Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2951
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Priceless! Notice not only that the death-trap driving idiot overloaded the
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#2952
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Priceless! Notice not only that the death-trap driving idiot overloaded the
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#2953
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Priceless! Notice not only that the death-trap driving idiot overloaded the
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#2954
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, stop taking all those drugs, it's completely destroying your ability
to reason.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmos$k15$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
to reason.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmos$k15$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
#2955
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, stop taking all those drugs, it's completely destroying your ability
to reason.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmos$k15$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
to reason.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmos$k15$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
#2956
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, stop taking all those drugs, it's completely destroying your ability
to reason.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmos$k15$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
to reason.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmos$k15$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
#2957
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Wrong. 1988...
> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.
BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.
> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.
Wrong. GOP, 1993.
> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.
Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
> The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.
> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.
Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make ---- up.
> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.
Truman? Nope.
Carter? LOL. Nope.
Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those ----------hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.
> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.
LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.
> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.
And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...
> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.
Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.
Jonesy
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Wrong. 1988...
> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.
BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.
> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.
Wrong. GOP, 1993.
> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.
Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
> The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.
> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.
Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make ---- up.
> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.
Truman? Nope.
Carter? LOL. Nope.
Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those ----------hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.
> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.
LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.
> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.
And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...
> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.
Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.
Jonesy
#2958
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Wrong. 1988...
> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.
BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.
> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.
Wrong. GOP, 1993.
> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.
Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
> The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.
> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.
Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make ---- up.
> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.
Truman? Nope.
Carter? LOL. Nope.
Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those ----------hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.
> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.
LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.
> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.
And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...
> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.
Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.
Jonesy
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Wrong. 1988...
> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.
BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.
> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.
Wrong. GOP, 1993.
> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.
Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
> The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.
> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.
Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make ---- up.
> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.
Truman? Nope.
Carter? LOL. Nope.
Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those ----------hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.
> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.
LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.
> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.
And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...
> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.
Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.
Jonesy
#2959
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Wrong. 1988...
> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.
BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.
> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.
Wrong. GOP, 1993.
> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.
Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
> The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.
> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.
Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make ---- up.
> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.
Truman? Nope.
Carter? LOL. Nope.
Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those ----------hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.
> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.
LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.
> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.
And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...
> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.
Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.
Jonesy
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Wrong. 1988...
> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.
BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.
> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.
Wrong. GOP, 1993.
> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.
Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
> The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.
> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.
Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make ---- up.
> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.
Truman? Nope.
Carter? LOL. Nope.
Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those ----------hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.
> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.
LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.
> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.
And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...
> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.
Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.
Jonesy
#2960
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntn72$k15$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq34d3l91vhid5@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnr4jk$kba$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you
> >owned a
> >> >> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that
you
> >had
> >> >> sold
> >> >> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty
> >mobile.
> >> >
> >> >Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to
> >exist.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that
Saddam
> >> >had
> >> >> WMD's
> >> >
> >> >In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
> >> >always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has
used
> >them
> >> >at least 12 times.
> >>
> >> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
> >
> >You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
> >earth, you name would be in every spot.
> >If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
> >still have it in 2003.
>
> Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
>
Prove you have more intelligence than a dead goose, you csn't do it. The
facts are there for you to read, do so. Better yet, get your students to
explain it to you. In a battle of wits, you're not only unarmed, you're
braidnead and ready for buriel. I've wasted enough time on you, but yes,
until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT been,.
(You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>
> > Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
> >he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
> >proven, PROVEN, otherwise.
>
> OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you
still
> have them.
>
> >Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
>
> Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready
to
> use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly
were.
>
>
> >they may be
> >buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country,
until
> >they are found we won't know.
>
> So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>
>
> >The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
> >it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if
he
> >in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
> >us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
> >would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been
destroyed,
> >which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying -------.
You
> >really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so
much
> >to learn.
> >
>
> Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
> >> >revenge?
> >> >
> >> >Speculation
> >> >
> >> >> And
> >> >> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> >> >> administration who
> >> >> released the name?
> >> >
> >> >You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
> >> >unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known
> >eventually.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification
for
> >> >going
> >> >> to war
> >> >> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial
nukes,
> >but
> >> >> it's preposterous
> >> >> to suggest they were there before the war.
> >> >
> >> >No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes.
The
> >> >claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
> >>
> >> Which turned out to be a lie.
> >
> >Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from
Nigeria
> >turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to
aquire
> >Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The case is a bit stronger for
> >> >> bio agents,
> >> >> but still inconclusive.
> >> >
> >> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
> >>
> >> Where are they?
> >
> >Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
> >them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
> >bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
> >you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.
> >
> >>
> >> >What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them
than
> >the
> >> >fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and
Iran?
> >>
> >> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?
> >
> >You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
> >Gores *** and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> >> >> that basing the
> >> >> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
> >> >
> >> >Your opinion.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that
> >WMD's
> >> >> are not
> >> >> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
> >> >
> >> >I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
> >>
> >> The one given to us by Bush.
> >
> >And Clinton, and Clintons staff.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Lloyd
> >> >> may be able to
> >> >> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
> >> >pretext
> >> >> for
> >> >> going to war in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
> >> >
> >> > But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
> >> >> moral argument
> >> >> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for
fun
> >> >would
> >> >> cut the eyes
> >> >> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother
in
> >> >> broad daylight
> >> >> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible
> >terrible
> >> >> thing for the
> >> >> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue
year
> >> >after
> >> >> year, and they
> >> >> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to
> >pretend
> >> >> that Iraq
> >> >> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on
moral
> >and
> >> >> human rights
> >> >> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today,
> >despite
> >> >> the mess in the
> >> >> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
> >> >
> >> >I fully agree with you here.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can
> >tell
> >> >> you why he has not,
> >> >> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration
up
> >to
> >> >> the same moral
> >> >> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no
> >problem
> >> >> with basically
> >> >> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA
> >agents,
> >> >> thank God she
> >> >> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush
administration
> >is
> >> >> totally morally
> >> >> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was
justified
> >on
> >> >> moral grounds
> >> >> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to
morality.
> >All
> >> >> they care about
> >> >> is personal power and greed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ted
> >> >
> >> >Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
> >> >Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this
> >country
> >> >has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
> >>
> >> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
> >under
> >> Clinton is over.
> >
> >
> >Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when
Clinton
> >took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The
more
> >you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.
> >
> >>
> >> >My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
> >> >Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then
proceded
> >to
> >> >deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing
his
> >> >praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision
> >made
> >> >by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative.
> >Bush
> >> >is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I
would
> >> >support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this
war,
> >I
> >> >didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than
> >latter.
> >> > You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this,
even
> >the
> >> >parts I disagree with you on.
> >> >Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
> >> >scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
> >> >really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and
I
> >> >vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans,
> >depends
> >> >on who I think is better qualified.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >