|
|
 |
|
#41
06-28-2006, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
... And you know the Bush administration is sweating when they try to turn something that has been in Public Domain knowledge since 2002 into a "Traitorous New York Times!" issue. ArtJim, the following is from Salon.com. What I can't figure out is how the rest of the media continues to let the Bush Administration get away with turning this BS into major stories, distracting from what SHOULD be major stories. Anyway... here you go: <<Is it a leak if it wasn't a secret in the first place? >>" One more question, what are the major stories that this is distracting us from? Isn't leaking a secret spying program a major story. I remember the Dem's were going gaga about leaks when they thought Dick Cheney leaked the identity of Valerie Plame and there was hardly any national significance to that leak. That story went on for years and had a special prosecutor I believe. For the record I think any and all leakers should be invetigated and prosecuted no matter the party. Last edited by ArlJim78 : 06-28-2006 at 05:57 PM. 
|
|
#42
06-28-2006, 06:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Clearly this bank spying thing wasn't a secret, and actually kind of makes the Bush Administration look marginally competent. So maybe that's why they got so mad? Their secret plan on terror is to look like complete bumbling idiots and this plan being news makes them look less incompetent? I think a lot of the Plame thing is whether people lied under oath. Which, I believe, is what Clinton was charged with, as getting a hummer in the Oval Office isn't illegal. And if you were protesting his impeachment as a waste of time and taxpayer money back then, please do let me know. Let see-- what is more deserving of our news attention span? The torture issue comes to mind-- 1) Bush signing a torture ban and adding a codecil (spelling?) that he plans to ignore it if he wants. At least 100 prisoners having died in US custody while held under suspicion of being terrorists. Died. In our care. We're the f*cking US of f*cking A; we're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting. 2) The gov't holding up the release of a vaccine for the kind of genital warts that cause cervical cancer, because there is concern that it will encourage teenage girls to have sex. Because, of course, it's morally appropriate to let them get CANCER instead. 3) New Orleans. New Orleans, New Orleans. 4) Safety issues in the mines. Guess what's gone down in the years of the Bush administration? Mine safety inspections and violations issued. Maybe you're a blue-blood and don't care, but my family included miners on my mom's side and the cuts in mine safety are disgusting. 5) Oh, and this little mess we're in called Iraq. Congress gets a vote on flag-burning to go off when we have no exit strategy? God help us. 6) Continual efforts on the part of the Republicans to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only one percent of Americans and only kicks in after someone leaves an estate in excess of, I believe, $7 million. Because of course, who can possibly live on only $7 million dollars? How dare they take 35 percent of everything over that, meaning one leaves a piddling $65 million instead of $100 million. Who can possibly survive on $65 million? And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation. Okay, back to my corner to breathe deeply and then back to the Paddock for happier things to read about. Please know ArtJim, I don't take any of this personally and I really do enjoy hearing your views. Likewise any of the other cons on the board who present their views clearly and well. I'm always amenable to having my position changed if it was wrong. 
|
|
#43
06-28-2006, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Clearly this bank spying thing wasn't a secret, and actually kind of makes the Bush Administration look marginally competent. So maybe that's why they got so mad? Their secret plan on terror is to look like complete bumbling idiots and this plan being news makes them look less incompetent? I think a lot of the Plame thing is whether people lied under oath. Which, I believe, is what Clinton was charged with, as getting a hummer in the Oval Office isn't illegal. And if you were protesting his impeachment as a waste of time and taxpayer money back then, please do let me know. Let see-- what do I think is more deserving of our news attention span? The torture issue comes to mind-- 1) Bush signing a torture ban and adding a codecil (spelling?) that he plans to ignore it if he wants. At least 100 prisoners having died in US custody while held under suspicion of being terrorists. Died. In our care. We're the USA; we're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting. 2) The gov't holding up the release of a vaccine for the kind of genital warts that cause cervical cancer, because there is concern that it will encourage teenage girls to have sex. Because, of course, it's morally appropriate to let them get CANCER instead. 3) New Orleans. New Orleans, New Orleans. 4) Safety issues in the mines. Guess what's gone down in the years of the Bush administration? Mine safety inspections and violations issued. Maybe you're a blue-blood and don't care, but my family included miners on my mom's side and the cuts in mine safety are disgusting. 5) Oh, and this little mess we're in called Iraq. Congress gets a vote on flag-burning to go off when we have no exit strategy? God help us. 6) Continual efforts on the part of the Republicans to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only one percent of Americans and only kicks in after someone leaves an estate in excess of, I believe, $7 million. Because of course, who can possibly live on only $7 million dollars? How dare they take 35 percent of everything over that, meaning one leaves a piddling $65 million instead of $100 million. Who can possibly survive on $65 million? And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation. Okay, back to my corner to breathe deeply and then back to the Paddock for happier things to read about. Please know ArtJim, I don't take any of this personally and I really do enjoy hearing your views. Likewise any of the other cons on the board who present their views clearly and well. I'm always amenable to having my position changed if it was wrong.
|
|
#44
06-28-2006, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You really ARE paying attention. And it's good to see your passion. No amount of logic is going to convice the ignorant, nor are the facts. Two things you left out: 1) Bush, in a new conference in 2002, stated that he would seek bank records of the "terrorists". It's on all the network news (CNN,MSNBC, more) 2) He limited stem cell research to 78 cell lines, tying the hands of research scientists, so that he could pursue his own "born again" religious agenda....and remember the "intelligent design" flap? Short memories. I already e-mailed the White House and told them that the wmd's are in my garage. They're still there. Now if that was important, my guess is that someone would have shown up and picked them up by now. Bottom line...those that want to continue to believe will do so. Changing admits their gullibility (ignorance). No amount of words will do otherwise. They voted for it, they own it, they defend it, they die for it. "If a blind man follows another blind man, they both end in the pit." __Jesus
|
|
#45
06-28-2006, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Genuine Risk
Genuine, okay you are passionate and have really opened this up. I will try to respond succinctly. First I do not take any of this personally and do not mind a dialogue with a passionate rational person with an open mind, which you appear to be, even if the expressed views are diametrically opposed to my own. I’m less interested in close-minded blowhards who think any person with an opinion different from their own is simply ignorant.
BTW my name is Jim not Art. Also you started off with “you conservatives”, I really don’t fit the label. Also I’m really not a “blueblood”. I don’t think these kinds of labels are helpful. There is so much I take issue with in your post that I can’t possibly go into great detail. But I think I get where you’re coming from. Your position is that if we didn’t have Bush as president we would have, won the war on terror without fighting the war, without taking prisoners and without spying. We would have cured genital warts and girls would no longer get cervical cancer. Natural disasters like Katrina would not have happened and the levees would have been fortified and would not have given way. Mine disasters would not have happened because mine safety would not have been cut. We would have increased the taxes on the wealthy and their heirs to make ourselves feel good. Some quick points: I don’t know what was ridiculous about the Swift Boat story. Kerry made his VN experience the centerpiece of his campaign. That some of his fellow soldiers took issue with his version of it I think is relevant. The Times is not favorable to Republicans or conservatives. Has there been any, even one positive story about this administration? I didn’t see the Clinton marriage article but I will say this, if it was negative at all it was only because Hillary is now perceived to have no shot at winning the presidency. You will see other friendly fire directed her way in my opinion. I think the big decision makers and big money are looking elsewhere. I think they are smart because in terms of the presidency she is unelectable. You wrote: “And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation.” Can you give some specific examples of this? I’m not a rabid Bush supporter. I have big problems with his lack of fiscal responsibility, his lack of leadership in some areas, his lack of good communication skills both personally and his administration as a whole. I admire him for his steadfast leadership on the WOT and Iraq.
|
|
#46
06-28-2006, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't read this entire thread, but all I have to say is if folks think they have a "right" to burn the American flag then I should have the "right" to kick whosever ass that's doing it and not be penalized for it.
|
|
#47
06-29-2006, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't think that's what GR was saying at all, but I don't want to put words in our mouth, so here's what I say. I would never suggest extremes like that, and I think it's hyperbolic to do so. What I would say is that if we didn't have Bush as president, we wouldn't necessarily have entered a "war" on terrorism without acknowledging the potential for that war to have no end. We might have expanded our strategy beyond "bomb the crap out of anyone who might be a threat" to "consider how some of our own behaviors have contributed to the problem and fix those in addition to bombing the crap out of people." One of the things that's frustrated me most about the war on terror is that it's anathema to even dare suggest that we might need to take a long look in the mirror and do something about ourselves if we actually want to win it. Nothing justifies attacking innocent people, but it's ignorant and unhelpful to think that everyone else in the world is "wrong" and we're "right." Like it or not, people around the world are angered by what they perceive as our arrogance, our power-trips, our boorish behavior and our general disregard for world politics that don't involve us. Failing to listen to them does have consequences: we can't live in a damn bubble and then cry foul when it bursts! Living abroad makes me realize that we do get unfairly criticized, but at the same time we are the world "superpower" and that comes with a level of responsibility that we need to accept. When we're developing new nuclear weapons and telling other people not to, when we're blatantly disregarding the warning signs about climate change and telling sinking island nations to stop whining, when we talk about the importance of treating people humanely and then let Guantanamo get to the point where the Red Cross is investigating it...well, maybe acting a little less like the bully on the block would actually do a lot of good. If we improve our national image, then we'd win back some of those allies who've grown disgusted with us. Right now, we're letting the terrorists win the damn war: we're getting ugly, stooping to some of their own tactics (torture), and curtailing domestic freedoms. We aren't going to cure genital warts or stop cancer, at least not anytime soon, but what the hell is an administration doing by holding up something that could at least prevent the two? It's like refusing to give people an AIDS vaccine. The problem with genital warts is that it's almost impossible to detect -- you could marry someone who has it without either of you ever knowing. Is it really fair to penalize kids by consicously letting their cancer risk increase because a vaccine somehow conflicts with your moral fiber? Is that REALLY the government's job? Of course natural disasters like Katrina would happen, but I don't think we'd have an Arabian horse judge in charge of FEMA (or was it quarter horses?) who'd inflated his resume to make it look like he knew something about disaster management when he actually didn't have a clue. The fact of the matter is that people were worried about the levees, went to Bush's people, and were told that it wasn't a problem. Sure, Bush himself probably didn't have much to do with this, but like every other incident it comes down to whether we should retain faith in a leader who cannot appoint competent people to important positions. Oh yeah, and we'd also probably have some sort of climate policy in place so our children don't have even bigger disasters to worry about year after year. But hey, a bunch of scientists on oil industry payrolls don't think it's happening, and Michael Crichton doesn't believe it either. Heck, I'll choose Crichton over a bunch of atmospheric scientists from around the world who've devoted their entire careers to this! Those Greenland people whining about their melting ice sheets can just learn to swim, and it's not like we've ever cared about other species anyway, so why worry now that many can't adapt to the changes? More room for us! I don't have a problem taxing the wealthy, sorry. When the rich-poor gap is growing like it is, I think people have a responsibility to give back proportionally. Look at the Gates and Buffet -- you don't see them whining about taxes (note that Bill Gates Sr. is a major advocate for the estate tax). If everyone truly had an equal opportunity to be wealthy and successful in this world, then maybe I'd grumble about the tax...but my parents worked their butts off for us and will probably never be able to retire. I may never be able to buy a house in my family's area, even though I worked my way through school and have had jobs since I was 15. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for a multimillionaire who doesn't want to fork over a few of his millions. Last time I checked, even the wealthy need a functioning national economy to remain wealthy, and slashing all these taxes is pushing us closer to the edge financially. What happens if China comes calling on all the debt we owe them? Mine safety: who knows if mines would collapse or not, but a company with 100 citations for safety would be shut down before it killed anyone...and isn't the company still operating elsewhere? I am not willing to support a president because he looks like a good leader in a war, particularly when I think his "leadership" is all posturing and fear-mongering. Maybe the reason there haven't been any positive stories about Bush making the headlines lately is that there just aren't any to write. Pardon the diatribe, but I just feel like we're all wrapped around the fingers of a few powerful people right now, and it makes me very angry. I'm young, and this stuff may all come home to roost when my generation takes over. That doesn't make me very happy.
|
|
#48
06-29-2006, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#49
06-29-2006, 12:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just my opinion, but both parties are so similar to one another now, you can hardly discern a difference. (This is coming from a republican.)
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#50
06-29-2006, 06:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh, I'm so annoyed I didn't check this thread until now! This is so much fun to read and I really do enjoy spirited but civilized debate.
First off, Jim, my apologies for referring to you as "Art"-- I tend to use people's screen names until they tell me otherwise (I love screen names-- it's like a secret identity!). I'm happy to call you Jim (James, which I assume is your full name, is one of my favorite names and my writing partners and I named one of the central characters in one of our screenplays James on my suggestion. )I think you might have misinterpreted some of my statements-- I'll go back and clarify later tonight but right now I have to go do a narration for a sea lion feeding and then to see some friends but I'll get back into this tonight, I promise! Thank goodness for the OT board or I'd still be a "foal"-- I read almost all the posts in the Paddock every day, but I'm still too much of a novice handicapper to be of much use posting there... And for the anti-flag burners-- please keep in mind that most instances of flag burning in this country are already illegal in that the flags burned did not belong to the burner so it was already a crime under destruction of property laws. I think there were four instances last year, one of which was by a drunk 16-year-old who probably just lit up the first thing he stumbled upon. And according to the Boy Scout Manual, the most fitting end for a worn-out old flag is to... can you guess? That's right; burn it. And that it's disrespectful to write on the flag, or wear it. Anyone want to tell Bush, who signs lots of flags, that he's disrespecting Old Glory? AND-- I just found out the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the bank records thing on the SAME DAY as the NY TImes, and in the same place on the paper-- front page, upper left. But is Bush calling the WSJ traitorous? Oh, nooooo... Oops; now I'm late. Sea lions will be mad... see you in a few hours.
|
|
#51
06-29-2006, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Today GW got a spank from the Supreme Court... 5-3 Clarance Thomas wrote the dissent. Where's Anita Hill when we need her? DTS
|
|
#52
06-29-2006, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
that was over 20 years ago that i took that oath, but yes pat, we swore to uphold the constitution. i still don't understand why some get so up in arms about things like this--it's part of our freedom of speech. the constitution doesn't just apply to those you agree with, that document was written for everyone, not just the majority. too many forget that. the majority does NOT rule, the constitution does--or is supposed to. it's there to protect the rights of the often voiceless, or drowned out, or shouted down minority. everyone is supposed to have the same rights, whether popular or not.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#53
06-29-2006, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thanks for your words of truth. Some may be blinded to this. It does not mean the veracity of their words, just that they can shout louder. "The truth will out." DTS
|
|
#54
06-29-2006, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
also, regarding disposal of a flag...my sons are both boy scouts, and my husband and i are leaders. we've had many flag retirement ceremonies at camp and elsewhere over the years. during the ceremony the flag is burned, but it's done respectfully-if that makes sense. after the fire goes out the ashes are buried. all the grommets are taken out of the fire tho, and given to anyone who participated--many times vets are in attendance and will take a grommet. it's a very nice, and quite patriotic ceremony.
i always get a bit disgusted when i see some of the sad looking, tattered faded flags people hoist up and then forget. there actually is flag etiquette! if anyone has an old flag, they can contact a boy scout troop, american legion, woodman of the world, to name a few to respectfully dispose of their 'old glory'.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#55
06-29-2006, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Actually I have never burned a flag, and am very careful with them as I know some people like them treated properly. But for the sake of Oden, why the heck the Senate would spend time on this... ?and almost 2/3 voted for making it illegal... man I dont like these guys waisting time when much more important things are going on. This has been anything but a slow last 5 years.
|
|
#56
06-30-2006, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As some of you know I am an active-duty Navy man with 19 plus years and will retire in 4 months and thought I would just add this.
I have thought deeply about what my job is over the past years and the conflicts and wars that I am served in. Regardless of what I think, it would be a far greater loss of one's right if the right to burn a flag was taken away. I have been fighting for these rights for so long. That being said if I so happen to see someone doing it I would take the flag from them and do some character training on them. I would be breaking the law and will always take responsibility for my actions. Aloha Geoff
|
|
#57
06-30-2006, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So busy with work and travel this week, I haven’t been so timely in responding. Maybe a quick summary before going to bed followed by more details in coming days.
Irishtrekker, welcome liberal girl number two. They’re ganging up on me now! I enjoyed your post a lot and as you can imagine I have many comments for you but right now I’m too tired. You have passion and that’s a good thing. I’ll just say one thing now, your post sounds like something I would have written when I was 24. With age and an open mind my political views have swung like a pendulum over the years, first hard left, then gradually hard right, now who knows? I just call it like I see it and don’t get too hung up on the labels. Bold Brooklynite, It always seems that people don’t want to take the time to discriminate. It’s either “I hate Bush” or “I love Bush”. For me he’s been a major disappointment because I expected better from him. The things I dislike though are not the same as what you hear most people bashing him for. One of my biggies that I almost forgot about was the Harriet Meiers nomination for Supreme Court. For the life of me I can’t figure that one out. He actually said that she was the best available candidate!! Genuine Risk, I still don’t know where you got Art from. My screen name is Arl- like Arlington – Jim. The misinterpretation of your post was intentional; I was just exaggerating to hopefully make a point. I do want to comment on your point about the WSJ running a story about the bank records on the same day as the Times. That is not a coincidence. The difference is that they agreed not to run the story based upon the administrations request. Once they found out that the times was going ahead with the story against the wishes of the administration it was a new ballgame and they had to move forward with the news. Cajun, You know if you listen to the speeches and all the hot air, read the platforms, etc, there should really be big differences between the two major parties. But when you look at how they actually govern, I agree with you, the differences are nearly imperceptible. This has the appearance of being a civilized open political discussion of opposing viewpoints and so far it looks like there have been no insults or threats! Wow, it actually is possible. lol
|
|
#58
06-30-2006, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
AJ - I know what you mean, but my parents are in their 60s and are still PDL (pretty damned liberal). I think I'm probably a lost cause.
 I actually used to be quite conservative until I hit 18 and am now happily out in left field after a lot of sobering experiences.I should note again that I'm definitely not someone who would call herself a Democrat. I also believe that the two parties are too similar, and my views don't exactly mesh with either. I hate having to pick a party in the primary now, because neither really reflects my views, per se. I try to vote for someone based on the issues and the person's qualifications instead of the party, which is why I'll occasionally choose a Republican candidate (our attorney general is a Republican, I think and I voted for him). Last edited by irishtrekker : 06-30-2006 at 03:26 AM.
|
|
#59
06-30-2006, 09:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
NY times
Actually GR I had it wrong when I said that the WSJ declined to publish the story at the request of the administration and only did so when they found out about the times story. Better to read the WSJ's own detailed accounting in the link below to understand what actually happened. It was actually the administration that approached the WSJ after learning about the times decision to go to print.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008585
|
|
#60
06-30-2006, 12:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Clearly I'm a big fat liar when I said I'd get back on the board last night-- I was too tired. Okay, back today...
I'm sorry Jim-- I have a slight astigmatism during the day thanks to the Paragon lenses I wear doing a good, though not perfect, job of reshaping my nearsighted eyes at night and I misread "Arl" as "Art"-- computer screens are particularly easy to misread when you have an astigmatism. Thank you for the clarification (and the explanation of your screen name. )I'm not sure what point you were going for in your exagerration of my post-- I believe someone had asked what stories I felt were more deserving of attention than the bank records one, and I gave a list that I felt were more deserving of attention. It seems to me that often when someone presents a list of things that deserve attention, there is often a knee-jerk reaction from others of "Oh, so if Bush wasn't in charge everything would be perfect then? Ha!" which doesn't do anything other than try to slam shut debate. Of course I don't think cancer would be cured if Bush weren't in office. I do think, however, had Kerry or Gore (or, for that matter, any of a number of Republicans who believe in separation of Church and State) been in the Oval Office, that at no point would the morality of pre-marital and teenage sex have entered into the debate over getting a vaccine for a virus that can lead to cancer out onto the market. (Likewise the morning-after pill, which should have been released over the counter years ago and hasn't been thanks to religious wingnuts appointed by Bush choosing "morality" over women's health.) In the case of New Orleans, I wasn't making any reference to the levees and what Bush did or didn't ignore prior to Katrina; I was making reference to the crappy job of reconstructing New Orleans since. We've spent 200 billion in Iraq so far; how much has gone to New Orleans? Anywhere near that amount? Not blaming it entirely on Bush, but I think our failure in New Orleans is worth more newspaper space than the banking thing. Or rather, the finger-pointing over the banking thing. Likewise the estate tax, which the Republicans have cleverly framed as the "death tax" and have even more cleverly persuaded your average American that families are losing their farms over it (not a single instance of a small farm being lost to the estate tax, by the way). The Dems have offered several compromises, but what the Republicans want is an abolishment of the tax. Which will drain the nation's coffers quite a bit (income for the next ten years of the tax is estimated at, I believe, $283 billion dollars, or about the cost of the Iraq war through next year). Who do the lower and middle class think is going to have to come up with the money for that shortfall? Why, they will, of course, through higher middle class taxes and cuts in lower class relief programs. All so a bunch of extremely wealthy dead guys (and a few gals) can make sure their kids never have to do anything with themselves. All these, more deserving of news, because they affect us more directly and harder. More women die each year of cervical cancer than total people in 9/11. Higher middle-class taxes affect more of us I think, than cuts in upper income taxes (while I'm at it; I don't think I outright called you a blue-blood-- I asked if you were. I do apologize for assuming you were an conservative; your argument tactics tend to align with those of my conservative friends, but that was still a gross generalization on my part and so I'm sorry for it.) Oh! And I'd add in our Republican-controlled Congress opting to NOT renew the Civil Rights Act. You're all aware of this, right? Okay, ways in which I think the Bush Adminstration tries to get around the Constitution-- wiretapping, for one (the 4th Amendment). Faith-based initiatives (separation of church and state. Bush made it clear no Wiccan faiths, for example, would get money. Whatever one thinks of wiccans, it's still a recognized religion (the military includes it as a religion) and by discriminating against them, that seems to me to be a clear attempt to value some faiths (Christian) above others. In any event, the Constitution says Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of religion. Not "A" religion, but "religion" in general). Imprisoning suspected terrorists without access to lawyers, without telling them why they're being imprisoned (habeus corpus? Is that what that falls under?). Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Thank you for the link to the editorial, Jim. My two big questions are-- if the WSJ's news and editorial pages are separate, why do they assume it's different at the Times? (They repeatedly invoke a Times editorial about opening a special investigation into the Plame thing) And I'm not sure whether their point was that they didn't know since the news and editorial sections are different or that they had the okay to do it- they seemed to be invoking both excuses, when honestly, I'd buy either reason if presented alone. But the Swift point is well taken and I'm going to keep googling to find out more (the specific bank thing). I might have missed that otherwise, and it's a valid point if true. I don't think the Dems are the same as the Republicans. I, do, however, think my stupid party needs to find some balls to stand up to the party in power. And not let them hijack the debate. "Death tax" for example. On top of that, it would help them to figure out what they stand FOR. As Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized party; I'm a Democrat." That said, I'll paste in a funny article from Salon about the Democratic challenger to the Senate candidate in Virginia. If only the other Dems had the same cojones. Love the meeting of the minds here, Jim, Irish, et al. You all keep me on my toes and aware of what's going on in the world.
|
Linear Mode
