Antwar Saloon

[bluewolf]

every one seems to be betting on Obama and/or Mrs clinton for the dems in 2008. no one has made much mention of the republican candidate.

bush is of course out, but Cheiny (how ever you spell his name has also said he will not run. so the field will be totaly open. who are you guys expecting or hoping for?
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[Alpern]

I want McCain. If we'd had McCain 6 years ago we'd be in a different world right now.
_________________
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - John Brunner

[bluewolf]

I second the motion.

although i know i lean democrat i am not anti republican. I just cant stand bush and anything connected to him.

mccain on the otherhand. I was really rooting for him 6 years ago... before bush bought the republican nomination.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[AUSKAR]

[Luke Jaywalker]

McCain's my man, too.

LJ

[AUSKAR]

As we write today, John McCain is 70. If elected, he will be 72 before he steps into office. If he serves eight years, he will be 80 at the end of his term.

Reagan was 69 at the time he was elected. Only three years different from McCain at the same point in their carreers. Actually, two and a half.

I was for McCain in the 2000 election, but I haven't decided who I like for 2008 yet.

[Johnnycat]

Reagan had blood in his stool.

Perhaps we can check for that first.
_________________
The Force is like duct tape. There's a Dark Side and a Light Side, and it holds the universe together.

[Haft]

If Colbert/Stewart ran, they would win and I would actually get my ass off the couch and vote for them. Sadly they are not so It will be Mcain. I just hope Hilary doesn't win....please God.
_________________
I go down to the sea again.
To the lonely sea and sky.
And all I ask is a tall mech,
And a star to steer her by.

[Alpern]

[jeffg]

I would rather it be someone like McCain, so that we don't make the same mistake as we did after Vietnam - to elect a pacifist because the public is tired of war.

Then we get our asses handed to us.

I'd rather someone go in that's even tougher than Bush, so that there's no question what the response would be if countries tried to test the waters with a supposedly weak U.S.

And with Mc Cain, his actions would be tempered by his past experiences.

Even better.

Jeff

[bluewolf]

Just what we need, some one out to prove that he is even tougher than bush by getting us into even more shit we don’t need to be in.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect that of McCain I am just counter to the idea. (which is a possibility with Clinton) I think any one who is primarily focused on the middle east is going to be the wrong choice. We need some one who is trying to do the right thing over there but not trying to make a name in the doing... in other words some one who will try and look at the situation in a realistic view not trying to push and agenda. We also need some one who will heal some of the political bull shit that has cause our government to stall in the last few years.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[AUSKAR]

The "political bullshit" you speak of has been going on strongly since Nixon got caught covering up Watergate and eventually had to resign. Ever since, it has been "gotcha" journalism and partisanship in the government.

And they say it was even worse in earlier eras.

I blame both parties for the partisan bitterness, not just one.

As for a president without an agenda? They spend two years telling you what their agenda is so they can get elected. A president without an agenda would be like a man without a plan. He just sits behind the desk and waits for stuff to happen.

I don't think McCain is the man for the job. He has no interest in controlling the borders and I think that is necessary. If we're going to have massive immigration, it needs to be done legally, not illegally.

[bluewolf]

Your right on the political bullshit. I maan its a basic tenant of your government system. I think it has only started becoming debilitating during the clinton years and has gotten even worse during the bush years but that may just be the perspective of youth. Im not blaming it on either president... but hopeing that the next president can build bridges and stem the tide a bit.

no doubt every polititian has an agenda especialy presidents. i am just hopeing for one whos agenda is not so heavily focused on the war that he/she makes policy bassed on emotion or neglects other areas of issue.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[Alpern]

[AUSKAR]

[Wes Janson]

No Child Left Behind...now there's a wonderful success story we can all feel proud about.

[jeffg]

[bluewolf]

I ment to say OUR government system. i think I had deleated out some other point and missed a word.

I am 29, raised in California.

to be honest i never took an intrest in politics of any sort untill I was about 20.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[Axeminister]

I think Hillary is going to run...

That will be nuts.

Axe

[bluewolf]

/shrug/ whats nuts about it?

she is running... but I am not liking her.

at this point I am in the Obama corner but nothing is set in stone yet.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[Axeminister]

Nuts because she is a chick.
First one to run etc.
I think the fit will hit the shan with debates, opinions on women, if a woman should lead, can a woman be strong enough, etc. I think it will lead to all kinds of fun talk either on TV or even at the water cooler.

Obama is currently behind Hillary in various opinion polls.
Not sure why... Maybe they did them in NY.

I'm not registered Dem, but if I was I'd go him over her first, but if she runs and he doesn't I'd vote for her. Main reason is because she is a chick.

Goofy reason, maybe, but I'd love to see a woman president in my lifetime. However, I would be surprised if she took even one state.

Axe

[xeoran]

[bluewolf]

my disliking her or liking him has not the slightest thing to do with race or sex. honest truth when it comes down to it... i dont think it will be THAT big a deal. most of the people you talk to about it will say something like "it doesnt matter to me but I wonder if people will accept a woman?" meaning that for the most part people are willing to look past it but wonder if everyone else is willing to look past it. of course you DO have people where race and sex are the only things they will care about... but I dont think that is an insermountable portion of the population.

I think hillary is leading poles because she has a bit more history. a lot more people know her name and face than Obama's, she is viewed as having more experiance although they are about even in that department. I dont like her because to me I see her the same as bush .. but on the democrat side. she seems to be a person who would like to try and manhandle the system into doing things her way.. while obama seems like a person more willing to bring people (and especially our government) togeather. I also think that obama will have alot more sucess in international politics. he is strongly american but does not convey the american arogance that Bush and hillery do.

course this is just the democrat side we are worried about ... republicans are coming out of the woodwork now since many feel like they are behind on the campeign trail and Cheiny said he will not run. interesting to see who they can manage to throw on the block. some one who will not be hoplessly tainted the current situation. support bush and you inherit his current negative publicity, attack Bush and you may split the GOP try to ride the middle and you may be viewed as simply playing the politics.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[xeoran]

Interesting. Can't say I know much of American politics beyond The Daily Show so thats quite useful. In fact the only one I really know anything about is Obama because I saw him speech last year- which was fantastic.
_________________
"It should...be impressed on all ranks that the use in conversation of 'f------s' and 'b-------s' is not necessarily a guarantee of British nationality."
-War Office pamphlet, October, 1941

[Darren]

I had heard thet Rudy was throwing his hat in. Rudy the Notre Dame kid not Giuliani.

[Xiahou]

[Deckard]

This is the most well mannered forum I've yet encountered. I read through the entire thread and I see the spirit of goodwill and candor abound. I commend you all.

I think we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan asap. We obviously have made up our minds not to actually win at anything and all we're doing now is having our guys ride around until someone shoots at them or blows them up and then we have 'flushed' out the enemy to be dealt with...pull out. The Democrats are bent on seeing America defeated. I don't know why...guilt?...self-loathing displaced?...just a bunch of a$$'oles?...you pick. Doesn't matter: the deal is a done one. We choose to lose.

Then, the emboldened enemy will redouble their efforts and the countries like Iran and Syria who've been using terrorists as a proxy army for decades will finally feel safe and come out of the closet, so to speak. Once the terrorists, with vocal support from Iran, evaporate Manhattan and LA with nukes, then....maybe F#%king THEN we will go back and fight to win this time. And I mean take on the entire middle east. Anybody who raises their head gets it cut off. Total war or no war. Peace is what exists between decisive victories.

If you've ever wondered what it would've been like to live in 1939 with a madman threatening Europe and an Imperial power in the far east poised for battle, then wonder no more. Europe, that fat-assed spineless cauldron of liberalism will capitulate now just like it did then. NO nation in the east can withstand China and her Pitbull Korea. Period. Welcome to 1939 redeux. What do they say about history? "It's the same things happening to different folks". Pearl Harbor was enough to make us flip out back then. I thought 9/11 was. I was wrong. Our threashold for pain has really gone up. Until Akmadinajad, BasherAsad, et al are signing an unconditional surrender on the fantail of a US Navy ship anchored in the Persian Gulf and GI's are picking through the ashes of Kim Jong Ill so they can identify him with dental records, this will not end.
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[Alpern]

[AUSKAR]

Moider the new guy!

[xeoran]

[jeffg]

[xeoran]

Well if he means after the period then I'd put it down to two things:
1. Two World Wars, fought in Europe, mostly by Europeans over a period of less than 40 years. The destruction that caused to agriculture, industry, commerce and the total lack of men of working age.
2. The crippling cost of post war colonialism and all the various fights (i.e. Britain has had I think, two years in the 20th century where we haven't been directly involved in a fight somewhere.
Both of those meant that fighting Communism or whatever was further down the scale to say, paying off our debts (Britain finished paying our Lend Lease one last year. 60 years huh, bit of a bitch.) and rebuilding countries.

And as you say Jeff, we Euros take a pretty low opinion of warfare seeing as we are now in the longest period yet without us trying to shoot holes in our neighbours or bash them over the head with spiky metal things. Not to mention that most of us are still so economically screwed that we can barely put up a decent fight (see the UK in Afghanistan and Iraq? That just cost us most of our navy, our air force and pretty much every new gadget we were going to make in say the next 50 years for our armed forces.) Not to mention that most of us (and I'm among them) are of the opinion that 'wog bashing'* doesn't work. Period. My evidence would be the latest episode, namely Lebanon, where Israel proved that bombing people into the stone age only makes them angrier. Instead I'm of the opinion that we need to foster the middle classes because middle classes love money and property and won't countenance idiocies like Islamofascism (whatever that means) if it will affect those. Of course how to do that is the difficult part and one to which I can't claim I have an answer.

As to Britain not being European...well. We are, we aren't. I like it that way. We've probably come out better to you guys because 1. We helped found your lovely nation and developed it until you got into that beverage related tiff.... and 2. We've been in the ascendant or at least power as long as the USA has existed. Had you wanted us before the 15th century we might have been a bit lacking.


*To use a colonial phrase that applies well. No racism intended.
_________________
"It should...be impressed on all ranks that the use in conversation of 'f------s' and 'b-------s' is not necessarily a guarantee of British nationality."
-War Office pamphlet, October, 1941

[bluewolf]

I can understand what Xeoran is saying... many American allies (excluding for the most part Australia and Britain) have taken a spectator view to conflict on the world stage. they pretty much step back until America steps forward, then send in a token force, and let the US do most of the work. Its not right... but I can see where they get the mentality from.

There is also something to be said about the obvious, easy and totally stupid concept of "bomb them back to the stone age" for the most part the middle east wars are fueled by religious fundamentalism... and the greatest force in strengthening and expanding a religion is persecution. as long as they can make the case that they are on the defencive protecting their God and their eternal soul they will always be able to pull more fighters out of the sand. As easy as it is to say, "kill'em all and let god sort them out" that essentially amounts to genocide and it is effectively impossible to commit genocide on that scale... not to mention totally unethical and against our beliefs (regardless of our past)

having said all that... the point of this post is to touch on this comment.

[Deckard]

Apologies are in order for spoiling that which I had commended at the outset, namely, the civility with which most of the posts on this forum are executed. I was the one who spoiled it by casting aspersions about the fat arsed Euro invertebrates who were at the helm of most European nations leading up to WWII. The Brits, who, as xeoran stated, are interchangeably Euro and non-Euro, fought hard on every front., BUT only after the Neville Chamberlain debacle and subsequent appeasement-fest which lead to Hitler’s empowerment. We in the U.S. were no better. Hell, our greatest celeb at the time Charles Lindbergh visited der furer and came back to the States commending the slash-mustachioed dictator for all the wonderful achievements Germany had wrought.

Good grief that was one tortured apology…

Anyway, I will not attempt to deconstruct the critical aspects of xeoran’s post because it is unwarranted and it would be excruciatingly tedious, as such actions always, and I mean always are on any forum. You know, the, “…because a) I don’t blah blah yadda. And b) Yippety yap..”, and all that jazz. Yuck.

I must, however, address this absurd idea that Europeans are tired of war because they have done it so much, and that this is some kind of normal state in the human condition that is reached at some point. Someone even suggested that there is a genetic propensity to shun combat due to this multigenerational shell shock. Huh? Obviously our Arab pals are immune to this mutation as they have been in a near constant state of warfare for thousands of years. And furthermore, I’ve seen London’s crime statistics…shocking. And guns are banned. I guess that leaves only spiky things…Okay, so that was a jab below the belt. It was meant in good fun. I just don’ buy the argument that Euros are enlightened beyond the need to defend themselves. Someone needs to come up with a better thesis…such as, say, that the late 20th Century American military industrial complex has imbued the western world with a benevolent (mostly) Pax-Americanna. Call it a kind of social program. We ensure the safety of Europe and Japan and for their part they get to hate us for it.

I agree that the Russians ultimately were the ones who dealt the most grievous blow to the Germans. One need only look at the war-dead numbers. America: @ a quarter million. Russia: estimates sit around ten mil for military and twenty to thirty with civilians figured in. Of course, Stalin would later eclipse these numbers all by himself. I guess he was immune to the genetic-peace gene syndrome, and he was chief among men in the very fight that should’ve infected him.
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[Deckard]

Bluewolf, buddy, serously, you don't see that Iraq was the only course of action IF the US was going to put boots on the ground in the middle east? Afghanistan is a backwater, a blip, it's not even fly-over country. They don't even have oil to speak of...but Iraq does. And pull out a map. What's in the middle of the middle east. Iraq. Oh, and name the country that we had any pretense to act against militarily. Iraq. I'm not going to get into all the UN resolution crap and WMD stuff, that's way overbaked, I'm stating the practical stuff. Iraq was in violation of the very ceasefire that ended the First Gulf War. Nuff said. It was an excuse to do what had to be done: flexing American military muscle in the heart of the Arab/Persian/Islamic world. Then, to install something akin to a liberal democracy: whoa, now you're talking. All this so that we can avoid a wide war in the greater Mid-East. Unfortunately, we lost our nerve. We want to be liked now. We should want to be feared, really.

This goes back to my idea that we're reliving 1939 in a kind of Groundhog Day scenario with a 60year frequency. This time we tried to learn from history but lost faith in what we know to be true. Gulf War 1 was my WW1. All WW1 did was defer an unresolved conflict to a later generation. It is incumbent upon the west to act strong while we are, in fact, strong.

And this myth that you can't fight fanatics, religious or otherwise, is frankly quite maddening. There are no more Kamikazies, we killed the ones that didn't succeed in killing themselves. Look, I look forward to the day when some Arab guy in a room full of Arab guys brings up the idea of taking up arms against the US and all the other guys in the room beat the shit out of him because they all remember what happened the last time some idiot tried it.
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[AUSKAR]

[Deckard]

If we were going to invade the country responsible for Al-Qa'ieda's existance that would've lead us to invade Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is just where they were living at the time. Before that is was the Sudan. Don't confuse a tactical action with a strategic one. I am mearly stating what I gather is THE deal with all of this.
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[AUSKAR]

[xeoran]

Well, cheers for the civil tone Deckard, very enlightened.

For Afghanistan I agree with Bluewolf. We all did well there, it was a just cause, the UN backed it and all was fine. Then Iraq screwed it all up by dragging away all the resources needed for Afghanistan, not to mention wrecking Tony Blairs political career (thank god) and Bush's. That is a real Euro-wuss area though with the French and Germans refusing to leave the north except for some small SF units. Despite the fact that the German army is twice the size of the British army and the French army is the same size (to be fair though the German army is mostly conscripts so they probably don't want to get them dirty. They could send some of their non conscript inits though.). I think though those two deployments ahve more to do with the politics of the area (namely that they don't want to be associated with Iraq) as originally, I believe (though I don't have the figures) they had higher deployments.

I don't think anything can be done for Iraq. Maybe with 200-300,000 more troops. But at the moment its a joke. The very PM is a stooge for Sadr.

Deckard, I wouldn't say we've reached any form of enlightenment or genetic genius. Instead I'd say that Europe is for the most part, middle class and rich. We've had two world wars started by us. Our economies are as ever at the breaking point. People just don't want to go to something approaching total war: it would cost too much, there aren't enough recruits (middle class and happy see, they don't want to get shot) and it reminds us of the horror show of the last two times (history takes a while to flee. Even as recently as the last world cup Germans were worried about showing any form of nationalism. The British newspaper "The Sun" has never realised the last war is over etc etc.

As for Londons crime statistics- you should have seen them with the Krays or at the turn of the century. At the moment they are still fairly low (and most of the gun crime, that I know of, is due to people shipping guns from America. I don't know if they still do it but they used to ship guns across in pieces because it was legal that way. Then they could be reassembled. Compare Londons stats to a lot of American crime statistics- Charelstown perhaps where my dad worked with some American cops back in the 80's).

Nuff said on Stalin. The man was a grade A bastard. ('pologies for the language).

Deckard, I'm not quite sure about your Iraq points. Why should the US get involved? The Middle East is a hell hole. Nobody does well there. Last time American and the world tried, after the Lebanon war in 82 everyone got suicide bombed and left. (And Iraq breaking its treaty isn't enough. They were no threat to anyone. There are plenty more dangerous places the US could have gone: Liberia, Sudan etc.). By removing Iraq and Afghanistan you've only removed Irans two biggest enemies. By not toughening on Pakistan you've got a border like a Swiss cheese. By not taking on Saudi Arabia you've got Wahabi schools everywhere. If you want a threat to world peace then how about the Saudis. They are scum, total scum. Iraq has nothing but oil and S. Arabia has that too (though not as much).
_________________
"It should...be impressed on all ranks that the use in conversation of 'f------s' and 'b-------s' is not necessarily a guarantee of British nationality."
-War Office pamphlet, October, 1941

[bluewolf]

im sorry Dec but I dont really understand where your coming from or where your going.

you seem to feel that we should simply pack up and leave the middle east, but at the same time you seem to favor total war with little regard for cost target or end goal.

you are upset that europe has not done more but I get the vibe that you dont think they are worth the laces in their boota anyway and would probably just slow us down.

You say the Taliban in Afghanistan, who harbored and protected Binladen, were a poor choice of targets for strategic reasons, but advocate a war with Saudi Arabia for the crime of being the country of his birth, without any consideration for the strategic impact of a war in that country.

so maybe i am really missing something, what is it you think we SHOULD have done, what is it you think we should do NOW? and what makes these courses of action the right?
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[Deckard]

Bluewolf, you’ve made me happy by distilling most of what I’ve been saying to a fine sediment…or sentiment. I advocate total war or no war at all. I think fighting terrorists is stupid and pointless if the end result desired is ending terrorism. Note that last point, “…if the end result desired is ending terrorism”. Terrorism is a tactic, not a unifying, motivating worldview. It is like we’re going to war against Blitzkrieg. A certain strain of Islam is the culprit. Those who hold to its tenets are those we should be fighting down to the last man standing, since that seems to be their desire anyway.

I think it’s the fact that Islam is a religion which causes most tolerant and decent folks to falter. Nobody wants to brand someone else’s religion as bad or defective. Shintoism still exists today, but not in the volatile guise of emperor worship and Bushido Code of the WWII era. See what happens when a good religion goes bad. It was an idea so powerful that it took millions of lives to extinguish the flame of abject radicalism.

After the London attacks the BBC flatly refused to label the terrorists Islamic. Hell, they refused to even call them terrorists. Bombers, they called them. Are they kidding? No, they weren’t. That is a shining example of the mentality that is hamstringing the west in this fight. God forbid the BBC call them Islamic Radicals or Islamic Terrorists. Heaven knows they would’ve had no qualms about labeling them Catholic Terrorists if they’d have been Irishmen of that persuasion.

We have crippled ourselves. The only thing that will snap us out will be the BIG ONE, or ones sure to eradiate a city near you. I’m not alarmist; I just listen to what our enemies tell us ad nausium. Does anyone need speculate what Osama (terrorist) or Akmadinajhad (world leader) intends to do or desires to do? He and his ilk are kind enough to remove the need to speculate. The only thing we can hope for is that they are just saying it, or that they’d love to do it but utterly lack the capability to act on it.

If it’s the latter, for how long will that condition remain?
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[xeoran]

[bluewolf]

well Dec i totaly agree with you on the concept of a war against terrorism. the idea is political jargon at best and has managed to fuck us in alot of ways. its like saying we are on a war against poverty and using that to justify laws turning us into a communist state.

You guys remember in Enders Game where they start pointing out that the TRUE enemy were the Teachers?

some time I feel like that about the media. they are so bent on faning flames and influencing policy that they tend to shift our focus in all the wrong directions. I mean... some thing hapens and they blow it up to the point where polititians almost HAVE to take some wild knee jerk reaction or the next news story will be how such and such politian ignored us in our hour of need.

I think this toon prank deal in boston is a good example of this. in 6 or 7 other cities the exact same prank was a none issue, IF the police were ever called they delt with it quietly and informaly, not to hide anything .. but because there was nothing to fret over.

In boston the News media got a hold of the story and started a fire storm of speculation which forced the local government to take unnecessry and inflamatory reaction.

this is happening on a global scale. like Xeoran said, Ahmenijad is not nearly as powerfull in his own country as the media would lead you to believe, but let him stand on a pulpit and say something extream and the whole world goes into speculation and political reaction largly bassed on the fact that to NOT react would be viewed as ignoring important issues... issues that are important mostly because the media demand that they are.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[AUSKAR]

[Deckard]

By the way, the chop about the BBC wasn't a slap at the Brits, it was a jab at the mentality of the mainstream media in general. And the whole 'bombers' crap was still going on long after everyone knew that they were not 'bombers' or 'youths' but, in fact, Islamic radicals. Homegrown, but radical nonetheless. So, sorry if it seemed like a 'See, see, you Euro's are all limp wristed fags' sorta snarky comment about the BBC. Once again, they are no different than the lot on this side of the pond. Fox has a conservative perspective whereas the rest have a liberal one. This should be obvious and it doesn't bother me a bit. Objectivity is impossible with humans. This too should be obvious.

I think I have sufficiently slayed this entire issue with a red hot longknife.

And to think this was supposed to be a thread about who's going to be up for Prez in the US. For me, McCain is doomed. The conservative base hates him. Hilary is doomed too. Once she gets 'passionate' she is shrieking and ends up sounding like everybody's ex-wife. Dick Chaney has no prayer and the world's most defective ticker. He has one foot in the grave. He'd make his innaugural address from inside a bulletproof oxygen tent with a defibulator on standby. So who? Heaven knows. Rudy Giulianni would be my pick or Condi. All the Dems are abysmal, as usual. What has become of the once grand Democrat Party. It is truely sad.

Oh, and ditto on Blair. He gets the knod for being as well spoken as we all wish George W could be and for being a realist on the War on Terror issue. But he is a high tax, big government Labor Party hack on every other issue.

And, as a Floridian, I have to go with Auskar on Jeb. He was a fine Gov. and had to deal with some bonnified disasters that would've made anyone in, say, Louisiana, proud and jealous.
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[AUSKAR]

Condoleeza Rice
Karen Hughes

[Deckard]

I said Condi. She is an amazing woman. Gosh, it seems like it is a near certainty at this point that we'll end up with a chick in office in '08. Hope it ain't the Hildabeast.
_________________
"I've done . . . questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." -Roy Batty

[bluewolf]

I keep expecing some dumb ass to use Obamas name as an arguing point against his ability. I heard it mentioned once but the person had already painted himself stupid and the argument was ignored as a joke although I am not sure if he was joking.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

[xeoran]

[AUSKAR]