enemies and potential enemies in the dark as to our capabilities.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Defense - Military spending between 1993-2000 was $2.1 trillion. You're saying all that money was wasted. In other words, you're saying that the entire Defense Department was incompetent between 1993-2000.

No, just everyone from the Defense Secretary on up. During the '90s the size of our army was slashed in half. Our bases were closed by the bushel. Vital weapon and defense systems were delayed. It was so bad it was a key issue in 2000.

In 2001 we began a review of the entire Defense Department to modernize our capability in the 21st Century...turned out it was too late, just a few months later we were at war.

Imagine if we'd had another light infantry division (my favorites were the 6th and 7th from the old RDF days) and maybe a couple more independant heavy brigades...all in the regular army. Then perhaps your Iraqi 'we didn't send enough troops' and 'the National Guard is too thin' wouldn't be so easy to make.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 2:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero- You react to any military limit as if it were part of a swarm of deadly insects. You yelp and stamp about in a frenzy. EVERY weapons system, every surveillance program, every dollar is absolutely VITAL to fight Islamists, North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, French... pretty much the whole damn world.

Tell me- how does it feel to live in such fear all day, every day? Does it make you feel important?

Doesn't it make you tired?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 3:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hero, why in God's name would the DOD keep a successful missile defense secret, particularly after so many test failures?- Signy

One, because I was not being serious. Two, because keeping it secret keeps our enemies and potential enemies in the dark as to our capabilities.- Hero

Oh, you mean like Saddam Hussein and the phantom WMD?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 3:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, I know you never post-edit.

It was the "Pirate News, please stop." thread where you mentioned you recently prosecuted someone (for 'defamation') b/c they had created a website under someone else's name to ruin that person's reputation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Zero said he 'prosecuted' a character defamation case. I realize you are not US, but to your knowledge, is this a criminal or civil procedure ?

I don't believe I ever said such a thing. Can you cite this comment by me? You may have misunderstood it, or perhaps you are confusing me with this "Zero" character you have invented to justify your lack of substantive argument.

H

I didn't swear to it, and besides, the only bad thing about perjury is getting caught.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- You react to any military limit as if it were part of a swarm of deadly insects. You yelp and stamp about in a frenzy. EVERY weapons system, every surveillance program, every dollar is absolutely VITAL to fight Islamists, North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, French... pretty much the whole damn world.

American history, including twice in the last century, is filled with this country waiting until its in a war before getting ready to fight it. It was lamented by Will Rogers in 1940, Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and George W. Bush before the 2000 election.

Yet in my lifetime we have another example. In 1981 Ronald Reagan took office. He proclaimed that America would defeat the 'Evil Empire' and he set about preapring this nation for that military confrontation. That military buildup and the great renewed vision of liberty fostered by Ronald Reagan, Margeret Thatcher, the Pope, Helmet Kole, and even Francois Mitterand to no small extent, they committed themselves to policies of military preparedness and avoided the terrible conflict though inevitable by the contempory American liberal establishment.

That buildup was eventually used in 1991 in a war no one intended. There we crushed in days the world's 4th largest army, one hardened by combat veterans and equiped with some of the latest Soviet equipment and doctrine then available, achieving a military and psychological victory so extreme that Saddam's Iraq never recovered.

There is a difference between reasonable defense management, as many Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Sam Nunn have pursued as opposed to the legacy of coming down on the wrong side of every national defense policy or program for decades as practiced by the hard core liberals of this country like Kerry, Kennedy, and Gore (Clinton to a lesser extent...and his wife the Senator, eh, depends on her audiance).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, I know you never post-edit. It was the "Pirate News, please stop." thread where you mentioned you recently prosecuted someone (for 'defamation') b/c they had created a website under someone else's name to ruin that person's reputation.

Thanks, I remember the discussion, I wish I could remember the thread so I could check what I wrote.

What I believe I said, and perhaps you misunderstood me was exactly as you have it above. I prosecuted a person for creating a website under another's name and ruining their reputation.

The aggrieved party has a defamation claim at civil law, but my interest was prosecuting the other party for under the Indentity Fraud law.

As you know you can't use another's name to get money or cause them injury. Its against the law in many if not all states and there's a federal law on the books as well.

I believe thats what I said in the other thread, if you find it let me know and we'll look together to see that I'm remembering it correctly and that you are a dumbass (its a technical legal term I am forced to use because you so correctly stated my position in the above quotation yet so completly missed the obvious conclusion...Identity Fraud, dumbass).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 5:52 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey Gino,

Zero said he 'prosecuted' a character defamation case. I realize you are not US, but to your knowledge, is this a criminal or civil procedure ?
Quote:
nice rant by the way, does it really work for you in the courtroom ?
Quote:

To me it sounds civil.....

But I have trouble beliving someone can argue so sternly with so little understanding of both sides of a position being a succesful solicitor

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 6:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That military buildup and the great renewed vision of liberty fostered by Ronald Reagan, Margeret Thatcher, the Pope, Helmet Kole, and even Francois Mitterand to no small extent, they committed themselves to policies of military preparedness and avoided the terrible conflict though inevitable by the contempory American liberal establishment.... There is a difference between reasonable defense management, as many Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Sam Nunn have pursued as opposed to the legacy of coming down on the wrong side of every national defense policy or program

Well, let me inject a note of specificity. WHAT do you consider "reasonable"? How much money? How many weapons systems? How many divisions? Where should they be deployed? How many fronts should we be preapred to fight on? How many nuclear bombs should we drop? Or, are you recommending that we militarize to every extent possible? No cost too great? No stategy in mind, just the concept that an unspecified military "threat" will... what?

Despite arms reduction, we STILL have the capacity to slag the planet. Why hasn't that guaranteed us world dominance? Why are the Central and South American nations forming an alliance against us? Why are we having such difficulty with poor small nations like Afghanistan and N Korea? Could it be that there are limits to what military power can achieve?

PS- so- what about those phantom WMD?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
No, just everyone from the Defense Secretary on up. During the '90s the size of our army was slashed in half. Our bases were closed by the bushel. Vital weapon and defense systems were delayed. It was so bad it was a key issue in 2000.

In 2001 we began a review of the entire Defense Department to modernize our capability in the 21st Century...turned out it was too late, just a few months later we were at war.

Imagine if we'd had another light infantry division (my favorites were the 6th and 7th from the old RDF days) and maybe a couple more independant heavy brigades...all in the regular army. Then perhaps your Iraqi 'we didn't send enough troops' and 'the National Guard is too thin' wouldn't be so easy to make.

I must say that it is refreshing to see a Republican condemn downsizing.

Let me give you some help in rephrasing your comments so that they are more focussed.

Original: 1993-2000 were wasted years for national defense.

Implication: Everyone involved with national defense was incompetent between 1993-2000.

Revised statement: Between 1993-2000, the administration made decisions that I feel were detrimental to our ability to defend ourselves.

More focussed. Targets the group you have a problem with. Doesn't smear millions of men and women who defend our country. And I think this captures your complaints more accurately. Although I could be wrong.

Now, since I'm in the Dear Abby mode, I'll offer you some information. The Clinton administration was not a liberal administration. There has not been a liberal President for decades. There has not been a liberal majority in either house of Congress for decades. The belief that the media is liberal is a myth based on one study that looked at the beliefs of individual reporters. Media ownsership is not consolidated among liberals. If you want to listen to a conservative viewpoint all you have to do is tune your radio to the AM dial or turn on your television to a news channel. There is no widespread corrolary for disseminating the liberal point of view in the established media.

In short, liberals are not in power and have not been in power for quite a long time. The majority of Americans do not know the liberal position on many issues because the media bends over backwards to avoid presenting anything that could be remotely construed as liberal. And, even with all those barriers, those who self identify as liberals has remained remarkably steady at about 20%.

Yet Republicans such as yourself love to trot out the straw man that is the all-powerful liberal, responsible for all the ills of society. It is a bogeyman that they hate. Most often hate arises from fear. So I have to ask myself, what is it that people fear about liberals?

I just don't get it. I realize that it's necessary for any group to have a scapegoat to focus attention away from their own failures. But you'd think that Republicans would eventually wake up to the fact that their elected majorities in Congress and this administration really have done a lousy job of running the country. At some point, Republicans have to realize that they are in control. The buck stops with them. Not with some group who has been marginalized politically for decades. It doesn't surprise the rest of us who think that putting a party that self-admittedly hates big government in charge of big government is a recipe for disaster.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 3:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero pounds on bogyemen because it makes him feel in control. And I know why he behaves that way.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, let me inject a note of specificity. WHAT do you consider "reasonable"? How much money? How many weapons systems? How many divisions? Where should they be deployed? How many fronts should we be preapred to fight on? How many nuclear bombs should we drop? Or, are you recommending that we militarize to every extent possible? No cost too great? No stategy in mind, just the concept that an unspecified military "threat" will... what?

They are all good questions. Boiling them down to the essentials leaves us with:

1. How much do we need? The answer is 'enough', we need enough. How much is enough? Its certainly more to 'too little', but it is 'too much'. Too much might leave some left over, but thats ok, cause history teaches us there's always a next time and we can use it then. Too little gets people killed at best and loses the war at most..."for want of a shoe" and all that.

2. What strategy? The idea was that we needed to be able to fight two big wars and one little war at the same time. The idea was a big war in Europe, a little one in Korea, and maybe another big one in either China or the Middle East or perhaps a couple little ones in Central America in lieu of the 2nd big one. More recently the strategy has changed. They want to be able to fight several low intensity conflicts and one big one. I think this is ok, given the world at this time, but we sure could use a couple of the divisions Clinton mothballed, especially if Mr. Kim in Korea, decides to prove he's not an impotant little wuss.

Quote:

Despite arms reduction, we STILL have the capacity to slag the planet. Why hasn't that guaranteed us world dominance? Why are the Central and South American nations forming an alliance against us? Why are we having such difficulty with poor small nations like Afghanistan and N Korea? Could it be that there are limits to what military power can achieve?

Sure we can slag the planet, but we arent going too. If we were then we'd have a lot less trouble. A nuclear bomb can't occupy a hill, neither can a stealth fighter or an aircraft carrier, till they can, we need the bloody infantry.

As for Central and South America the alliance are so vast and powerful that there are two whole countries (although they want to go global by embracing North Korea) in it wallowing in paranoid delusions of the American invasion force just over the horizon. In truth they are a couple tin-pot dictators and wannabes. Venezuela is the most dangerous cause the man has the money to make things happen. I think he'll find that the real world does not work that the way he thinks, for example, if he decides to sell his American made F-16s to a hostile power like North Korea...I doubt they will arrive at their destination. The high seas can be treacherous after all. And if he wants to play around with the oil, that fine...we can just casually stop him from shipping it anywhere, then his oil isn't power, its just useless. Eventually his people will cry freedom and we will be there to embrace their return to the free world.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 4:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Nice salvo Soupcatcher, reality is the ultimate wet blanket to most 'conservative' arguments.

From what I have seen so far, for all this wasted money and resources, all we've achieved via this mini arms race with North Korea is a parity of incompetence.

They have a missle that can't make it to it's target and deliver it's payload.

We have an anti-missle that can't even FIND their missle, much less hit it, even if it did.

And how much did this Charlie-Foxtrot cost ?

Bloody hell, send ME that money, I'll spend ten bucks on the yellow umbrella which is all we need to defend against a missle that can't even reach us, and spend the rest on medical and rehab services for our casualties who came back (mostly) alive.

The best way to defend our nation is to stop creating enemies, not just by pissing folk off with our outrageous incompetence at the negotiating table..
(come on, you don't want some manly lay-down-the-law moron who's going to make EVERYONE hate you, you want a shyster who could sell ice to eskimos who'll get what we want and make them HAPPY TO GIVE IT!, Bolton is a disaster, and an incompetent one at that.)
But also by NOT setting up, arming, training, and equipping these nutburgers who boomerang on us like Noriega, Saddam, Osama.... WE created these goons in the first place.

Also, that conservative-cowboy crap is national suicide.
Diplomacy and Negotiation are weapons every bit as solid as a cruise missle, and our incompetence on that front is killing us, period.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Diplomacy and Negotiation are weapons every bit as solid as a cruise missle, and our incompetence on that front is killing us, period.

Diplomacy and negotiation are liberal for appeasement and capitulation. Perhaps Carter could go to Korea and barter us a deal. How about we give them a crapload of money and they promise to stop...worked in 1994, except the stopping them part.

Anybody who's ever been in a fight, whether its in the schoolyard, bar, or World War knows that there comes a time when diplomacy is no longer effective and often thats right after the other guy has slugged you. Not being prepared to fight back just means you get your ass kicked, makes you a slave to the other fella's will. Alot of liberals will just take the ass kicking and hope for the best, meekly accepting the chains offered them. Conservatives are ready to kick some ass right back, win or lose, they come out better then the wuss who lies there and takes it.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
That military buildup and the great renewed vision of liberty fostered by ... Margeret Thatcher...

Margeret Thatcher and Liberty in the same sentance! That's just too much! Wow that was funny, you should be on stage Hero, what's next for your ironic musings, Ghandi as a dictator?

Quote:
Alot of liberals will just take the ass kicking and hope for the best, meekly accepting the chains offered them. Conservatives are ready to kick some ass right back, win or lose, they come out better then the wuss who lies there and takes it.

You mean ready and willing to stand behind the bigger kid for protection?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 9:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How much do we need? The answer is 'enough', we need enough. How much is enough? Its certainly more to 'too little', but it is 'too much'. Too much might leave some left over, but thats ok, cause history teaches us there's always a next time and we can use it then. Too little gets people killed at best and loses the war at most..."for want of a shoe" and all that.

In other words, you have given this question no thought whatsoever.

Quote:
What strategy? The idea was that we needed to be able to fight two big wars and one little war at the same time. The idea was a big war in Europe, a little one in Korea, and maybe another big one in either China or the Middle East or perhaps a couple little ones in Central America in lieu of the 2nd big one. More recently the strategy has changed. They want to be able to fight several low intensity conflicts and one big one. I think this is ok, given the world at this time, but we sure could use a couple of the divisions Clinton mothballed, especially if Mr. Kim in Korea, decides to prove he's not an impotent little wuss.

In other words, we should be on constant wartime footing. So- how many troops on combat duty? How many in training? How many stationed overseas? How many aircraft carriers, bombers, transports, etc? Do the math. It would be an interesting exercise for all concerned. My pencil whipping tells me that this level of preparedness on a continuous basis is insupportable without a “peacetime” draft.

I also think it’s unnecessary. You’ve defined “our interests” as so broad and so far-flung that we would essentially need to be able to fight several wars any place at any level, including low-level insurgencies in South America and “wars of liberation” in Africa and the Mideast and defensive wars in Asia. I think you need to sit down and figure out what “national security” really means. Clearly, we need to defend our borders and our military allies. But I don’t think that we should be using our troops to make the world safe for corporations or to put a lock on oil and gas sources. The United States managed very well for a couple of hundred years w/o being an empire, and what we’re doing now is a far cry from what the Founders ever envisioned.

Quote:
Diplomacy and negotiation are liberal for appeasement and capitulation.

Not necessarily. You’re assuming that it’s always a zero-sum game, but nations often have legitimate common interests and negotiation is the art of creating win-win solutions.

Quote:
Anybody who's ever been in a fight, whether its in the schoolyard, bar, or World War knows that there comes a time when diplomacy is no longer effective and often that’s right after the other guy has slugged you. Not being prepared to fight back just means you get your ass kicked, makes you a slave to the other fella's will. A lot of liberals will just take the ass kicking and hope for the best, meekly accepting the chains offered them. Conservatives are ready to kick some ass right back, win or lose, they come out better then the wuss who lies there and takes it.

There’s a difference between being prepared to fight and picking fights, and I think you’re picking fights. Besides, the best strategy for schoolyard bullies is not fighting them... but your thinking apaprently hasn't evolved past the schoolyard stage.

Quote:
Sure we can slag the planet, but we arent going too.

yes, what would happend to all of "our" resources if we did?

Quote:
As for Central and South America ... Venezuela is the most dangerous cause the man has the money to make things happen. I think he'll find that the real world does not work that the way he thinks, for example, if he decides to sell his American made F-16s to a hostile power like North Korea...I doubt they will arrive at their destination. The high seas can be treacherous after all. And if he wants to play around with the oil, that fine...we can just casually stop him from shipping it anywhere

Why would we want to interfere with his oil shipments? See, this is exactly what being the schoolyard bully is all about. Assuming that his oil shipments aren't part of a lager MILITARY threat, then all you're doing is stealing his lunch money. That kind of attitude INEVITABLY creates enemies even where there were none to begin with and part of a winning strategy is to stop making enemies.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 11:17 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
How much do we need? The answer is 'enough', we need enough. How much is enough? Its certainly more to 'too little', but it is 'too much'. Too much might leave some left over, but thats ok, cause history teaches us there's always a next time and we can use it then. Too little gets people killed at best and loses the war at most..."for want of a shoe" and all that.
In other words, you have given this question no thought whatsoever.
Quote:

LOL, I can totally envision Rummy saying something along these lines. 'Can't know the unknowable, who knew? We know where, in the north, south, west and east and around that area, you go with what you have not what you might wish to have or like to have. Am I talking outta my ass? Sure! Do I like answering my own non sequiturs? You bet!'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 1:05 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I call BS, would-be-hero.

Diplomacy and Negotiation also would have included the solution of using a proxy to bribe an even bigger kid to hospitalize the jerk in question, leaving your own hands clean even if he did spill, you don't have to be NICE when you negotiate.

That idiotic 'cowboy' thinking is part and parcel of our problem....

I woulda dropped the Kurds enough firepower and supplies to create a major problem for Saddam, then mowed down his armed forces wholesale when he tried to engage them, and then GOT THE HELL OUT before we got bogged down, and let matters take their natural course.

You cannot ram "freedom" down someones throat on a bayonet, it doesn't work, they don't want it, won't keep it, and will resent you for upsetting the order of their little universe, and it's not even freedom to begin with if you sit there telling them what kind of government they must have, what candidates they can run, and the like, that's just a damn puppet regime that will lead to yet ANOTHER war in 10-15 years or so.

This game is getting a little old now, hell, even our blockade served Saddams purposes by giving him a ready enemy to rally his people against, muchlike our constant hasslement of Castro has actually kept him in power - without our nitpicking, either of these guys would have likely fallen to their own people sooner or later.

There's a merit to leaving the hell alone, and it's cheaper to negotiate with governments than smash them and replace them with puppet regimes that turn on us eventually - we supported Saddam, we armed him, supplied him, helped knock off his political enemies, and now where are we ?

Kicking him out, and trying to set up ANOTHER puppet... stop this merrygoround, I wanna get off.

Get the hell out, let the inevitable blood spill as they sort it out, and then negotiate with the government THEY choose to have, in the long run, it's cheaper.

And no, I do not believe that such would be a threat to us in any substantial way given that we've practically reduced their country to the fekkin stone age.

We keep going down this path, they might dredge up another Saladin, and you would not want that.

-Frem

PS - If you don't know who Saladin is, pick up a history book and fekkin READ for once, heh.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 5:29 PM

Boys, boys, tone it down in the arguing. Listen, you want the honest truth from a Moderate well here it is. Hero for the most part has been correct, his sense of ideology is good and he can identify a conservative or a liberal while blindfolded. What I am finding here is that most of the arguments the liberals here are making are poor. You see, I like peace just as much as a liberal person does. The thing is, I do not want to get screwed over while attempting to achieve peace. Hypothetical situation here... say we have peace talks with the North Koreans, we will probably have to meet their demands or have no peace talks. I do not think that the USA should be anyone's bitch, they fought hard to where they are and they deserve it (just for the heads up, I am a Canuck and not all of us are liberal here).

Now it may seem as though I am attacking the liberals only but I am not. The problem with conservatives is they are extremely corrupt. Corrupt in the sense that they are very capitalistic and love money a bit too much. The conservative's pursuit for the dollar bill is the reason I am not a full-fledged conservative. That being said, Hero's points did not involve money but rather ideology and as I stated in an earlier post, ideologically I am a conservative fair and square.

Either way, insults and angry arguments should not be flying around. We may have our differences but in the end we all still love Firefly so that should be good enough for all of us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
Boys, boys, tone it down in the arguing. Listen, you want the honest truth from a Moderate well here it is. Hero for the most part has been correct, his sense of ideology is good and he can identify a conservative or a liberal while blindfolded. What I am finding here is that most of the arguments the liberals here are making are poor. You see, I like peace just as much as a liberal person does. The thing is, I do not want to get screwed over while attempting to achieve peace. Hypothetical situation here... say we have peace talks with the North Koreans, we will probably have to meet their demands or have no peace talks. I do not think that the USA should be anyone's bitch, they fought hard to where they are and they deserve it (just for the heads up, I am a Canuck and not all of us are liberal here).

Now it may seem as though I am attacking the liberals only but I am not. The problem with conservatives is they are extremely corrupt. Corrupt in the sense that they are very capitalistic and love money a bit too much. The conservative's pursuit for the dollar bill is the reason I am not a full-fledged conservative. That being said, Hero's points did not involve money but rather ideology and as I stated in an earlier post, ideologically I am a conservative fair and square.

Either way, insults and angry arguments should not be flying around. We may have our differences but in the end we all still love Firefly so that should be good enough for all of us.

Quick question: Who are the liberals here? You name everyone in this thread who you think is a liberal and we'll check your accuracy.

Some more questions. Which Senators and Congressmen (or Congresswomen) are liberals? What are some standard liberal policies?

The reason why I ask these questions is because I have often found people use liberal as a very broad category. Many people consider Democrats as liberals. Maybe yes, maybe no. Many people consider anyone who doesn't agree with President Bush a liberal. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Since you have an understanding of the distinctions between liberals and conservatives that is fine-tuned enough to judge someone else's labelling abilities you should be able to answer these questions easily.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 6, 2006 9:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What I am finding here is that most of the arguments the liberals here are making are poor. You see, I like peace just as much as a liberal person does. The thing is, I do not want to get screwed over while attempting to achieve peace... say we have peace talks with the North Koreans, we will probably have to meet their demands or have no peace talks.

It depends on what you mean by "screwed over". As far as I know the N Koreans "demand" bilateral talks. I think we can manage that w/o getting "screwed over", don't you?

I think the problem is you see ANY negotiation as a "defeat". What you REALLY want is the USA imposing its terms on anyone and everyone unilaterally. If we can do that then everyone fears us, but we'll have to spend all our resources patrolling the schoolyward looking for the twerp who's growing a few hairs on his chin and who looks like he may be making friends of his own. And then we're going to have to pound on him pre-emptively because he might be a threat "some day". And then we're going to have to do that over and over ad infinitum, because once you start down that track everyone not only fears you, they hate you.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 3:18 AM

Quote:
Quick question: Who are the liberals here? You name everyone in this thread who you think is a liberal and we'll check your accuracy.

I never stated I was accurate, I stated Hero was accurate. That being said who is to say that your conservative/liberal accuracy is better than mine? I know a lot about both sides and I think I can determine which is which with 99% accuracy. Anyways, here is my list.

-Citizen
-SergeantX
-Fremdfirma
-Soupcatcher

There were some others who made liberal comments but I do not deem them liberal because at the same time they made some conservative comments as well.

Quote:
Some more questions. Which Senators and Congressmen (or Congresswomen) are liberals? What are some standard liberal policies?

Beats me, I'm not American.

Quote:
The reason why I ask these questions is because I have often found people use liberal as a very broad category. Many people consider Democrats as liberals. Maybe yes, maybe no. Many people consider anyone who doesn't agree with President Bush a liberal. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I sometimes disagree with Bush yet I still affiliate myself with conservatism. Does that make me a liberal?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:17 AM

I'm not an American so my definitions of Liberal and Conservative are somewhat different to Hero's or your's, it would seem.

Though from your comments I can say with perfect certainty:

You really don't strike me as a moderate.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Some more questions. Which Senators and Congressmen (or Congresswomen) are liberals? What are some standard liberal policies?

Liberals include folk like Kennedy, Kerry, any female Senator for California, any really old Democrats who are former Klan members, any Demcrat who does not live in New Hampshire or Iowa but finds themselves strangley attracted to Corn festivals and little town meetings near the Candian border, and all the former first ladies in the US Senate representing states they never lived in until they needed an office. That doesn't cover all the liberals...but it gives you a starting place.

Not all Democrats are full fedged liberals. Take Joe Leiberman. You want to see how things have changed, here is the same guy he was in 2000, but the party is moving away from him. Zell Miller, life long Democrat, giving the Republican keynote address in '04. Sam Nunn, former Democratic Senator was short-listed for Defense Secretary. Bob Casey, pro-life and very popular Democratic Governor of PA denied a voice at the 1992 convention. I think that many Democrats who were moderates or mainstream liberals are finding themselves squeezed out by an increasingly radical liberal agenda that includes seeing America defeated in the hopes of using that as a means of achieving power they can't seem to win at the ballot box.

Liberal policies include but are not limited too: abortion on demand for all women and girls over the age of alive, national health care, no more rich people or corporate profits, no more military...or at least much smaller and without weapons, inf fact no weapons for anybody, no smoking except pot, no driving, no foriegn policy that involves us standing for anything, no violence or sex in video games, lots of violence and sex in movies and on TV, no sexism...except against men, no racisim, except against non-blacks, and nothing in the above to be interpreted as a limitation upon the liberal elite from engaging in any of the proscribed or mandated activities which they demand of the rest of us. In other words John Kerry and Ted Kennedy can smoke, drive an SUV with his rich friends and their black servants, gated communities, with their private doctors, and so on...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:04 AM

Quote:
You really don't strike me as a moderate.

Conservative/Moderate were the words I used.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:53 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

" The United States managed very well for a couple of hundred years w/o being an empire, and what we’re doing now is a far cry from what the Founders ever envisioned. "

I would say the US always wanted to be an empire....

The war of 1812, the Spanish American war, the Mexican American war, the military occupation of Hawaii, etc

I would suggest this has always been the nature of the US

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:08 AM

Agreed, I believe the USA was/is an Empire mainly because of its imperialistic intentions. I mean they have so many states and then they have colonies as well all over the world. The USA is definitely an empire in my books.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Liberals include folk like Kennedy, Kerry, any female Senator for California

Aw c'mon man, get with the program! Feinstein is the biggest foreign policy shill that Bush has!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:31 AM

Quote:
you want the honest truth from a Moderate well here it is.

You said you were a moderate, you say elsewhere you're a bit conservative, but you kind of sound fairly well full on Conservative.

Please don't act like your an unbiased 'middle of the road' moderate when that's not the case. The Liberals haven't made a good case? Excuse me, the Conservatives have merely said we should fight everyone on all fronts, that negotiation is pansy-assed Liberalism and that Liberals are all weak scum bags. Perhaps that's a well reasoned argument for you, but to the rest of the species I feel confident that it is not.

You dismiss the Liberal arguments as not well made because they're Liberal arguments and you're a Conservative, because seriously saying "I'm a Conservative so I can kick your pansy ass" which is about all we've got out of Hero isn't even an argument, well made or otherwise. Your choosing to say it's the Liberals who can't put an argument together indicates to me you aren't a moderate, whether you like the idea of Conservative profiteering or not.

Agreeing or Disagreeing with what a minority of powerful Conservatives do doesn't make you any less Conservative, it means you have more morals than the Conservatives that choose to use Conservative values to rape and pillage, anymore than to be a Liberal you have to jump into bed with every other person who gives you the chance.

I.E. I don't think the fact that you don't like "Conservative Greed" means your moderate/conservative, you, by your own admission, hold conservative ideology, ergo you are a conservative, saying I’m a moderate and implying that means your reading of the fine Conservative arguments here and the poor Liberal ones is unbiased doesn't make it so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
Agreed, I believe the USA was/is an Empire mainly because of its imperialistic intentions. I mean they have so many states and then they have colonies as well all over the world. The USA is definitely an empire in my books.

I have a strange theory that kind of builds on the idea of history repeating itself (so maybe it's not really a theory, or at least not really mine, anyway).

Basically I think that the British Empire was Rome, which makes the US the holy Roman Empire (Byzantium).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Zero,

from The New England Journal of Medicine
"35 percent of women in the United States undergo an abortion before they are 45 years of age"
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/1/1?query=TOC

Quote:
abortion on demand for all women and girls over the age of alive

I'd say liberals are representing a substantial right for slightly over half the population of the US. Sounds like a democracy to me. So what do you have against democracy?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'd say liberals are representing a substantial right for slightly over half the population of the US. Sounds like a democracy to me. So what do you have against democracy?

I'd suggest nothing, as long as people are making the "right" choices.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"35 percent of women in the United States undergo an abortion before they are 45 years of age"

I'd say liberals are representing a substantial right for slightly over half the population of the US. Sounds like a democracy to me. So what do you have against democracy?

Did you feel the same way about slavery, seperate but equal, or remaining loyal to the King? Sometimes people, even a large number of people are just plain wrong, even when they are legally correct.

The country is split on the issue of abortion, split right down the middle and more often on political and religeous lines rather then gender, so if your all for letting democracy rule on this subject how about we dump Roe v. Wade and let each state decide on its own...I wonder who would win that one and who'd be running to the courts demanding democracy be overturned?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

Absitively and posolutely !

Always on their straight an' narrow ....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Zero, your legal standatds are based on shifting ground. Originally, US law was based on English common law, which said that abortions were private matters until 'quickening'.

As to your 'polls'

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
6/9-12/06
46% approve keeping legal
33% dissaprove
19% no difference
2% unsure

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Personally, I think abortions should be taken out of the medical arena. Abrotions can be easily induced by inserting laminaria into the cervix over the course of three days, as practiced by home health technicians in Japan. If it become illegal, it doesn't take a 'doctor' and coat hanger.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:42 AM

Quote:
I.E. I don't think the fact that you don't like "Conservative Greed" means your moderate/conservative, you, by your own admission, hold conservative ideology, ergo you are a conservative, saying I’m a moderate and implying that means your reading of the fine Conservative arguments here and the poor Liberal ones is unbiased doesn't make it so.

Oh yes and having Socialist political views is very conservative, eh? I just said that ideologically I am a conservative and politically I am a moderate. We were having a political discussion so I called myself a Moderate. Make sense now?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:48 AM

Well in that case I've decided I'm a Moderate, so my views on Liberals and Conservatives are unbiased as well.

Make sense now?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:51 AM

Being a Moderate does not necessarily mean you are unbiased. It could mean that your conservative ethics and your liberal ethics balance out making you a person in the middle (as are mine when it comes to politics).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:56 AM

Having a couple of socialist political views thrown in with your Conservative ideology doesn't make you a moderate.

For a moderate you sound a hell of a lot like a conservative.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
I never stated I was accurate, I stated Hero was accurate. That being said who is to say that your conservative/liberal accuracy is better than mine? I know a lot about both sides and I think I can determine which is which with 99% accuracy. Anyways, here is my list.

-Citizen
-SergeantX
-Fremdfirma
-Soupcatcher

There were some others who made liberal comments but I do not deem them liberal because at the same time they made some conservative comments as well.

Your claim to accuracy was in making the claim that someone else was accurate. Else how to judge? 99% accuracy? Well, you're right about me. Citizen is from the UK where liberal means something different than here in the states. SergeantX is a libertarian. Fremdfirma is an anarchist. At least, I'm pretty sure on the last two, but I've been wrong before. So according to my calculations you're at 25% accuracy. So you're either an okay baseball hitter or a lousy student. In either case you're nowhere near 99%.

Quote:
Quote:
Some more questions. Which Senators and Congressmen (or Congresswomen) are liberals? What are some standard liberal policies?

Beats me, I'm not American.

So you can't identify prominent liberals. You can't identify liberal policies. You can't even identify who here self-identifies as liberal. And we're supposed to accept your judgement that someone is accurate in identifying who is or isn't a liberal? I'm not buying it.

Quote:
Quote:
The reason why I ask these questions is because I have often found people use liberal as a very broad category. Many people consider Democrats as liberals. Maybe yes, maybe no. Many people consider anyone who doesn't agree with President Bush a liberal. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I sometimes disagree with Bush yet I still affiliate myself with conservatism. Does that make me a liberal?

To some people, yes. To me, no.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:43 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
I never stated I was accurate, I stated Hero was accurate. That being said who is to say that your conservative/liberal accuracy is better than mine? I know a lot about both sides and I think I can determine which is which with 99% accuracy. Anyways, here is my list.

-Citizen
-SergeantX
-Fremdfirma
-Soupcatcher

There were some others who made liberal comments but I do not deem them liberal because at the same time they made some conservative comments as well.

Your claim to accuracy was in making the claim that someone else was accurate. Else how to judge? 99% accuracy? Well, you're right about me. Citizen is from the UK where liberal means something different than here in the states. SergeantX is a libertarian. Fremdfirma is an anarchist. At least, I'm pretty sure on the last two, but I've been wrong before. So according to my calculations you're at 25% accuracy. So you're either an okay baseball hitter or a lousy student. In either case you're nowhere near 99%.

This is a great illustration of how meaningless the terms have become. SoupCatcher is pretty accurate about my ideological leanings. I'm currently a small 'l' libertarian (no longer affiliated with the official party), but I'm usually tagged as either a right-wing nut job, or a starry-eyed hippie. Just depends on who I'm talking to and the context.

The labels have changed over time as well. By the standards of 'presidential candidate' Reagan, GW is a classic, big-government, nation-building, tax-and-spend liberal. By the standards of sixties liberals, Clinton was a corporate stooge. It's all relative, and relatively silly. The level of duplicity and political strategizing seen at the top levels of government sort of make ideologies moot. They're little more than marketing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 12:35 PM

Quote:
Your claim to accuracy was in making the claim that someone else was accurate. Else how to judge? 99% accuracy? Well, you're right about me. Citizen is from the UK where liberal means something different than here in the states. SergeantX is a libertarian. Fremdfirma is an anarchist. At least, I'm pretty sure on the last two, but I've been wrong before. So according to my calculations you're at 25% accuracy. So you're either an okay baseball hitter or a lousy student. In either case you're nowhere near 99%.

You clearly have never studied Political Sciences (or never paid attention in class at the least).

Liberal: Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies".

Note the words broad and tolerant in there. Regardless if Citizen is from the UK or not, he still has liberal ideology since ideology is fairly universal (more so in the UK since they are more liberal there than in the US). Now I am at 50%. SergeantX is a Libertarian. According to what I learned in English class, that word's history has something to do with liberalism. Let me pull up a definition.

Libertarian: Someone who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Sounds pretty liberal to me, 75% now. Allow me to keep going. Anarchism is considered a liberal ideology as it is part of the "broadness" in the above definition. If you study political science you will learn about the political scale of left and right. Anarchism is on the far left of the scale therefore making it a liberal practice. I think it is safe to say I am at 100% accuracy right now.

I know there will be some comments trying to rebuttle my post or trying to flame me but either way, I am just showing you what I have learned in two semesters worth of Political Science. I am not trying to really argue anyone here, just trying to clarify things up for both sides before you continue arguing with eachother.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:07 PM

Quote:
I know there will be some comments trying to rebuttle my post or trying to flame me but either way, I am just showing you what I have learned in two semesters worth of Political Science. I am not trying to really argue anyone here, just trying to clarify things up for both sides before you continue arguing with eachother.

No you're changing definitions of words because the accepted definitions don't suit your purposes.

Carry on with your oh so great knowledge of political science all you want, Libertarian doesn't equal Liberal, Liberal is a greatly different term in the UK than it is in the US and you don't need two semesters of political science to work that out.

Anarchy is a Liberal ideology? Firstly isn't it the right-wing that's supposed to like small government? You don't get much smaller than Anarchy. So is Communism a Liberal ideology? By your reasoning that must make Fascism a Conservative ideology.

You obviously misunderstood this part of the course: Left and Right, not Liberal and Conservative

.

Oh just wondering you say I'm a Liberal because I have 'a Liberal ideology' but you know little of my political leanings, where as you have a Conservative ideology which makes you a Moderate, how does that work exactly?

Obviously you didn't understand what you learnt during those two semesters, or you're convienently misrepresenting it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:37 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
I know there will be some comments trying to rebuttle my post or trying to flame me but either way, I am just showing you what I have learned in two semesters worth of Political Science. I am not trying to really argue anyone here, just trying to clarify things up for both sides before you continue arguing with eachother.

Thanks for clarifying things up. I won't rebuttal your post, as you've made it very clear where you stand.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:47 PM

Quote:
No you're changing definitions of words because the accepted definitions don't suit your purposes.

Or I got them from online dictionaries and the definitions are quite contrary to what you thought.

Quote:
Carry on with your oh so great knowledge of political science all you want, Libertarian doesn't equal Liberal, Liberal is a greatly different term in the UK than it is in the US and you don't need two semesters of political science to work that out.

Did you even read what I posted or did you just read the first two sentences? The doctrine of "free will" is a liberal idea. It means you can do whatever you want without any restrictions. How can anything get much more liberal than that?! Also, if you read carefully, I stated that the UK's and the US' idea of liberalism are different (with the UK being generally more liberal than the US for the most part).

Quote:
Anarchy is a Liberal ideology? Firstly isn't it the right-wing that's supposed to like small government? You don't get much smaller than Anarchy. So is Communism a Liberal ideology? By your reasoning that must make Fascism a Conservative ideology.

Let me put it into retrospect for you. Imagine the Republican Party Of America and the the punk-rock group Antiflag. They are the total opposite of eachother so how would they both be conservative?

Quote:
You obviously misunderstood this part of the course: Left and Right, not Liberal and Conservative.

Right = Conservative views.
Left = Liberal views.

Disagree? Go take it up with your local University.

Quote:
Oh just wondering you say I'm a Liberal because I have 'a Liberal ideology' but you know little of my political leanings, where as you have a Conservative ideology which makes you a Moderate, how does that work exactly?

I have read enough of your statements to know that you are a liberal. Also, if you read my earlier posts, you would know why I deemed myself a Conservative/Moderate. Since you probably won't go to revisit my post I will just state it again. Ideologically I am a conservative. I am religious, I am quite introverted, I enjoy intellectual studies, and I like watching appropriate movies. I called myself a moderate as well because I am a Socialist for the most part. I believe in the classes, but less separation between them and less of a broad class-system if you know what I mean (tell me in your next post if you do not understand I will further clarify).

Quote:
Obviously you didn't understand what you learnt during those two semesters, or you're convienently misrepresenting it.

A 91% and a 90% final grades can speak for themselves.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is a great illustration of how meaningless the terms have become. SoupCatcher is pretty accurate about my ideological leanings. I'm currently a small 'l' libertarian (no longer affiliated with the official party), but I'm usually tagged as either a right-wing nut job, or a starry-eyed hippie. Just depends on who I'm talking to and the context.

The labels have changed over time as well. By the standards of 'presidential candidate' Reagan, GW is a classic, big-government, nation-building, tax-and-spend liberal. By the standards of sixties liberals, Clinton was a corporate stooge. It's all relative, and relatively silly. The level of duplicity and political strategizing seen at the top levels of government sort of make ideologies moot. They're little more than marketing.

SergeantX

I definitely agree that the terms have lost their meaning when we use them to label others. However, I think there is still meaning when they are used as self-identification. It's kind of what I was getting at by asking Exodus to label who he or she thought were liberals. When someone says that they are ideologically liberal I have a decent idea of the types of policies they support. When someone labels another person as a liberal I have no clue about the types of policies they support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 2:01 PM