So did anyone go to the Anti War/Bush rallies this weekend?

[quote name='DPawlik349']May I remind you the 9/11 casualty of U.S. citizens was 3,000...just something to ponder.[/quote]

Al Qaeda has NO affiliation with any government. They are fanatical fundamentalists much like Americas own Religious Right. The 9/11/01 casualties DO NOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS.


And Scrubking, we all know Michael Moore is an ass, but that site has no relevance to the current topic of conversation.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']The 9/11/01 casualties DO NOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS.[/quote]

Ok then. What would you have done? Give in to terrorist demands? Attempt to placate foreign religous zealots? History shows appeasement doesn't work (see: World War II). I'm curious as to what all the doves think ought to be done, other than turning the other cheek.
 
You cant even and shouldnt compare Al Qaeda to America's Religious Right. Are you out of your mind? I dont beleive how immature and naive you are. What is it going to take for you and the rest of the Liberal lunatics to wake up. Where you complaining when Clinton was killing innocent civilians in Kosovo with his bombings? No. Once again, if Bush does it, whether it makes sense or not, you and all the other commies will be against it. Plain and simple. Why dont you look at the facts and judge by what makes sense. I will guarantee that if Bush didnt attack Iraq, and we were attacked by Iraq first with a suicide bomber, or an event similar to 9/11, you would be first in line asking why Bush didnt take him out when we had a chance. Then there would be another inquiry into why we didnt act first, just like the 9/11 hearings going on now. With you people, we can never win.
 
What the fuck?
Are you guys fucking serious?

Terrorists kill our civilians, and that gives us the right to go into 2 contries and kill thousands of civilians?!?!

You don't give into the terrorists demands, you attack the fucking terrorists! You don't kill civilians!
Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.
(But then Halliburton wouldn't get Iraqs oil and Bush wouldn't get his money.)

THE CIVILIANS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!
 
"THE CIVILIANS DIDNT DO ANYTHING", which is exactly why they are releived to have Sadaam out. You cant deny that he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Its not about the civilians and you know it. Why do you think GW was nominted for a Nobel Piece Prize. He freed the Iraqi people from the fear of Sadaam. If its about innocent civilians, you lose, because we are saving thousand of civilian lives by getting rid of Sadaam.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']What the f*#k?
Are you guys f*#king serious?

Terrorists kill our civilians, and that gives us the right to go into 2 contries and kill thousands of civilians?!?!

You don't give into the terrorists demands, you attack the f*#king terrorists! You don't kill civilians!
Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.
(But then Halliburton wouldn't get Iraqs oil and Bush wouldn't get his money.)

THE CIVILIANS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING![/quote]

I'm sure you would prefer to have 100 U.S. soldier deaths to 2 Iraqi civilian deaths when trying to take out a target in the middle of a war. :roll:

Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.
Click to expand...
Exactly. How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?
 
I don't know....I had been pretty critical of Bush's time in the white house, but Scrubking's made a lot of good points. I am kind of swaying to his side now. I can feel a change of heart coming on. Ohhhh.. there it is.... O mama.....
 
Ends justify means?

So if you were in a store and there has a hold-up, you wouldn't object to the police shooting into the store and killing everybody including yourself?

I didn't think so.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?[/quote]

zero[/quote]

BZZZZZZZZTT! Wrong answer! But we have some nice consolation prizes, thanks for playing!

Seriously, Clinton knew about bin Laden (anyone remember the first WTC attacks? anyone?) but not much got done. I do believe he attempted to take out bin Laden but failed as bad as we are failing now. It just wasn't front page news then because 9-11 had not occured.

If you want to lay blame on someone for civilian deaths, look no further than one Saddam Hussein. He's the one who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iraq-Iran war, thus showing the world he had such weapons AND would use them. He's the one who invaded Kuwait without provocation and certainly for no good reason. He's the one who waffled between allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq, then throwing them out. He's the one played chicken with the US.

To use your own example, if I show up in a store and CLAIM to have a gun, while my hand is in my pocket, what do you do? You can either submit to my demands or hope that I'm bluffing. In that situation, if you had the chance to ENSURE that I either didn't have a gun or you could for sure get the gun I had away from me, would you take it? Keep in mind that if you don't act and I DO have a gun, I could flip out and start killing people. If you DO act, people could still get hurt, but you could greatly reduce the damage. It's not quite as simple as my example (or yours for that matter) but it's along those lines.

It was a hard choice, one I would not trust to John Kerry, and certainly not to Al Gore. I won't say Bush made the right choice, but at least he made a choice and stuck to it. When you're choosing the lesser of two evils, it's usually a matter of perspective.

If you're really as partisan as you appear in your posts, I imagine that had Bush not touched Iraq and we were still dealing with weapons inspectors, you would rail on Bush for not making any progress.

/way too long post
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?[/quote]

zero[/quote]

BZZZZZZZZTT! Wrong answer! But we have some nice consolation prizes, thanks for playing!

Seriously, Clinton knew about bin Laden (anyone remember the first WTC attacks? anyone?) but not much got done. I do believe he attempted to take out bin Laden but failed as bad as we are failing now. It just wasn't front page news then because 9-11 had not occured.[/quote]

One problem that clinton had though was getting support to launch an offensive inside afghanistan. It would've been a political nightmare inside the muslim world, much like bush faced with launching an attack on iraq.

[quote name='PsyClerk']If you want to lay blame on someone for civilian deaths, look no further than one Saddam Hussein. He's the one who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iraq-Iran war, thus showing the world he had such weapons AND would use them. [/quote]

But remember, Saddam got those chemical weapons from Bush Sr. himself during the Reagan administration during the Iran contra affair. So in effect, we were Saddam's dealer.

[quote name='PsyClerk']He's the one who invaded Kuwait without provocation and certainly for no good reason. He's the one who waffled between allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq, then throwing them out. He's the one played chicken with the US. [/quote]

Saddam Hussein sent the U.S. government a memo that they were going to invade kuwait. Our response? "The U.S. Government has no opinion on the affairs of the middle east" more or less. So we basically gave Saddam the green light. However, our tuned changed AFTER he invaded kuwait. I never quite understood that myself.

[quote name='PsyClerk']To use your own example, if I show up in a store and CLAIM to have a gun, while my hand is in my pocket, what do you do? You can either submit to my demands or hope that I'm bluffing. In that situation, if you had the chance to ENSURE that I either didn't have a gun or you could for sure get the gun I had away from me, would you take it? Keep in mind that if you don't act and I DO have a gun, I could flip out and start killing people. If you DO act, people could still get hurt, but you could greatly reduce the damage. It's not quite as simple as my example (or yours for that matter) but it's along those lines.[/quote]

OR...we could NOT have gone into iraq in the first place, and thus avoided this whole mess.
 
[quote name='flizmo007']I will guarantee that if Bush didnt attack Iraq, and we were attacked by Iraq first with a suicide bomber, or an event similar to 9/11, you would be first in line asking why Bush didnt take him out when we had a chance. Then there would be another inquiry into why we didnt act first, just like the 9/11 hearings going on now. With you people, we can never win.[/quote]

If iraq attacked us like al-qaeda did, or were in fact responsible for 9/11, there would be little doubt in most american's minds that he must be eliminated. But he had no ties to al-qaeda, and bush's goal since he took office was to take saddam out. NOT to deter terrorists. That was a lesser priority. And after 9/11 happened, he wanted Richard Clarke to come up with some evidence to tie iraq to it.
 
I'm not really sure how this correlates to other fascets of this thread, but every time I think of the U.S. Army, I think of a bunch of rednecks with buzz cuts and M16s, no offense. Am I the only who has this mental image?
 
I'm not really sure how this correlates to other fascets of this thread, but every time I think of the U.S. Army, I think of a bunch of rednecks with buzz cuts and M16s, no offense. Am I the only who has this mental image?
 
I think you aren't the only one but I am not one of them. I think of people looking for their weekend a month two weeks a year type of a thing. I mean these people need money for college and stuff. And bottom line is killing twice as many civilians in Iraq does not justify 9/11 when Sadaam didn't have a thing to do with it even though to get America's back to go into Iraq. Bottom line is, is that he was caught in a lie and has been COMPLETELY proven to be false and admitted by the Bush administration. And please do not back up your opinion by some wacko site that is more than obviously so biased and copmletely backed by false facts to justify your means.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?[/quote]

zero[/quote]

BZZZZZZZZTT! Wrong answer! But we have some nice consolation prizes, thanks for playing!

Seriously, Clinton knew about bin Laden (anyone remember the first WTC attacks? anyone?) but not much got done. I do believe he attempted to take out bin Laden but failed as bad as we are failing now. It just wasn't front page news then because 9-11 had not occured.

If you want to lay blame on someone for civilian deaths, look no further than one Saddam Hussein. He's the one who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iraq-Iran war, thus showing the world he had such weapons AND would use them. He's the one who invaded Kuwait without provocation and certainly for no good reason. He's the one who waffled between allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq, then throwing them out. He's the one played chicken with the US.

To use your own example, if I show up in a store and CLAIM to have a gun, while my hand is in my pocket, what do you do? You can either submit to my demands or hope that I'm bluffing. In that situation, if you had the chance to ENSURE that I either didn't have a gun or you could for sure get the gun I had away from me, would you take it? Keep in mind that if you don't act and I DO have a gun, I could flip out and start killing people. If you DO act, people could still get hurt, but you could greatly reduce the damage. It's not quite as simple as my example (or yours for that matter) but it's along those lines.

It was a hard choice, one I would not trust to John Kerry, and certainly not to Al Gore. I won't say Bush made the right choice, but at least he made a choice and stuck to it. When you're choosing the lesser of two evils, it's usually a matter of perspective.

If you're really as partisan as you appear in your posts, I imagine that had Bush not touched Iraq and we were still dealing with weapons inspectors, you would rail on Bush for not making any progress.

/way too long post[/quote]

Bush had just as much intelligence, if not more than Clinton and the security advisors just said this past week under oath that it was not a very high priority on Bush's list while it was among the top of Clinton's. Oh and may I remind you that within Bush's first year of taking office took the longest vacation of any president. Hrmmm.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']
One problem that clinton had though was getting support to launch an offensive inside afghanistan. It would've been a political nightmare inside the muslim world, much like bush faced with launching an attack on iraq.[/quote]

Remember the 'missile in the camel's butt' incident? That was Clinton lauching the missiles at bin Laden.


[quote name='E-Z_B']
But remember, Saddam got those chemical weapons from Bush Sr. himself during the Reagan administration during the Iran contra affair. So in effect, we were Saddam's dealer.[/quote]

The US government has given to aid to MANY countries and then later realized the mistake in doing so. I don't see how this relates. Saddam was developing his own weapons, and before the war he either
A-was still developing them
B-Creating the illusion that he was developing them
C-Believed he was developing them, when his scientists were only appeasing him and not actually working towards that goal

[quote name='E-Z-B']
Saddam Hussein sent the U.S. government a memo that they were going to invade kuwait. Our response? "The U.S. Government has no opinion on the affairs of the middle east" more or less. So we basically gave Saddam the green light. However, our tuned changed AFTER he invaded kuwait. I never quite understood that myself.[/quote]

You'll need to show me hard evidence of this. The US Government has VERY MUCH had an opinion on Middle Eastern affairs for a loooooong time. I call shenanigans.

[quote name='E-Z-B']
OR...we could NOT have gone into iraq in the first place, and thus avoided this whole mess.[/quote]

Which, in my example, is the equivalent of doing nothing and hoping that I'm bluffing about having a gun. Good luck on that.
 
[quote name='DPawlik349']Bush had just as much intelligence, if not more than Clinton and the security advisors just said this past week under oath that it was not a very high priority on Bush's list while it was among the top of Clinton's. Oh and may I remind you that within Bush's first year of taking office took the longest vacation of any president. Hrmmm.[/quote]

No one gave it super high priority, no matter how much you want to canonize Clinton, until 9-11. Americans have died before overseas due to terrorist actions and sure, it makes the papers when it happens, but it wasn't a big deal for the general public. It only became a priority when it was demonstrated that we can be attacked on home soil. Before 9-11, we had no need for serious anti-terrorism measures because foreign terrorism had very little impact.

Ponder this: Where was the huge investigations and anti-terrorism measures after the first WTC bombing? Or Oklahoma City? Not enough people died to start up our 'who takes the blame' mentality, I suppose.

And what does a vacation have to do with any of this? That just makes no sense in this context. Grasping for straws?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.[/quote]

Actually if you've paid attention to this little topic you would know that the US has stated that our policy is to not engage/assist in assasinations. Don't start the conspiracy theories on this now either. In addition to this if we had simply assasinated either of them there would be a huge public outcry that we sentenced someone to death without a trial.

ALSO, and most importantly, Saddam was given 24 hours to leave Iraq, had he actually cared about his people he could have ended the situation peacefully by taking political asylum in one of the dozen nations that offered it to him. How come no one ever criticizes that of Saddam, but Bush is criticized because everyone believes he did it for a family vendetta or oil.

The reason we attacked Iraq\for suspected weapons of mass destruction was quite ingenious in my opinion. Look no further than North Korea, everyone says we should have gone after them for WMDs first but that war would have been much higher in casualties, EASILY. However by easily taking down Saddam we sent a message to countries that were attempting to create WMDs (like North Korea, Iran, Libya) that they could be next. You know what happened? Each of those countries, since the war has softened their stance, and in the case of Iran, has actually allowed weapons inspectors in since then.

Everyone seems to want to look at the negatives from the war. Yes I will admit that there were negative aspects, there always is with war. Believe me I don't like it but it is a necessary evil, but its like it was eluded to earlier, pacifism only ends with defeat. Who wants to be speaking japenese or german right now? I think that in the long run the war's positives will far outweigh the negatives).
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']
One problem that clinton had though was getting support to launch an offensive inside afghanistan. It would've been a political nightmare inside the muslim world, much like bush faced with launching an attack on iraq.[/quote]

Remember the 'missile in the camel's butt' incident? That was Clinton lauching the missiles at bin Laden.[/quote]

The missile in th camel's butt incident was GWB, not Clinton. You're getting your facts mixed up. Look here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bush.htm

[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z_B']
But remember, Saddam got those chemical weapons from Bush Sr. himself during the Reagan administration during the Iran contra affair. So in effect, we were Saddam's dealer.[/quote]

[quote name='E-Z-B']
Saddam Hussein sent the U.S. government a memo that they were going to invade kuwait. Our response? "The U.S. Government has no opinion on the affairs of the middle east" more or less. So we basically gave Saddam the green light. However, our tuned changed AFTER he invaded kuwait. I never quite understood that myself.[/quote]

You'll need to show me hard evidence of this. The US Government has VERY MUCH had an opinion on Middle Eastern affairs for a loooooong time. I call shenanigans.[/quote]

Psyclerk, I strongly recommend you watch this video on Hussein: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Then come back and argue with knowledge of history.

[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']
OR...we could NOT have gone into iraq in the first place, and thus avoided this whole mess.[/quote]

Which, in my example, is the equivalent of doing nothing and hoping that I'm bluffing about having a gun. Good luck on that.[/quote]

So let's wage war on NOrth Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran now. We don't want to take that chance that they "have a gun".
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']what does a vacation have to do with any of this? That just makes no sense in this context. Grasping for straws?[/quote]

I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']ALSO, and most importantly, Saddam was given 24 hours to leave Iraq, had he actually cared about his people he could have ended the situation peacefully by taking political asylum in one of the dozen nations that offered it to him. How come no one ever criticizes that of Saddam, but Bush is criticized because everyone believes he did it for a family vendetta or oil.[/quote]

If North Korea gave bush 24 hours to leave the U.S. before launching nuclear weapons at us or japan, would you blame bush for the deaths of thousands of people? This arguement is absurd.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']The reason we attacked Iraq\for suspected weapons of mass destruction was quite ingenious in my opinion. Look no further than South Korea, everyone says we should have gone after them for WMDs first but that war would have been much higher in casualties, EASILY. However by easily taking down Saddam we sent a message to countries that were attempting to create WMDs (like South Korea, Iran, Libya) that they could be next. You know what happened? Each of those countries, since the war has softened their stance, and in the case of Iran, has actually allowed weapons inspectors in since then.[/quote]

I think you mean NORTH korea. But North Korea actually HAS WMD, and they admit it. Sounds like priorities here were squashed under a vendetta.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Everyone seems to want to look at the negatives from the war. Yes I will admit that there were negative aspects, there always is with war. Believe me I don't like it but it is a necessary evil, but its like it was eluded to earlier, pacifism only ends with defeat. Who wants to be speaking japenese or german right now? I think that in the long run the war's positives will far outweigh the negatives).[/quote]

That sounds like Bush when he said "When we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace". :roll:

Again, people, watch this before arguing about Saddam: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']The missile in th camel's butt incident was GWB, not Clinton. You're getting your facts mixed up. Look here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bush.htm[/quote]

You're confused. GWB makes reference to the incident. Clinton was the one with the failed cruise missile attack on bin Laden. GWB's quote is a jab at Clinton's failed attempt.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Psyclerk, I strongly recommend you watch this video on Hussein: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html[/quote]

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't get my 'facts' from a website called www.bushflash.com. :roll:

[quote name='E-Z-B']
So let's wage war on NOrth Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran now. We don't want to take that chance that they "have a gun".[/quote]

Different situations.

North Korea is definitely a threat, and I am worried about the current lack of attention they get. Kim Jong-il is a certified nutcase and should be a huge cause for concern. The only thing keeping us from more North Korea aggression is "The Sleeping Giant" China. Also, Russia, Japan, and South Korea seem to think they can solve things diplomatically. We can hope, but I doubt one can negotiate with the insane.

Libya has gotten better, and has made concessions, even recently. Syria is borderline, and even I've noticed that Iran has improved. If the kids in Iran can ever take over that government, that entire region will improve.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.[/quote]

Maybe his crystal ball was broken and couldn't see into the future. I think we'll find out that Clarke wasn't as distressed as he now claims to have been over things. It helps to paint yourself as a victim...just ask Clarke's NYTimes #1 best-selling book.

Kids, don't trust people whose books are just getting published. Just wait until Clinton writes his memoirs and we see all the great things he did behind the scenes but couldn't make public due to national security. :roll:
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.[/quote]

Maybe his crystal ball was broken and couldn't see into the future. I think we'll find out that Clarke wasn't as distressed as he now claims to have been over things. It helps to paint yourself as a victim...just ask Clarke's NYTimes #1 best-selling book.

Kids, don't trust people whose books are just getting published. Just wait until Clinton writes his memoirs and we see all the great things he did behind the scenes but couldn't make public due to national security. :roll:[/quote]

Exactly! It is definetly suspect that the guy makes a big deal out of this, gets his name put out everywhere, and happens to publish a book about it that has sold enough to make it a number 1 selling book. That's a lot of money in his pocket. Please don't anyone say that he is telling the public about his concerns over national security for a purely altruistic reason. If he was, he would donate all the proceeds from his book to help fight terrorism.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']The missile in th camel's butt incident was GWB, not Clinton. You're getting your facts mixed up. Look here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bush.htm[/quote]


You're confused. GWB makes reference to the incident. Clinton was the one with the failed cruise missile attack on bin Laden. GWB's quote is a jab at Clinton's failed attempt.[/quote]

Alright, I guess I didn't know where you were going with that. I thought you were saying that Clinton said that.
[quote name='PsyClerk']
[quote name='E-Z-B']Psyclerk, I strongly recommend you watch this video on Hussein: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html[/quote]

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't get my 'facts' from a website called www.bushflash.com. :roll: [/quote]

I saw that video a long time ago, and quickly did a search on altavista to find it again. I could've just as easily posted links to www.betterworldlinks.org or www.ccmep.org. It just so happens that that guy liked the video and posted it on his website too. The point was the history about Saddam over the past 30 or so years. If you don't like those "facts", then prove me wrong.

[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']
So let's wage war on NOrth Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran now. We don't want to take that chance that they "have a gun".[/quote]

Different situations.

North Korea is definitely a threat, and I am worried about the current lack of attention they get. Kim Jong-il is a certified nutcase and should be a huge cause for concern. The only thing keeping us from more North Korea aggression is "The Sleeping Giant" China. Also, Russia, Japan, and South Korea seem to think they can solve things diplomatically. We can hope, but I doubt one can negotiate with the insane.

Libya has gotten better, and has made concessions, even recently. Syria is borderline, and even I've noticed that Iran has improved. If the kids in Iran can ever take over that government, that entire region will improve.[/quote]

But should we take a chance that they have "a gun" like you said? According to you, we shouldn't take that chance no matter what. Why did we stop at Iraq?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.[/quote]

Maybe his crystal ball was broken and couldn't see into the future. I think we'll find out that Clarke wasn't as distressed as he now claims to have been over things. It helps to paint yourself as a victim...just ask Clarke's NYTimes #1 best-selling book.

Kids, don't trust people whose books are just getting published. Just wait until Clinton writes his memoirs and we see all the great things he did behind the scenes but couldn't make public due to national security. :roll:[/quote]

Exactly! It is definetly suspect that the guy makes a big deal out of this, gets his name put out everywhere, and happens to publish a book about it that has sold enough to make it a number 1 selling book. That's a lot of money in his pocket. Please don't anyone say that he is telling the public about his concerns over national security for a purely altruistic reason. If he was, he would donate all the proceeds from his book to help fight terrorism.[/quote]

Richard Clarke said on Meet the Press today, that his friends in the White House have told him that those on the taxpayer's payroll working for the administration are actively assassinating his character, and vow to make sure he never makes another dime in washington again. He said he needs to take that into account, but also said he would make contributions to the victims of 9/11 and the families of soldiers who died in Iraq. Let's see texas-millionaire GWB make that sort of promise to those families. Maybe he's still laughing at the whole "soldiers are dying in Iraq because I told them there were WMD!!!" joke.

I'm waiting for the day when Colin Powell will quit, say something about Bush, then find a character assassination against him too. It's like a mafia, where you don't go against the family. (Fredo?)
 
[quote name='Mr. Anderson']This topic is never going to end. Just call it a draw folks! Be the bigger person![/quote]

Seriously.

Lets just say politicians on both sides suck. The end.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Mr. Anderson']This topic is never going to end. Just call it a draw folks! Be the bigger person![/quote]

Seriously.

Lets just say politicians on both sides suck. The end.[/quote]

There's no doubt about that. I can't stand politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top