ProWrestling Fans WWE TNA Forum

Go Back   ProWrestling Fans WWE TNA Forum > ProWrestlingFans > Archives > Creative Writing Archive

A summary of political points made
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31 Oct 2004, 06:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
David's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 9,579
Rep Power: 931
David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.David is a god damn rich cunt.
Default A summary of political points made

With the election for US president only two days away I thought I would post a summary of my thoughts and views to get some of PWF's non-voters to start thinking about voting.

Article one; thoughts and response to the debate hightlights from President Bush

Originally Posted by Silent Bob
George Bush: "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.

That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place."

Disarm what? We still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. I do not recall hearing it on the news, we found weapon chaches. That's about it. And how did he deceive inspectors exactly? Bush was hellbent on going into Iraq even during the inspections. His constantly changing "Iraq deadlines" are proof of that.


John Kerry: "Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?..."

...Jim Lehrer: "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?"

John Kerry: "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering."

The invasion was a mistake, helping to rebuild the country is not. It's that simple.


George Bush: "First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."

At the time the war was being questioned about 60% of the entire country supported going into Iraq. Once we got there however the amount of support decreased. Let's face it, alot of people wanted to go into Iraq until the nation learned that we had used faulty evidence in going to war. Plus we disregarded the opinion of the UN by going in without waiting. That caused alot of people to change there mind. So yeah, maybe Kerry's a flip flopper but so's everybody who believed that war was the right answer until it was found out that our evidence that Saddam had WMD was bullshit and we started taking heavy casualites.


George Bush: "My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."

Help is on the way? I think it's self explanatory what that means. What kind of message does it send to the troops in harm's way? Exactly what it means. Help is on the way.

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it."

Let's not forget about the bills attached to the $87 billion supplemental. It's those bills that caused some to vote againest it. Btw, this country doesn't have unlimited money. $87 is a big chunk of change. Our troops need help but so do our towns and our roads and our people. The reasoning for voting againest it is understandable.


George Bush: "My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.

What's it say to all the countries that turned their back on us because they didn't agree with us? Yes, we have allies but we lost alot of allies because of the decision to go to war.

Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"

It's not about war at this point, it's about rebuilding a country and giving the Iraqi people their own working government.

I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."

They're not gonna follow someone who goes to war based on faulty evidence and turns to "a higher father" or "heavenly father" to justify going to war either. Maybe that's why we lost so many allies. Yeah, I'm really sure Bush knows how these people think. That's why we lost support.


George Bush: "The only consistent thing about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win."

This coming from the man who said he didn't think we could win the war on terror but then said we could two days later.


Jim Lehrer: Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?

George Bush: "You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to pro Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.

You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy. Because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find Al Qaeda wherever they hide.

We must deal with threats before they fully materialize. And Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that we must spread liberty because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom.

Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood. So you say, "Was it worth it?" Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it's worth it, Jim.

I think it's worth it, because I think -- I know in the long term a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, will set such a powerful in a part of the world that's desperate for freedom. It will help change the world; that we can look back and say we did our duty."

Saddam was a threat. key term was. I mean, remember 98? Anything happen during that year? Hey didn't we send UN weapon inspectors over there and bomb some of their weapon factories? Hm yeah... I think I remember that.


George Bush: "Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility.

You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.

One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward.

The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe you want to be free. And I do."

Of course he's a puppet, anyone we help choose to run Iraq is gonna be a puppet. Until we don't have a say in the matter their leader's gonna be a puppet to us. There's a big difference between questioning someone's credibility and someone's bravery though. Kerry never called him a coward afterall and I'm sure e is a brave, courageous man.


John Kerry: "...No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons..."

George Bush: "Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."

Not going to make decisions that are wrong for America? We're liberating Iraq, people are dying, Iraqis are dying, soldiers are dying, terrorism is centered around Iraq, people are struggling to stay alive and people are being beheaded or kidnapped weekly. I sure as hell don't think that that's right for America.


Jim Lehrer: "New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like."

George Bush: ..."(W)e signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.

And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest.

And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.

As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.

And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to China, as well.

And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il."

Sooooooooooo Kim Jong II we know for a fact has nuclear warheads and we're trying to "reach an agreement" with North Korea. Meanwhile we "sorta think" that Iraq has WMD's and therefore we have to invade and occupy the country.


George Bush: "My concerns about the senator is that, in the course of this campaign, I've been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changes positions on the war in Iraq. He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq.

You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.

And that's my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. president.

Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world."

Mixed singles? I thought it was a mixed single when we were arguing that we should go into Iraq to find the WMD's. Now that we haven't found them our reason for going to war was to "liberate the people" and "take down Saddam". Mixed singles is one day deciding to go to war, and then saying we can't win the war on terror and then saying that we will win the war on terror. That's a mixed single.

Article 2; The number one reason our country was misled into a deadly and costly war

Originally Posted by Silent Bob
WASHINGTON (AP) Faced with a harshly critical new report, President Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein.

President Bush made his comments before departing the White House for a campaign event.
By Leslie E. Kossoff, AFP

"America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison," Bush said in a surprise statement to reporters as he prepared to fly to Wisconsin.

"Much of the accumulated body of our intelligence was wrong and we must find out why," Bush said.

But, he maintained that the Iraqi leader retained the "means and the intent" to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Bush spoke one day after Charles Duelfer, the American weapons hunter in Iraq, presented to the Senate and the public a report that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S.-led invasion last year. The decline was wrought by the first Gulf War and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found. (Related story: Final report: No WMD in Iraq)

What ambitions Saddam harbored for such weapons were secondary to his goal of evading those sanctions, and he wanted them primarily not to attack the United States or to provide them to terrorists, but to oppose his older enemies, Iran and Israel, the report found.

Bush ignored the report in a hard-hitting new campaign speech attacking Kerry on Iraq Wednesday. He made his first public comments about the final document as he prepared to board his helicopter en route to Wisconsin for more campaigning.

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil for food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

"He could have passed that knowledge onto our terrorist enemies," Bush said. "Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror operating in the world's most volatile region. In the world after Sept. 11, he was a threat we had to confront and America and the world are safer for our actions."

Bush promised to act on the recommendations of the president's commission investigating flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, chaired by former Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., and Republican Laurence Silberman, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania Wednesday, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," the president said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A spokesman for his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, said the report "underscores the incompetence of George Bush's Iraq policy."

"George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war," Kerry spokesman David Wade added.

"In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in Miami Thursday that the report justifies rather than invalidates Bush's decision to go to war. It shows that "delay, defer, wasn't an option," Cheney told a town-hall style meeting.

Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group drew on interviews with senior Iraqi officials, 40 million pages of documents and classified intelligence to conclude that Iraq destroyed its undeclared chemical and biological stockpiles under pressure of U.N. sanctions by 1992 and never resumed production.

The U.S.-led invasion pushed one of Iraq's leaders into seeking chemical weapons to defend the country. But it doesn't appear that Saddam's son Uday located any.

Iraq ultimately abandoned its biological weapons programs in 1995, largely out of fear they would be discovered and tougher enforcement imposed.

"Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level," according to a summary of Duelfer's 1,000-page report.

And Iraq also abandoned its nuclear program after the war, and there was no evidence it tried to reconstitute it.

Saddam's intentions to restart his weapons programs were never formalized.

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," the summary says. "Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

Duelfer's findings contradict most of the assertions by the Bush administration and the U.S. intelligence community about Iraq's threat in 2002 and early 2003. The White House had argued that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and production lines and had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The United States led an invasion into Iraq in March 2003, taking the capital, Baghdad, within weeks. Since then, the United States and its allies have fought a dangerous insurgency of Iraqis as well as Islamic extremists who have come to Iraq to kill Americans.

Some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries. Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict.

Before the war, Saddam's chief success was in manipulating an oil for food program that began in 1996, to avoid the sanctions' effects for a few years, acquiring billions of dollars to import goods such as parts for missile systems. Duelfer also in the report accused the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam's government.

Article 3; Why America isn't safer for having attacked Iraq nor justified in doing so

Originally Posted by Silent Bob
Saddam Huissen was only a great threat to his own people. Over the course of years it is possible he would've gotten the weapons he needed to attack us but guess what? North Korea already has those weapons and they've made it extremely clear that they intend to use the weapons on us if we piss them off. Doesn't that scare you in the least? We've got one dictator with a shitload of nukes and probably the largest army in the world running wild while a man with no proven weapons and only a suspected weapons program is being taken out. Oil is not a reason to go to war, Iraq is harboring terrorists? News flash Iraq was not involved in 9/11. We know the culprits for 9/11, it was Saudi Arabia. All of the terrorists either lived in or traveled through Saudi Arabia but Bush claims that the Saudis are our allies so we couldn't possibly go after them because that's where we buy our oil from. We are far too dependent on middle eastern oil to begin with so when Saddam begins playing the market we gotta take him out, meanwhile the Saudis have our balls in a vicegrip. Now that US soldiers have occupied Iraq there actually are terrorists in Iraq. Before the invasion there were none. Instead of living in fear of a brutal dictator the Iraqi citizens are living in fear of terrorist organizations in their own cities. Terrorists are using car bombs and hurting innocent people almost daily; and this is our idea of liberating the Iraqi people? There are entire cities in Iraq without power and living conditions are miserable and why shouldn't they be? Everyday the Iraqi citizens have to leave their home in fear of a new bombing or a shoot out between US soldiers and terrorists. Of course the Iraqis want our soldiers gone, their government is officially gone now so in a sense we accomplished our mission there so they do not understand why we are still occupying their country. This war is really a double edged sword because if we leave then terrorists may take over the country but if we stay then more terrorists are going to come in an attempt to destroy our military presence there. The situation in Iraq has turned into civil war with some citizens supporting the US occupation and some citizens opposed to US presence. After a while wouldn't you begin to feel some sort of animosity if the only form of central government you had was a bunch of soldiers watching your every move? Between the resentment from Iraqi citizens and the tactical disadvantage our soldiers have they are being killed one by one very swiftly from terrorists. Our troops are spread out too thinly between Iraq and Afghanistan and it's our soldiers greatest weakness. Because they are in a foreign country they have no permanent base and if they need supplies they have to wait days, maybe weeks before they get their supplies and by then it may be too late. The general point I am trying to get across is that this war did not have to happen, it is doing more harm then good to everyone and here's the kicker; Saddam had oil money which he could've used to buy WMDs, North Korea has nukes and has outright threatened us. Soldiers are dying in Iraq and the cost of war is increasing daily, the war has already cost millions of dollars and the eerie part is that it may not even be enough to pay for this war and people are worried that higher oil prices would have a greater effect on our economy? Under George Bush's presidency the budget defeceit is higher than it has ever been before. What should be a black line is now piercing red, $6 trillion is now gone from our country since his presidency began; and you support this? There is no excuse, George W Bush went into a war based on faulty evidence which could not be proven, and over a thousand of brave American soldiers have been killed in a senseless war. Is a dispute over oil really worth it? I think not. Picture a mother or a father opposed to a war, they're againest every aspect of this war and their child is going into a hostile foreign country where troops are spread out too thinly and are dying almost daily. The army is at a disadvantage they know that their child may die for a war that they believe is a mistake. Now mutiply that by several thousand parents and you get the situation that is going on now. Iraq is slowly being rebuilt and a government is steadily taken shape but it is not happening fast enough and yet the US doesn't have the money to afford to rebuild Iraq any quicker so in the meantime the Iraqi citizens and the US soldiers are living in a deathtrap of a country that has no true government as of right now. And you support this? You say that the UN would have removed sanctions from Iraq in a few years but that can't be true, there are still people opposed to Iraq and it is common knowledge that Saddam has the capability (keyword; capability) to buy WMDs and there are countries who know what Saddam is capable of. He may have gotten away with bribery but I assure you that nothing he could have done would amount to the bloodshed that has been going on in recent months. Look at how quickly we overthrew his government, he knew we had the capability and he knew that if he even showed a slight interest of buying a WMD we would invade his country so he had no reason to buy any WMDs but that doesn't matter now because there are no WMDs. Bush's reason for war has changed once again. At first he was hellbent on the idea that Saddam had weapons and yet when none were found he changed his reasoning and soon the reason we went to war was to liberate Iraq from a vicious dictator. Now it's the motion that Saddam "could have" or "had the capability" to buy WMDs. You dare accuse Kerry of flip flopping? American soldiers and ordinary people from independent companies just trying to help a country are being killed daily and no one sees this as a problem? I marvel at how Bill Clinton can be empeached for a mere lie about having oral sex in the oval office, a crime that would have no effect on anyone other than him and yet George Bush has declared war on another nation based on evidence that is untrue, his cause unjustified and he is still our president? Lying about another country's war capabilities and then going into war without any consent from congress or the UN should be worthy of an impeachment in itself. He lied to an entire nation so he could settle a grudge match. It doesn't matter what you believe, whether GWB was just going to finish his dad's unfinished buisness or if he wanted to make himself popular by catching Saddam or if he really did believe that "the higher father" wanted him to go into Iraq. The point is that this war was without a justifyable cause and the fact that thousands of people are dying due to this outragous lie just sickens me.

Article 4; a failing war

Originally Posted by Silent Bob
Security adviser to first President Bush says Afghanistan, Iraq 'a failing venture'
WASHINGTON (AP) The national security adviser under the first President Bush says the current president acted contemptuously toward NATO and Europe after Sept. 11 and is trying to cooperate now out of desperation to "rescue a failing venture" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brent Scowcroft is the mentor to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Brent Scowcroft, a mentor to the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also said in an interview published in England that Bush is inordinately influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft told London's Financial Times. "I think the president is mesmerized."

Scowcroft said the Bush administration's "unilateralist" position was partly responsible for the post-Sept. 11, 2001, decline of the trans-Atlantic relationship.

"It's in general bad," he said. "It's not really hostile, but there's an edge to it."

Early on, he said, "We had gotten contemptuous of Europeans and their weaknesses. We had really turned unilateral."

Although slightly diminished since then, the unilateralist policies remain fundamentally little changed, Scowcroft said. Recent overtures to cooperate in Afghanistan and Iraq with the United Nations and NATO was "as much an act of desperation as anything else ... to rescue a failing venture."
On Israel and Sharon, the former security adviser said Sharon calls Bush after strongly retaliating for a Palestinian suicide attack and says: '"I'm on the front line of terrorism,' and the president says, 'Yes, you are.'"

Scowcroft said Sharon "has been nothing but trouble."


Article 5; new thoughts on the President and Mr. Kerry

I have valid reasons for not liking Bush. I honestly do not trust him nor do I feel safe under him. This man has provoked our terrorists enemies by in short, telling them to "Bring 'em on". I admire someone who will be offensive in defending this country but Bush is not offensive in defending our country; he's good at offending our enemies. Korea is a dangerous enemy, they have a huge stockload of nucluer weapons and the largest army on the planet. American citizens will rue the day that Bush called Korea "an axis of evil". This is not the mature way to deal with enemies, by calling another country evil he has enraged not only the leader of the country but it's inhabinents aswell. Korea has never been on good terms with the US, that is already evident but now they are a valid threat. Saddamn Huissen didn't have WMD's, the leader of Korea does so; why didn't we invade them? The answer in my opinion is that it was not Bush's interest. By invading Iraq Haliburton would be able to control their oil supply and Bush would be able to obtain the bragging rights to catching Saddam Huissen. US soldiers have been led to death based on a personal agenda, while our soldiers should infiltrating terrorist camps in other middle east regions and remaining firm in hunting OBL they are now stranded in Iraq. The biggest mistake we made in Afghanistan was turning the responsible of finding OBL over to the Afghan warlords. The only thing that has gone right in this war on terrorism was the initial attack on Afghanistan. This was America defending itself from a terrorist threat, invading Iraq was not in the best interest of national defense and by doing it we've pissed off a whole lot of people. I am in short, afraid of another term under Bush. He will provoke other nations into despising us and more troops will die in Iraq, the upper class citizens will continue enjoying their tax cuts while the middle class will go unhelped. More jobs have been lost under the Bush administration than in the past 75 years; I do not want to lose my job. Voting for John Kerry because I oppose Bush would appear stupid but in all honesty, it doesn't matter because Bush has devasted our national economy. Kerry is not perfect, nor is he my first choice for US president but it is time for a change in the White House and due to the democratic way of voting I think that he deserves the chance to try and change things for the better. One major complaint about Kerry is his raising gas prices but Bush has already raised gas prices; the bottom line is that Bush isn't keeping the gas prices any lower and the gas prices will continue to rise no matter who is president. Polls have proven that other nations would prefer Kerry over Bush as president and I think that our country needs as many allies as possible in this time of uncertainty.

Last edited by David; 31 Oct 2004 at 11:04 PM.
David is offline  

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
wellness policy violater summary article mtcal World Wrestling Entertainment 9 08 Nov 2007 06:06 PM
What Political Party are you? Sleepy Gorilla Off-Topic 22 10 May 2005 02:05 PM
Strong points, weak points... Alth Off-Topic 7 27 Nov 2004 05:02 AM
Your political leaning Positively Page Meeting Of The Minds 9 29 Nov 2003 11:59 PM
POLITICAL QUIZ: What is your political philosophy? Find out.....................NOW! CrossfaceVictim Archives 9 09 Feb 2003 03:11 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.