I support Bush because .... by rue

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
First of all, 99.9% of the people have no control over the system, and hence no choice. They're just trying to survive in a system built and controlled by others.- Rue

Eh, Rue. You were asking above why I thought you believed in conspiracies? Here's why. -Geezer

So Geezer, I'm curious: Are you saying that EVERY huge imbalance of social power is a conspiracy? Let's see... Imperial Egypt, where everyone else is surviving in a system built and controlled by the Pharaohs and priest class... a conspiracy? Imperial China... another conspiracy? The Court of Louis XIV, where the peasants and minor nobility lived in a system controlled by the Sun King...another conspiracy? I recognize that society has levels of power w/o it necessarily being a conspiracy. But if you can't, then it seems the only person who sees a conspiracy in every corner is... you?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Would I be evil if I pointed out how embarrassing it must be to mis-spell "embarassing"?

Only to you.

EDITED TO ADD: Geezer, the only reason why you're getting into trouble in this thread is not because of your views. It's because of your attack-dog, political-operative, Rovian approach to debate. You've used EVERY trick in the book!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 12:06 PM

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

No, I don't assign demeaning nicknames to people I disagree with. I disagree with many people about almost everything, and with everyone about at least some things. And they all remain nickname-free. And out of all the people I interact with on this board, there are only four with special pet names. You'll have to try harder to figure out why you're "Slick".

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 12:19 PM

KANEMAN

"curbing global consumption of rain forests and looking into treaties involving conservation, but we choose not to, even in the face of catastrophic results,"

Do we really need the yellow-horned swamp frog? Are they worth more than our present quality of living? Is there not a way to manage forests so we always have them? Are rain forests overrated? Old growth forests? How much do we gain from having millions of acres of rain forest if no one except a handful of people go into them anyway?

I've heard the old wive's tale about the wonderful upside to medicine(not so sure it isn't overstated by a bunch of tree huggers who need a place to wear their $150 hiking boots). Sh*t or get off the pot. And can't we synthesis this stuff anyway? I say... Save the desert, we need the sand for the concrete to pave over the forests.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:03 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Geezer, I'm curious: Are you saying that EVERY huge imbalance of social power is a conspiracy? Let's see... Imperial Egypt, where everyone else is surviving in a system built and controlled by the Pharaohs and priest class... a conspiracy? Imperial China... another conspiracy? The Court of Louis XIV, where the peasants and minor nobility lived in a system controlled by the Sun King...another conspiracy? I recognize that society has levels of power w/o it necessarily being a conspiracy. But if you can't, then it seems the only person who sees a conspiracy in every corner is... you?

I do believe things have changed a bit since the 18th century. I realize that China, North Korea, and some of the countries in Africa, the Middle East, and other places may still be under dictitorial control. However, most of Europe and the Americas, plus big bits of the former British empire, have discovered this thing called democracy. You'll probably see it at work in a couple of weeks when the US Congress moves from majority Republican to majority Democratic. Claiming that 0.1% of the world population currently controls the other 99.9% to the point that they have no choice seems at least a bit paranoid to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, the only reason why you're getting into trouble in this thread is not because of your views. It's because of your attack-dog, political-operative, Rovian approach to debate. You've used EVERY trick in the book!

{tongue firmly in cheek}Cool! Can I quote you in my next political operative evaluation input? It might mean a bonus.{/tongue firmly in cheek}

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:14 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, I don't assign demeaning nicknames to people I disagree with. I disagree with many people about almost everything, and with everyone about at least some things. And they all remain nickname-free. And out of all the people I interact with on this board, there are only four with special pet names. You'll have to try harder to figure out why you're "Slick".

Awww. I feel bad that I haven't made you feel as special as this makes me feel. Guess I just don't have the gift for insult you do. Any suggestions for your "special" name? While you're at it, how about one for SignyM?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:52 PM

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

I was just really curious about why Slick has such a freakishly huge …

butt hol ... I mean, need to lie. And about how big it truly was. So I went back to this exchange:
“WHY DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH?”
“JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!”

You see, I have a timeline below. Slick joined (under his current name) early Jan 2004.
August 2004, almost exactly 8 months after joining, Slick posted his very first archived post. In it he taunted Knibblet for indirectly criticizing Bush.
His very first thread was 6 hours later, and was an anti-Kerry talking point.
Less than 36 hours after that he was claiming he was being poorly abused by being mischaracterized as a "Brainwashed Bushie". (He’s been playing Camille ever since.)
When you think about it, it's remarkable. In under four days he went from his very first post which happened to be pro-Bush, to his very first thread, which happened to be pro-Bush, to posing as a misunderstood non-partisan unfairly wearing a pro-Bush label, which oddly, no one had pinned on him, except, of course he himself.

So to get back to the exchange above: he claims he doesn't really support Bush but it was just too fun a game to quit. In fact it wasn’t until early October, 10 months after he signed on and two months after he came out of Bush’s closet, that there was an exchange between him and SignyM.

So it's obvious he doesn't support Bush just to piss of either SignyM or myself, or play a game. And clearly he lies – constantly, compulsively, and in service of Bush.

---------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 05, 2002 15:46
SignyM

Thursday, January 08, 2004
Geezer

Saturday, May 08, 2004 18:36
Rue

5.10.2004 06:05
Our President
oldest archived thread

Friday, August 06, 2004 09:24
Well, we might have found WMD...
Slick’s first post
Knibblet posted
“the current administration isn't about to do anything about N. Korea”
Slick replied
I agree with you 100%. We should invade North Korea immediately.

Friday, August 06, 2004 15:03
Lining the Pockets of Big Business?
Slick’s first thread
An anti-Kerry screed

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 03:54
Marriage Amendment?
Slick’s first claim to being abused and mischaracterized
(4 days after his very first post !)
“At the risk of blowing my hard-earned "Brainwashed Bushie" cred here …”

Tuesday, September 07, 2004 09:31
Slick's second thread
Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot
Slick's pro republican 'dirty tricks' stance

Friday, September 10, 2004 06:22
Slick's third thread
Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
and anti-democrat stance

October 07, 2004 07:24
War is peace
first exchange bewteen Slick and SignyM

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:05 PM

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

So yeah, that's Slick. Slick as a whistle and making smooth moves, just like Exlax.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I do believe things have changed a bit since the 18th century. I realize that China, North Korea, and some of the countries in Africa, the Middle East, and other places may still be under dictitorial control. However, most of Europe and the Americas, plus big bits of the former British empire, have discovered this thing called democracy. You'll probably see it at work in a couple of weeks when the US Congress moves from majority Republican to majority Democratic. Claiming that 0.1% of the world population currently controls the other 99.9% to the point that they have no choice seems at least a bit paranoid to me.

Are you saying we all have an equal say in what happens?

Quote:
Cool! Can I quote you in my next political operative evaluation input? It might mean a bonus.

Sure! If you think it'll help, feel free!

Quote:
Thinking about it, I believe I have more trouble with the incessant use of the word "evil" than anything else. Just because someone disagrees wiht you over policy does not make them evil.-Geezer

Was Hitler "evil"? Where does "disagreement" and "different values" end and "evil" being? Or does "evil" even exist in your world view?- Signy
I
I don't see this as a useful paradigm in realworld politics, when used by either side.-Geezer

Notice how Geezer avoided the whole embarassing "what is evil?" question?-Signy

Nope. Just had other stuff to do.Would I be evil if I pointed out how embarrassing it must be to mis-spell "embarassing"?-Geezer

So by the way Geezer- in all of that other stuff to do- including answering other posts in this thread- have you ever gotten around to deciding if Hitler was merely "misguided", or truly "evil"? Or to defining what "evil" is? Or do you just figure it's not a useful paradigm when posting about Bush?

So c'mon Geezer, say the words that are so obvious to everyone but you. Say it loud and say it proud! I SUPPORT BUSH BECAUSE...

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 2:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Are you saying we all have an equal say in what happens?

Rue said that 99.9% of the people have no choice. I disagree. I figure a lot of people in the world have varying degrees of say in what happens to them. In some places the people have enough say to change the government. I'd prefer it if more people had more say, but Rue's 99.9% figure seems awful high to me.

Quote:
Notice how Geezer avoided the whole embarassing "what is evil?" question?-Signy

Well, I did answer Righteous9, who posed the question. And I answered your comment above in the same spirit in which it was posted.

Oh. Hitler evil? Yep. Stalin too, even if he did beat Hitler.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So I went back to this exchange:
“WHY DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH?”
“JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!”

You see, I have a timeline below. Slick joined (under his current name) early Jan 2004.
August 2004, almost exactly 8 months after joining, Slick posted his very first archived post. In it he taunted Knibblet for indirectly criticizing Bush.

My new slogan. "Geezer - Pissing off the Looney Left since 2004" Thanks, Rue.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Misguided maybe, wrong, foolish, supporting different values.

Well, I did answer Righteous9, who posed the question. And I answered your comment above in the same spirit in which it was posted. Oh. Hitler evil? Yep. Stalin too, even if he did beat Hitler.

So "evil" is a useful paradigm for talking about Stalin and Hitler, but not for talking about any USA Administration? Why not? You would prefer to talk about "different values" instead? Why?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So "evil" is a useful paradigm for talking about Stalin and Hitler, but not for talking about any USA Administration? Why not? You would prefer to talk about "different values" instead? Why?

Well, for one thing, there's a pretty broad consensus, maybe Rue's 99.9%, that Hitler and Stalin were bad guys, easily over the evil cutoff, whatever that is. There's a good bit less consensus on the the current US Administration, which managed to make the last two elections close run thihgs, regardless of whether you believe in election fraud or not. You can consider the Administration evil, and I can disagree, believing they don't rise to that mysterious "evil" cutoff. Maybe I just consider them not too bright, or not up to the challenges they had to face.

I suspect that everyone has their own understanding of what evil is. It's probably like the judge said about pornography, "I know it when I see it", and everyone has different criteria.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:36 AM

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

If Hitler had won, do you think history would have categorized him as "evil"?
Or, to take another example, if Bush is convicted of war crimes, do you think he will avoid being labelled "evil"?

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:00 AM

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

Slick,

Just one more question - You said: "My new slogan. "Geezer - Pissing off the Looney Left since 2004" Do you consider EVERYONE who disagrees with Bush to be the "looney left"? Including, say, ConnorFlynn? Just curious how rabidly partisan you are.

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:03 PM

Quote:
Kaneman:

Do we really need the yellow-horned swamp frog? Are they worth more than our present quality of living? Is there not a way to manage forests so we always have them? Are rain forests overrated? Old growth forests? How much do we gain from having millions of acres of rain forest if no one except a handful of people go into them anyway?

Oh dear.

I'm forced by my own beliefs to conclude that Kaneman is evil. or, at least, evil-intentioned. His arguement above show a total void of compassion, empathy or even respect for life, or the earth. In fact, it spits on existence with hate and contempt. His level of disconnect goes so far as to be psychopathic.

Forget the counter-arguments, such as "who are we to decide, or maybe we shoudn't exist?" etc., or the fallacy of his "we can synthesize this" argument, as in "duh, we can't, you can't synthesize something you haven't catalogued" or the "fairytale science idea" which neglects that 90% of all medicines actually come from rare plants, and 50% come from untouched rainforests, and over 1/2 of all plant and animal species live in the rainforest, and 99% of undiscovered plants from which new medicines will come.

Nevermind the logic. The raw consciousness gap is stunning. From an internet perspective it's an interesting case study. If he were in my community I think I might have to suggest something radical. Mental health clinic for starters. But, honestly, if you have someone in your community who has no respect for life, what do you do with him? You could exile him, I suppose, but ultimtely, that's not going to help. You could put him on a watchlist, but maintaining a watchlist harms everyone's freedom. I'm open to suggestions from the non-Kaneman among us.

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:06 PM

Quote:
Geezer, the only reason why you're getting into trouble in this thread is not because of your views. It's because of your attack-dog, political-operative, Rovian approach to debate. You've used EVERY trick in the book!

This hardly seems fair. I think Geezer is pretty straghtforward and neither a raptor not a rove

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

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:13 PM

Just, for anyone who hasn't noticed it, I wanted to alert everyone to the objective fact that liberals are losing this debate because of their antagonistic attitude. So, liberals, sound more reasonable, and show that there are differences of opinion that separate you from your opponents, and not conspiracies and tricks, and btw, ditch the nicknames, it's a self-deprecating technique.

Conservatives, if you want to win, keep the steady hand, and don't descend to your opponents level, in fact, turn on your own when they're wrong, but do so in the same stayed manner (or ban kaneman to troll country :) ) and you'll do just fine.

Oh, yeah, wait, that's every debate, isn't it?

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:01 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

That's why it's called a secret ballot.

Sorry. While I was obviously prying, I didn't consider it personal information because I have no idea who the Hell you are.

Quote:
I try not to make my vote in congressional races a proxy for my like or dislike of the president, so I'll probably go on issues of more local interest. If I want to get rid of the Republican in the White House, I'll vote against him in 2008.

That's a valid position. But, wouldn't you agree that keeping a Republican majority in both the House, and Senate is in effect giving a blank check to the current Administration, as there will continue to be no oversight? I would also add that Senator Allen votes with the White House over 95% of the time. By voting for a Bush rubber stamp and a continued lack of oversight, aren't you actually casting an implicit vote of approval for President Bush?

Quote:
I do have the natural disinclination to remove a Senator who has tenure, as he can bring more local benefits.

This is a valid point as well. I actually feel similarly about Senator Warner. Allen is, however, the junior Senator and has only been in the Senate for a single term, so he really doesn't have that much seniority.

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Just, for anyone who hasn't noticed it, I wanted to alert everyone to the objective fact that liberals are losing this debate because of their antagonistic attitude.

Dreamtrove, you obviously haven't been paying attention.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:26 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm open to suggestions from the non-Kaneman among us.

Didn't they use electro shock once apone a time?

Quote:
Oh, yeah, wait, that's every debate, isn't it?

What, where a conservative tries to make out that they're more reasonable and simply 'better' than the competition?

Pretty much

Post funded by the "two can play at that game"...

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:00 PM

Quote:
yay liberals!

Okay, no one said that, but I get it.

Liberals yay their side. That's not an effective rhetorical point. You can argue with me that I'm wrong, that you're winning, etc. But no amount of arguing will make me wrong, you right, and you winning this debate.

Because, what is winning?

There are two forms of winning in a debate:

1. making the other person give in to your position. I'm not sure why an assault on geezer, who seems truly moderate to me, would merit any serious victory for liberals. i also don't see him caving,

2. make the casual observer side with you. I'm pretty neutral to the debates i see going on, and tend to fall down on one side or the other with even regularity. Sure, I'm not politically neutral, but geezer seems calmer to the very casual observer, which would be the stronger hand.

Here's the thing. I'm not paying close attention, sure, but i'm the casual observer. I think kaneman and hero would lose almost anything, antimason and auraptor usually lose, chrisisall, 7%, casual, finn, tend to win, though not always. It's a matter of sounding reasonable and remaining flexible, while avoiding positions which would seem intractable and extreme unless they are essential to your position.

Like, for me, on abortion. Life is life, ending life is death. This is essential to my position. Without it, my position loses its definition, becomes weaker, or even meaningless. "Abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest" is an incredibly weak position. It's saying "killing is wrong, but i guess if you gotta, then it's okay"

However, seemingly stronger stances would also weaken my position, such as "abortion doctors got to hell" or "abortion should be tried as murder" or even "abortion should be banned." These are not essential to my position, they are more extreme, create more opposition, and there is no reason why I should hold them. I don't hold them, in keeping with my faith, I don't seek conflict, and avoid believing in unnecessary things which would cause conflict, and have no problem accepting this. If someone did have such convictions, they'd probably do well to shut up about them. If you find yourself shutting up about a position because you find it would create a lot of opposition, you might examine its rightness or necessity.

I'm not great at *winning* debates, but I know some obvious things that lose them. One is this:

Hey knucklehead. If you had half a brain you'd know that abortion should be tried as murder because those sinners need to be sent to hell so quick that they get pickforks through their asses. But if you had half a brain you'd just be on my page already ass monkey ass ass ass.

Not saying this is how the debate happens, but I have seen some posts that look like this recently.

This is probably a better argument:

Abortion is wrong because whether or not it ends a life, it prevents a life from becoming by interrupting the natural flow, and as it is, IMHO, not on the side of life, it should be discouraged.

Not looking, btw, to have an abortion debate, if one happens I won't participate, just using it as an example.

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:08 PM

double post

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:36 AM

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

Hey Slick,
If you are posting just to piss people off, WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM A TROLL? Just wondering, is all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slick:
“JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!”

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:02 AM

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

Slick,

And this is just a marker for where I will point out yet another one of your outrageous lies. Because, as you know, unchallenged lies have a way of gaining common parlance. So they need to be pointed out. Sure it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

PS Ghoulman was right.

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey Slick,
If you are posting just to piss people off, WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM A TROLL? Just wondering, is all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Slick:
“JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!”

Read the quote, and then see who I've addressed it to. "Just to piss YOU off", and in response only to yourself and SignyM. Unless you and SignyM are all the people (or maybe you are all the people who count, in your opinion), I guess I'm not trying to piss "people" off, just you, the charter members of "The Looney Left".

And this only relates to the long string of "Bush is(Oops. Can't use the E Word in this context anymore)...Not the Guy for Us" posts. In the "Evil" thread, I'm trying to be serious, although SignyM's attitude sometimes provokes a response. Do you think she's trying to piss ME off?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:37 AM

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

Poor Slick,

You're sounding all rattled and desperate. You can't even keep your own story straight on a single thread anymore.

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Poor Slick,

You're sounding all rattled and desperate. You can't even keep your own story straight on one single thread anymore.

Huh? What you smokin', Rue?

Select to view spoiler:

(Oh, Boy! That should provoke another lengthy string of quotes culled from three years of posts and hour on hour of research. Oops. Did I just type that?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:30 AM

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

Hey Slick

Just read what you typed on this thread. And I'm still holding on to my marker to point out yet another one of your lies.

Not that it'll change our point of view. I understand that. It's just one of those chores, like taking out the trash, that one must do from time to time. You know, to keep the place clean and healthy.

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey Slick

Just read what you typed on this thread. And I'm still holding on to my marker to point out yet another one of your lies.

Not that it'll change our point of view. I understand that. It's just one of those chores, like taking out the trash, that one must do from time to time. You know, to keep the place clean and healthy.

Oh dear. A personal attack. Ad hominem, eh what? But you only discuss the issues, and not personalities. I'm so disappointed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:22 AM

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

I never claimed to be impartial nor promise to keep to the high road. You must have me mistaken for someone else.

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:35 AM