Two Former Repubs speak out

[Secretariat]

This article is quite interesting to read from two former repub congressmen.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2004/0404020.html

[delayjf]

It's easy to see why they are "former" repulicc congressmen. Obviously he's anti American and blames the US for all the worlds woes. He should join the Democratic Party, he's lock step with their Anti American agenda.

I seriously doubt he speaks for even a small minority of WW II /vets.

[JustRalph]

It is amazing Sec.......you don't give a damn what a Repub says until he turns chicken and loses his nerve or gets pissed because he was dissed by the Senior leadership. As soon as they decide to bad mouth somebody they are quotable all knowing beings from the mount...............same ole crap.........

[Secretariat]

JR,

I could post hundreds of liberals here who rip Bush to shreds, but I generally post men who are more moderate.

Men who are Republican and still vote Republican, but disagree with a policy are not chickenshit. They're pretty courageous to stand up to their leadership and speak their conscience rather than just blindly towing a party line as you advocate they do.

If we didn't have men who disagreed within either party we wouldn't need a Congress just a President. And god forbid that with what we've currently got.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Secretariat
JR,

If we didn't have men who disagreed within either party we wouldn't need a Congress just a President. And god forbid that with what we've currently got.

Sec:

The above is my problem with your type of stance. You take a swipe at the current sitting President without qualification or justification.

What president would want sitting in office without a congress? Myself there is not one I could think of. I especially shudder at the thought of Carter in office without a congress or horrors Al Gore.

I would like an answer, but I doubt I will get one.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Sec:

The above is my problem with your type of stance. You take a swipe at the current sitting President without qualification or justification.

What president would want sitting in office without a congress? Myself there is not one I could think of. I especially shudder at the thought of Carter in office without a congress or horrors Al Gore.

I would like an answer, but I doubt I will get one.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

First off SMTW, my post was in response to JR, (notice the JR in the beginning. Second, it was related to his response about two former Republican Cognressmen who don't agree on Bush's policies in Iraq to which JR stated:

"...you don't give a damn what a Repub says until he turns chicken and loses his nerve or gets pissed because he was dissed by the Senior leadership. As soon as they decide to bad mouth somebody they are quotable all knowing beings from the mount.."

The articles by those two Republicans were about BUSH's policies in Iraq (did you read the articles?)

It is not I taking that swipe at President Bush, it is two former Republican Cognressman. I happen to agree with their stance. If anyone was taking a swipe at someone, it was JR taking a swipe at me.

Since when it is not permissible to agree with two former Republican Congressmen on thier views on Iraq? And I would also not want any President without a Congress, something Bush stated earlier in office, it'd be easier without.

What was that bothered you, my mention of god?

[bettheoverlay]

Just to make the truths revealed by many of the posters on these political threads crystal clear.

If one criticizes President Bush, does that then define him as anti-American?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by bettheoverlay
If one criticizes President Bush, does that then define him as anti-American?

no, not at all. I am a Bush supporter but I have gone after him on some issues. But when you parrot the DNC every day, you start to sound like the usual crap that comes from them. You start to blend with the wallpaper. SOS is SOS no matter who delivers the message.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

Did you add the part about "what we we've currently got"? If you did than I resent the implication that other past presidents could be trusted to govern without the aid of congress.

If those words are directly attributable to the congressmen, I am in error and apologize.

My response had nothing to do with the mention of "GOD", but the implication of trust worthiness bestowed only on past sitting presidents.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by bettheoverlay
Just to make the truths revealed by many of the posters on these political threads crystal clear.

If one criticizes President Bush, does that then define him as anti-American?

Whoever said that criticizing the President is anti-American??

Being able to OPENLY CRITICIZE the current administration is one of the most PRO-AMERICAN things that can be done!! Men and women have died and ARE DYING to preserve this very gift that we have -- the ABILITY to rightly CRITICIZE our own government. It is FREE SPEECH at its finest, when done honestly of course.

[Show Me the Wire]

bettheoverlay;

There is a difference between constructive criticism and character assasination. It is part of our political process to criticize and to hold our elected officials responsible. However, there should be factual basis, or at the least proposed theories to butress the criticism.

These people are anti-Bush and Pres. Bush haters. They criticize without foundation. This is evidenced by the critics reluctance to provide the facts requested and their refusal to answer simple questions to continue debates they intiate.

In conclusion criticizing any sitting president is not being anti-American, as long it is done upon a sound policy foundation.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Lefty]

sec, why don't you post that Zel Miller and Ed Koch, both Dems, have announced they will support and vote for GW this election. There ya go.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, why don't you post that Zel Miller and Ed Koch, both Dems, have announced they will support and vote for GW this election. There ya go.

Koch was a pretty big surprise too. I was flabbergasted when he came out for Bush. If you want to read what a sensible Democrat sounds like.......go here:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.09/oped1.html

[Tom]

I support Bush yet I reserve the right to criticize him. The guy work for me. I am his boss. I will tell him when I think he is off base and praise him when he is on.
He may be an SOB, but he is MY SOB. I care not that he is not a good public speaker- talk is cheap. I support his actions,
generally. I plan to give him a good review this fall.
One thin I will not consider is outsourcing his job to the UN. That is one job that stays at home.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
bettheoverlay;

There is a difference between constructive criticism and character assasination. It is part of our political process to criticize and to hold our elected officials responsible. However, there should be factual basis, or at the least proposed theories to butress the criticism.

These people are anti-Bush and Pres. Bush haters. They criticize without foundation. This is evidenced by the critics reluctance to provide the facts requested and their refusal to answer simple questions to continue debates they intiate.

In conclusion criticizing any sitting president is not being anti-American, as long it is done upon a sound policy foundation.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Well, I don't beleive the two Repub senatator are Bush haters and they did not cticize without foundation. Perhaps you weren't talking about them.

As to Ed Koch and Zell Miller voting for Bush or supporting Bush, bravo for them. This is America and I admire them for speaking their conscience despite party pressures. I disagree with them of course, as I'm sure the Republican party disagrees with the two congressmen I linked to above.

I'll tell you one thing though, I certainly won't be accusing Ed or Zell of being "chicken" simply because they didn't support a platform. I beleive that Ed has a very strong Jewish constiuency and the security of Israel is paramount with Ed, same with Lieberman. It is not a priority in my book. I'm not into losing American lvies to support a man like Sharon, and until we address the Israel-Palestinian issue in a fair way to boh sides, we'll never have peace in the region, no matter how many troops are sent over that way. But I respect their opinions. Zell is another story. He is a conservative southern democrat. And frankly I beleive the south is lost to the Democratic party, and has been since the Civil Rights act. Personally, I think Zell is wrong, but he's certainly not "chicken".

Now if I can recognize these men of the Democratic party who disagree with thier party platform, then why can't you acknowledge the same when a Republican does it?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm not into losing American lvies to support a man like Sharon,

Just for information...........can you name a time or issue when you would support losing American lives? And do you mind telling us where you are located? I notice it is not on your profile........just wondering.......

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

You are right, I was not talking about the congressman. I was talking about, on second thought I will be polite.

betrheoverlay:

I was talking in generalities about the ideology of a select bunch of posters on this board.

Sec:

Additionally, you reminded me I answered a post not specifically addressed to me. Are you bettheoverlay? The post was addressed to his specific question about the relationship of criticism and patriotism.

Are you suggesting there is a different standard that should be applied to me and not you regarding posting our opinions?

How does your comment fit in with my specific answer to a specific question that has nothing to do with what any congressman statements? The correct answer is, it does not.

I must really be upsetting your agenda as you really are ranging far afield in attempts to decry my posts, while avoiding answering direct questions posed to you.

People that question and want factual based answers are real pains in the arse, eh.

As always regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

As always,

[Bob Allen]

From the Back Cover of

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception

Available at Amazon.com

“The Lies of George W. Bush nails the case. Mixing cold, hard facts with a rapier wit, David Corn skewers Bush, using the president’s own words and deeds to prove that the straight-shooting candidate who vowed to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office has, instead, turned out to be a serial liar. Meticulously researched, Lies sets a crooked record straight and shows that Saddam’s WMDs are not the only thing missing—so is honesty in the Bush White House. Bush bashers, your ship has come in. Bush backers, I dare you to read this.”—Arianna Huffington, author of Pigs at the Trough

“Washington journalist David Corn takes a gloves-off look at President Bush’s public record and finds a disturbing array of White House whoppers. With biting wit and sharp-eyed skepticism, Corn finds a pattern of deception too sweeping and consistent to be dismissed casually as ‘spin’ or “misstatements.’ A valuable look at how often and effortlessly the man who campaigned on the lofty principles of ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ has evaded both.”—Clarence Page, syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune

“One of the oddest aspects of the Bush presidency has been how reluctant journalists are to report that Bush lies. Reporters who jumped on Bill Clinton for disingenuous hair-splitting and piled on Al Gore for harmless exaggerations have given George W. Bush pass after pass after pass. No longer. Veteran journalist David Corn has collected all the glaring evidence. With flair, he skewers Bush and shows—beyond question—that the fellow in the White House has manhandled the truth about Iraq, the war on terrorism, tax cuts, global warming, stem cells, and other crucial issues, as well as his own past. Here are the lies you remember and the lies you don’t. Get ready to get mad. Corn has cut through the spin and crafted an important and powerful challenge to Bush and his crew.” —Molly Ivins, coauthor of Shrub and Bushwhacked

A good read - a little scary maybe - but good,

Bob

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Bob Allen
From the Back Cover of

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception

Available at Amazon.com

“The Lies of George W. Bush nails the case. Mixing cold, hard facts with a rapier wit, David Corn skewers Bush, using the president’s own words and deeds to prove that the straight-shooting candidate who vowed to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office has, instead, turned out to be a serial liar. Meticulously researched, Lies sets a crooked record straight and shows that Saddam’s WMDs are not the only thing missing—so is honesty in the Bush White House. Bush bashers, your ship has come in. Bush backers, I dare you to read this.”—Arianna Huffington, author of Pigs at the Trough

“Washington journalist David Corn takes a gloves-off look at President Bush’s public record and finds a disturbing array of White House whoppers. With biting wit and sharp-eyed skepticism, Corn finds a pattern of deception too sweeping and consistent to be dismissed casually as ‘spin’ or “misstatements.’ A valuable look at how often and effortlessly the man who campaigned on the lofty principles of ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ has evaded both.”—Clarence Page, syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune

“One of the oddest aspects of the Bush presidency has been how reluctant journalists are to report that Bush lies. Reporters who jumped on Bill Clinton for disingenuous hair-splitting and piled on Al Gore for harmless exaggerations have given George W. Bush pass after pass after pass. No longer. Veteran journalist David Corn has collected all the glaring evidence. With flair, he skewers Bush and shows—beyond question—that the fellow in the White House has manhandled the truth about Iraq, the war on terrorism, tax cuts, global warming, stem cells, and other crucial issues, as well as his own past. Here are the lies you remember and the lies you don’t. Get ready to get mad. Corn has cut through the spin and crafted an important and powerful challenge to Bush and his crew.” —Molly Ivins, coauthor of Shrub and Bushwhacked

A good read - a little scary maybe - but good,

Bob


Arianna Huffington---you have to be kidding.

Molly Ivins--she has a column in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and I wouldn't use it to line my birdcage.

That damn conservative media---they just won't ask Bush the tough questions. lol

[Tom]

Originally posted by schweitz
Arianna Huffington---you have to be kidding.


Was her book an auto-biography? :eek:

[Bob Allen]

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."

Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."

Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."

Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."

Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

If some of these don't at least raise the possibility that George W. Bush has told more lies than any other President, I shall be happy to post the other 991 I have collected. Yes, the 1001 Lies of George W. Bush. More are coming in everyday - every time he opens his mouth.

schweitz you can make fun of people like Huffington and Ivins if you wish. I'm sure if they met you, they would be tempted to make fun of you.

Since you live in Texas, as I do, you sound like all the carpetbagging hicks around where I live who chant the mantra: Vote Bush: Why Bother to Think?

BTW, since you live in Texas, for the moment anyway, surely you must have thought George a great governor, General Manager of the Texas Rangers and all-round great guy who had run many successful businesses. Trouble is, you cannot find one successful business EVER that George W. Bush established and ran. His daddy did and very well. Junior? Not a chance. And his partnership agreement with the Texas Rangers Baseball club forbade him from having anything to do with management of the team without the other partner's approval. He could not buy a box of paper clips at Office Depot on his own authority. And from that, he backed his way into the White House by that landslide 5-4 vote on a Sunday night. Sounds like the path to the Presidency to others who buy Q ratings rather than think and research. Really now, what's worse - Screwing an intern (who wanted it) or screwing the country (who doesn't want it but seems to think they do. Wait until they awaken and see the bill he's giving us, our children and our grand children).

Bottom line on Bush is still: He Lied; Troops Died. All for political gain.

Bob

[schweitz]

Bob, Do you actually believe those explanations you just posted?

Carpetbagging hicks---doesn't that make you feel superior?

I have lived in Texas for over 50 years and I'm not going anywhere---and yes since I live here I know all about George Bush. That is why I voted for him.

Bob--you are just another Bush hater---it would be really refreshing if one of you guys would post something about the positives of your candidate sometime.

[Lefty]

Bob, how do you explain that all the DEms including Kerry once made speeches about Saddam and his WMD's?
And if Saddam didn't have these weapons, then how did he kill all those people?
Bottom line: If you don't vote for Bush, that leaves Kerry. ARRGGGHH!

[ljb]

Lefty,
You forget Kerry fits the ABB category ;)
Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds. These weapons were destroyed/disposed of in some manner years ago. The Bush gang refused to believe the truth. (kinda like the 9/11 warnings they ignored.)
The Bush gang used this false data to pump up most of America in the post 9/11 patriotic fervor. Most Americans, have since then come to their senses and recognise the falsehoods placed on them by the Bush gang. Some are shamed for their failure, some are saddened and still there are some who refuse to "get real".
You of course, fall into the last group. After reading your posts for many months I would put you in the blind follower group. I admire you for your steadfast loyalty to the cause, I do however consider you totally wrong in your assesment of facts and details.

[cj]

Originally posted by ljb
...Most Americans, have since then come to their senses and recognise...

Serious question...are you really from the US? Americans spell recognize with a "z", while other English speaking countries use a "s" instead. Probably a typo I realize, just curious.

[ljb]

Schweitz said
" Bob--you are just another Bush hater---it would be really refreshing if one of you guys would post something about the positives of your candidate sometime.

Ok I'll post something positive about Kerry. He is one brave man to take on the mess Bush has made in this world. I am serious! I don't know why anyone would want to take on the responsibilites of President of the United States under these circumstances. If Bush weren't so dangerous to our well being, I would probably vote for him just to watch him suffer through 4 more years of bungling. But his actions are too dangerous for the world and he must go. NOW!

[ljb]

cj,
Yes I am an American citizen residing in America. Not a typo just poor spelling. Hope all is going well in Belgium.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
cj,
Yes I am an American citizen residing in America. Not a typo just poor spelling. Hope all is going well in Belgium.

You know, while I generally disagree wtih your content, I do have to acknowledge your style. It is perhaps your most endearing quality.

[ljb]

Damn,
Hope I didn't make another boo boo here. Don't know if I can weather another poll. ;) Just forget I asked cj how things were going where he is at.

[Lefty]

The biggest thing that MIGHT have prevented 9-11 came on Clinton's watch when he refused custody of Bin Laden.
Amazing, that you guys can forgive 8 yrs of Clinton's blundering and expect a man in office for only 8 mos. at the time to have correctly read all the scattered tea leaves just right.
I'm not a blind follower of Bush. I think he's right. He's done more to fight terrorism than any Pres.
Kerry scares me. He will turn over our safety to the bumbling and corrupt U.N. That would be a disaster and set us back in our fight against these terrorists.
You guys great about slicing your bologna from both ends:Bush didn't do enough to stop 9-11, you cry. Then: Bush wrong to take out Saddam Hussein. If he hadn't and Saddam then hits us, there's another investigation. You would then come up with everything all the dems said about Saddam being dangerous and having WMD's and why didn't Bush do something?
Keep slicing the bologna boys, cause that's all it is: BOLOGNA!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
If Bush weren't so dangerous to our well being, I would probably vote for him just to watch him suffer through 4 more years of bungling.

What a foolish, foolish statement. You're a sorry exscuse for an American citizen, if you would for ONE SECOND, vote for a man who you BELIEVE would do more HARM than GOOD for this country.

Whether your opinion is right or wrong, the very fact that you might ENTERTAIN the notion that you would vote for a man because you would want to see him SCREW up because you believe he is NO GOOD for the job is pathetic. Nice way to try and ensure that America is in good hands.

I could respect your other posts because I was under the impression that you BELIEVED that your opinion was the correct one and that your vote would be BEST for AMERICA. At least I can RESPECT THAT. But here you are saying that for PERSONAL REASONS, you would consider voting for a man who you KNOW wouldn't do the best job for America, just to get your jollies and see him fail (and by default, harm this country)!!

WOW!

[Tom]

R E C O U N T !!!

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't think ljb is elgible to vote. I lean toward the opinion he is not a U.S. citizen, and not just for his consistant typo.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is realtiy

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

Sec:

Additionally, you reminded me I answered a post not specifically addressed to me. Are you bettheoverlay?

lol...uh, no..although I do try to bet overlays. ... I only have one name here,..I'm sure PA will verify that...

[ljb]

PA,
You took the phrase out of context. Not fair. I would like to suggest to you and others who have been Bush supporters and are beginning to see the light but, WILL NOT vote for Kerry. You can either vote for Nader or just stay home. This may help ease your guilt a bit. As always trying to help out here.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
This may help ease your guilt a bit. As always trying to help out here.

Oh...yeah...! I am feeling so Guilty!