|
| Thread: Bush: Is he a hotheaded idiot or did he save us from a nuke? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
posted May 06, 2003 03:53 AM |
|
|
Khayman, I disagree with your view on Bill Clinton. While Bill Clinton had that horrible Monica Lewinsky Scandal which tarnished his reputation a fair bit, I'd still reckon Bill Clinton was a better US President than both George Bush's. Clinton was the one who tried to make peace negotiations with the Middle East. Only when Bush Jr. took the presidential throne did the Middle East Violence erupt into full scale.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2003 05:06 AM |
|
|
Hello Khayman,
I think the reason for Andi´s undiplomatic response is that the view which you expressed in your initial posting comepletely contradicts what I (and he probably, too) personally would see as one of the most basic morals of a western society: That every war is a failure of human civilization, thousands or even millions of small personal tragedies. If you take this very same thing (war) and display it not only in a positive context, but even as the peak commendation of a president and his administration, this IMO is somewhat provoking heated and emotional reactions. On the other hand, judging from your other contributions on this forum, it seems to me like you are one of the most open-minded people who write here, gave me quite a number of surprises even though I more often than not disagree with you. So I can just as well see that you don´t like to put on that shoe ... (does this saying exist in English language at all  ?)
What I find especially problematic is societies that encourage such values. Both on the large scale (gouvernment/media), and on the smaller, more concentrated one (army). Is it "natural" that as part of our job we kill people? People that we do not know, guys like me and you who just have the bad luck to be both from a certain country and at a certain age (Iraqi soldiers do not have much of a choice about serving in the military)? I think a soldier is conditioned to comepletely turn over his normal every-day-life morals in the context of war. In war, what otherwise would be murder is not only right now, but even seen as a most honorable if not heroic act. Tools like religion and patriotism are used to bolster the soldier´s feeling of doing good when he kills.
Thinking about this, I always feel reminded of those environments, where parents out of poverty tell their children to steal. When those kids come home with empty hands, they have a bad conscience, like you and I would if we had snatched the handbag from an old woman and run away.
Well, my view, and hopefully not taken as an offense (not meant as that in any case).
On the other hand, it´s my opinion that sadly, a few wars have been necessary. (I´m talking about those that are always used to justify the many unnecessary wars ...) I don´t think that your job as a soldier is a bad thing in itself, someone must be there to defend a country against aggression. But I personally would have a big problem doing it. You are obliged to obey. What if your authorities send you to kill in a war that is wrong, unjust, and out of disgraceful motives? Even if Iraq 2003 is/were rightful and justified, what´s your guarantee that the next conflict you are sent in is not another Vietnam?
____________
|
|
AndiAngelsla...
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2003 05:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hello Khayman,
I think the reason for Andi´s undiplomatic response is that the view which you expressed in your initial posting comepletely contradicts what I (and he probably, too) personally would see as one of the most basic morals of a western society: That every war is a failure of human civilization, thousands or even millions of small personal tragedies.
Indeed, and why should I express it diplomatically if i think this a total crap way of thinking? Diplomacy sux, watch the politicans there you got some ass crawling...does it make the world a better place?
|
|
GrunanCross
Famous Hero
King of the Underdark
|
|
posted May 06, 2003 06:59 AM |
|
|
Now i dont say you are one of those, but if i read crap like "this president was big coz he won a war" i just think - well you know...
btw guys that always say nice stuff are liers, what they really think they dont have the guts to say...
I think a good Pres. is avoiding a war...or at least not letting a lot of Inoc. people die,but I guess those Pres. are hard to come by!
Indeed, and why should I express it diplomatically if i think this a total crap way of thinking? Diplomacy sux, watch the politicans there you got some ass crawling...does it make the world a better place?
No all they do is fly off and have dinners and what not
I think that If all poli. had to eat at a fast food place and made round 16 bucks an hour,they'd all quit...stupid they never get anything done besides make us look like fools
hell i can make myself look like a fool, an betca it would cost less to boot!....Also can you really blam Old Bill for getting the HOOK UP....no. Lots of people do it mahaps here sumitted into peer pressure. But damn they ate his ass on that. So getting the HOOK UP=bad and ****ing up=good pres
i really like that lets give him a hand!!!!!
____________
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 06:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now i dont say you are one of those, but if i read crap like "this president was big coz he won a war" i just think - well you know...
btw guys that always say nice stuff are liers, what they really think they dont have the guts to say...
I partly agree. Sure there are dishonest presidents but however, I don't think all of the world leaders are like that.
Quote:
I think a good Pres. is avoiding a war...or at least not letting a lot of Inoc. people die,but I guess those Pres. are hard to come by!
I agree. A good president would be like Bill Clinton...try to use diplomatic and peaceful methods to solve the problems of the world instead rather than use force like Bush.
Quote:
No all they do is fly off and have dinners and what not
I think that If all poli. had to eat at a fast food place and made round 16 bucks an hour,they'd all quit...stupid they never get anything done besides make us look like fools
hell i can make myself look like a fool, an betca it would cost less to boot!....Also can you really blam Old Bill for getting the HOOK UP....no. Lots of people do it mahaps here sumitted into peer pressure. But damn they ate his ass on that. So getting the HOOK UP=bad and ****ing up=good pres
i really like that lets give him a hand!!!!!
What do you ask of this jumble? You cannot turn the U.S. back to what it was before 1620 - it is impossible!
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 12:11 PM |
|
|
I agree with the ones of you who says that good presidents shouldn't start wars. And i agree that Billyboy was bettter than Georgieboy.
BUT: Bil Clinton did also 'start a war'. Or more precicely: He bombed Libya once in a while, he bombed Afghanistan, and during his period, Iraq was constantly bombed.
(Please excuse if any of the bombing targets I mentioned above are wrong. I just took them from my memory, stuff I seem to remembered to have heard on the news, and my memory isn't exactly reliable...)
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think a good Pres. is avoiding a war...or at least not letting a lot of Inoc. people die,but I guess those Pres. are hard to come by!
I agree. A good president would be like Bill Clinton...try to use diplomatic and peaceful methods to solve the problems of the world instead rather than use force like Bush.
Clinton? A good president? lmao That is laughable.
Let's list the major screw ups of his presidency that he did:
- Lost the Nuclear codes for the country, the president is to carry them at all times, the CIA approched him at the end of the year and was going to give him the new codes, but he couldn't produce the old ones.
- The W-88 design for the W-88 Nuclear warhead was stolen by China, but Clinton didn't think this was a breach of national security. He did't care.
- He brought sex to the Oval Office, 'nough said.
- He cut the US Military in half, cut their funds, let a bunch of military personel retire early which left a huge gaping hole in the military, when 9/11 happened there were veterans in the military, like my dad, and new guys with little experiance. That is why no one could retire after 9/11.
- President Clinton signed waivers to allow his top campaign fundraiser's aerospace company to transfer U.S. missile guidance technology to China.
- President Clinton covered up the theft of our most valuable nuclear weapons technology.
- President Clinton single-handedly stopped the deployment of a national missile defense system, exposing every American life to a missile attack, leaving America with no defense whatsoever against an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Yes, I think you're right, he was a great president. Compared to Hoover in the later years of his presidency.
Quote:
I agree with the ones of you who says that good presidents shouldn't start wars. And i agree that Billyboy was bettter than Georgieboy.
Quote:
I think a good Pres. is avoiding a war...or at least not letting a lot of Inoc. people die,but I guess those Pres. are hard to come by!
Saddam had the power to stop war, he ignored it. We gave Saddam 12 years worth of chances. He blew it.
It is very simple to avoid wars, just get rid of all your weapons and invite Saddam to take the country. Like that would ever happen.
Oh, btw Georgieboy is much better than Billyboy.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Clinton? A good president? lmao That is laughable
People judge such matters on different criteria I guess, they probably think your criteria for thinking Bush a hero is just as laughable. Especially since you seem totally incapable of accepting the notion that Clinton did any good in his time in power.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 04:56 AM |
|
|
I never said Bush is a hero, just that he is a lot better the Clinton.
____________
|
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 15, 2003 05:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, he isn't the president that Bill Clinton was.
Bill Clinton could not even manage his personal life, nor could he control his sexual desires. Every U.S. president can be associated with something great or somewhat significant from his time in office. For example, Reagan = Reaganomics and the Cold War; Bush Sr. = Gulf War; Bush Jr = Operation Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. When you think of Bill Clinton, what significant event comes to mind? Exactly, the Monica Lewinski scandal. Way to set the example, Slick Willie. The man was a cheater (infidelity), a liar (lying under oath), and a thief (Whitewater scandal). Although Bush may be considered a "hotheaded redneck idiot" by some (or many), at least he spends his time dealing with important issues that affect his country and the rest of the world, instead of trying to find ways to sexually seduce his interns and other women besides his wife. Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to himself, his family, and his country.
Love, peace, and happiness to all,
Im pretty sure thomas jefferson did some stuff for this country too and oh yeah by the way he banged slaves and had illegitimate children. pullin personel life into politicol debate just shows your own short comings. And how the hell is "operation iraqi freedom" a great achievement. I hate to break this to your conservative ass but beating the snow out of a third world country is not an acompolishment, while we were doing that because of all theweapons of mass destruction sadam has (oh yeah by the way we still havent found any) korea is flashing nukes in the worlds face. How anyone suuports bush is beyond me. well not with the generel public they take whatever u give them. Most people who think thing s through though, realise how much bush snowed us over. All our allies are pissed at us, within 2 years japans gonna be nuked flat and well soon follow after n. korea gets the capable rockets but oh yeah at least Bush didnt commit adultry like that horrible president clinton. Stated like a true Christian, Conservative, fundametalist.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 15, 2003 10:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, he isn't the president that Bill Clinton was.
Bill Clinton could not even manage his personal life, nor could he control his sexual desires. Every U.S. president can be associated with something great or somewhat significant from his time in office.
I'm pretty sure thomas jefferson did some stuff for this country too and oh yeah by the way he banged slaves and had illegitimate children. pullin personel life into politicol debate just shows your own short comings. And how the hell is "operation iraqi freedom" a great achievement. I hate to break this to your conservative ass but beating the snow out of a third world country is not an acompolishment, while we were doing that because of all theweapons of mass destruction sadam has (oh yeah by the way we still havent found any) korea is flashing nukes in the worlds face. How anyone suuports bush is beyond me. well not with the generel public they take whatever u give them. Most people who think thing s through though, realise how much bush snowed us over. All our allies are pissed at us, within 2 years japans gonna be nuked flat and well soon follow after n. korea gets the capable rockets but oh yeah at least Bush didnt commit adultry like that horrible president clinton. Stated like a true Christian, Conservative, fundametalist.
First, nice post.
Second, nice mouth.
Third, if you re-read what I had written (which I left quoted for you above), you will see how I said "something great or somewhat significant". Whether you support or oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is without-a-doubt a significant event that will influence the lives of millions of people not only in the Middle East, but around the entire world. You are correct, however, that Clinton's personal shortcomings and lack of self-discipiline are petty compared to Bush's decision to take military action that will have affected the lives of so many people. I, personally, would rather have someone who is capable of managing his own life and his personal affairs in the most powerful office of my country, who can focus on running my country and instead of spending his time in legal procedings explaining his interpretation of what constitutes 'sexual relations'.
IMHO, a leader is supposed to be a reflection of the people that he or she leads, plain-and-simple. The President of the United States is a public servant elected by the people (whether you voted for him or not), and therefore, his actions should be representative of his people. The problem that exists in the United States today is that there is no right or wrong anymore, and nobody holds themselves accountable for their own actions. When someone does something wrong or illegal, it is never "their fault," but rather it is always someone or something else's fault because that is what caused them to act in such a manner. This way of thinking continues to erode the moral fiber of our society due to our current legal system, the liberal-dominated media, and because of the spread of unchecked liberalism altogether. Everyone wants to see their leader as 'human,' but there are different viewpoints of what it means to be 'human.' Liberals say Bill Clinton's shortcomings (cheating on his wife, lying under oath, falsifying financial documents, and whatever else you wish to add) make him human. I disagree. I think his actions make him a liar, a cheater, and a thief, none of which I would label myself. Does that represent me? No, it does not. Now you can say that George Bush's decisions make him an idiot and unpopular. I somewhat agree with this, and I can relate to this, mainly because I am unpopular and an idiot sometimes myself. Does that represent me? Unfortunately, it does.
IMHO, being 'human' does involve making mistakes, because nobody is perfect. Not learning from your mistakes and not taking responsibility for your actions is where the problems begin. So label me a "a true Christian, Conservative, fundamentalist" if you like without knowing my religious preference, political affiliation, and beliefs & values system. I guess I just have more important things to deal with in my life than lying, cheating, stealing, and failing to take responsibility for my actions. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go pray at my monotheistic church, listen to the Rush Limbaugh Hour, and study more of William Jennings Bryan's writings. 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Mercy_severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 15, 2003 06:51 PM |
|
|
When i said pulling in personal life issues, i meant you pulling in Clintons. And yes the perjury is more than a personal issue but its about something that is none of the publics concern anyway. And u never adressed what i sad about jefferson by the way.
____________
|
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 15, 2003 09:52 PM |
|
|
While I would love to sit here and tear apart your entire logic, or lack there of, i dont feel like typin everything out again. I went to edit the post, but i geuss since i did it at school, it gave me a username does not match the original post message, and i lost everything. I dwelled on your ignorence enough. I will however address the main argument you presented that a leader should be a reflection of the people they represent. I hate to shine the light of truth in your eyes, but people in america lie,cheat on their spouses etc all the time everyone does. What your saying you want is not a reflection of people represented, but rather an embodiement of perfect chirsto-judean values. While i agree that theese things are not right, im not idealistic enough to pretend that most people dont do them. And im definately not idealistic enough to believe bush doesnt. You conservatives are good for using things that dont affect a leaders aptitude as a justification for why they are or arent a good leader, Hell if Bush was a democrat (LMAO) republicans would be jumping all over how his daughter conducts herself. I can't really handle much more dwelling on this conservative crap so ill summerise. Being Conservative is being Hippocritical, Self Righteous and Idealistic(pretending to be to provide an argument when your wrong) cause conservatives reallly dont believe the world is a good honest place like true idealistic people do but they bank on the fact that most people do.( for example sayiing you want this rigteous leader because it reflects the people when really you just want your leader in power)
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 01:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
While I would love to sit here and tear apart your entire logic, or lack there of, i dont feel like typin everything out again.
Typical liberal course of action...taking the easy way out, thus avoiding the situation altogether. When you can find the time to respond intelligently to my post, I look forward to reading your writings. So please tear away. Anxiously awaiting your thoughts...
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 02:18 AM |
|
|
Yes, please spark up an intelligent debate. Who knows, I may even chime in to "tear apart your logic".
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 16, 2003 02:21 AM |
|
|
Conservatives Must Own The Country Clubs
Just a cute article I found on a sports talk site, www.jimrome.com, about former U.S. President Bill Clinton's attempts to join a country club. No comments on it from me, as I just thought it would be a good read since there has been all this Clinton talk on this topic. Enjoy...
SOMEBODY FINALLY SAYS "YES" TO BUBBA
Bill ‘Bubba’ Clinton, The former President and Commander in Chief has finally found a country club that will accept him. The man who was single-cigaredly responsible for Monica Lewinsky getting her own reality show has finally found a country club that is willing to accept him as a member. If you’re in a country club, you already know the process. They interview you, want to know your friends, your references, etc. But Bubba couldn’t find anyone that would take him. He had been searching for some time for a club in Westchester County so he can go swing the sticks, but nobody was willing to accept him…’til now. How’s that taste?
In fact, how does that work? The guy is a former President and can’t even get a country club membership? I thought you were supposed to get more perks as a former president. He was denied, more than once? He could run the country and the free world for 8 years but isn’t welcome at many country clubs?
He finally got the hook up at Trump National. That’s a good thing. I would hate to think that Bill Clinton would have to hang out at public, municipal courses hoping to fill out somebody’s foursome.
How ego-shattering is that? He was turned down multiple times. Basically what the clubs were saying, “no thank you, but you’re a scumbag”. He’s a former Rhodes scholar, brilliant guy but nobody wants him around because he got with a portly intern.
Who wouldn’t want to hang out with Bill Clinton on the course? Who would have better stories to tell? He’s got it all. How often would you get to kick it with a former President?
It’s not like Hillary will be interrupting your game. She doesn’t care what he does. Politics and ethics and portly interns aside, what’s not to like about the guy? He would probably be great to hang with and nobody would have better stories to tell on the links. Chicks, politics, sports, you name it, this guy’s got a rap.
Congratulations to Bubba. Your perseverance has paid off.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 02:43 AM |
|
|
Khayman: Just a few points
Your remark about the problem of not taking responsibility for our actions today does ring true, but also has potential ramifications for other aspects of the argument. For example, I was reading something today on FDR as a president and how many of the early scandals such as affairs during his early career were covered up and not reported correctly for a variety of reasons. I think in the past perhaps, scandal was less investigated than it is now, so the representation thing is made harder to push as an argument as presidents (and other countries leaders) down history have been involved in such things in the past as much as the present.
On responsibility..... It's a difficult issue. It may not have represented you and many others, but it probably represents a fair percentage of people in America (and indeed worldwide). Naturally it's not that kind of image that wants to be presented, but an awful lot of your countrymen decided to ignore those problems and re-elect Clinton despite them, knowing that it was likely he was guilty. They chose that whatever else happened, his record of peace and diplomacy amongst other domestic issues (that I'm not really aware of) counted for higher than his recorded personal life.
You could use the responsibility argument for example to say that Bush not allowing America to sign up for the War Crimes Courts of the UN is avoiding adressing his responsibility to prove he was right to invade Iraq and actions taken in that invasion. Or his responsibility to ensure "showing these people american justice" actually MEANS justice and not the farcical play on justice that occurs at Guantanamo Bay.
His ability to lie and cheat shows him in a bad light sure, but at the end of the day most people will not judge someone on whether it can be proved they lied to their familiy or lied to court on a issue such as adultery which is mostly a personal issue, they will judge the person on whether it can be proved they lied on governmental or political issues.
But then again, personally I've come to expect no less than lying or bending of truth from politicians, to see it from someone on a highly personal issue doesn't suprise or bother me one bit.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 05:11 AM |
|
|
Interesting post, PH.
Quote:
Your remark about the problem of not taking responsibility for our actions today does ring true, but also has potential ramifications for other aspects of the argument. For example, I was reading something today on FDR as a president and how many of the early scandals such as affairs during his early career were covered up and not reported correctly for a variety of reasons. I think in the past perhaps, scandal was less investigated than it is now, so the representation thing is made harder to push as an argument as presidents (and other countries leaders) down history have been involved in such things in the past as much as the present.
True, PH. No one likes anyone to get away with such a serious corruption like that.
Quote:
On responsibility..... It's a difficult issue. It may not have represented you and many others, but it probably represents a fair percentage of people in America (and indeed worldwide). Naturally it's not that kind of image that wants to be presented, but an awful lot of your countrymen decided to ignore those problems and re-elect Clinton despite them, knowing that it was likely he was guilty. They chose that whatever else happened, his record of peace and diplomacy amongst other domestic issues (that I'm not really aware of) counted for higher than his recorded personal life.
Bill Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky Scandal after he was re-elected in 1996. Before that he was a very clean president. I believe the Monica Lewinsky Scandal only put fuel in the Republican's anger, and not on completely tarnishing Bill's reputation as president.
Quote:
You could use the responsibility argument for example to say that Bush not allowing America to sign up for the War Crimes Courts of the UN is avoiding adressing his responsibility to prove he was right to invade Iraq and actions taken in that invasion. Or his responsibility to ensure "showing these people american justice" actually MEANS justice and not the farcical play on justice that occurs at Guantanamo Bay.
His ability to lie and cheat shows him in a bad light sure, but at the end of the day most people will not judge someone on whether it can be proved they lied to their familiy or lied to court on a issue such as adultery which is mostly a personal issue, they will judge the person on whether it can be proved they lied on governmental or political issues.
But then again, personally I've come to expect no less than lying or bending of truth from politicians, to see it from someone on a highly personal issue doesn't suprise or bother me one bit.
I'm with you there, PH. George W. Bush was a REAL warmonger, unlike Bill Clinton, who at least was a diplomat for the Middle East.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 01:07 PM |
|
|
Clinton Not A Warmonger, However...
Quote:
I'm with you there, PH. George W. Bush was a REAL warmonger, unlike Bill Clinton, who at least was a diplomat for the Middle East.
First and foremost, Bill Clinton may not have been a warmonger, but I can tell you that the military under his command was involved in numerous operations that caused as much, if not more, death and destruction than the entire Operation Iraqi Freedom. Here is a list of those places that the U.S. military has been involved in during the Clinton era (that I am aware of): Somalia, Kosovo, East Timor, Croatia, and Afghanistan.
Now, the U.S. military does not have an issue with where they are deployed or how often; however, the problem the U.S. military had with Bill Clinton was that he wanted to get them involved in all these places to put themselves in harm's way to carry out his agenda, all the while watching the funding and support of the U.S. military getting cut and revised by the same person that was sending them all over the globe. That's like your boss telling you that he or she needs you to go on a very important business trip because nobody else can do the job, but he or she is cutting your expense account and removing some of the items you need to perform that mission, and oh, by the way, your job may not be here waiting for you when you return. So perhaps you can understand why the U.S. military was not very fond of Bill Clinton.
I do not hate Bill Clinton whatsoever; however, I do have an issue with him because as my Commander-In-Chief, he is supposed to be held accountable to the same set of rules and standards that I am as a member of the U.S. military. If I was caught cheating on my wife, lying under oath, or falsifying documents, I would not only have to answer for my actions, but I would most likely be relieved of my command, court-martialed, and imprisoned (not necessarily in that order).
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
While I would love to sit here and tear apart your entire logic, or lack there of, i dont feel like typin everything out again.
Typical liberal course of action...taking the easy way out, thus avoiding the situation altogether. When you can find the time to respond intelligently to my post, I look forward to reading your writings. So please tear away. Anxiously awaiting your thoughts...
You know, there a hole other than your ass that you can talk out of. I took the damn time once and it wouldnt recognize my username as the same one that posted and it was loss, and what can a conservative say about taking the easy way out rather than responding intelligently. All i have to say to you is "fuzzy numbers"
____________
|
| |
|
|
