|By Avidreader2006 (Avidreader2006) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit|
Hey, all! Type in at least one positive comment each for Kerry & Bush. After giving at least one positive comment to BOTH candidates, feel free to give as many negative or positive comments as you wish to Bush or Kerry. PLEASE OBEY THE RULES I HAVE JUST GIVEN!!!
Bush +Did not commit adultry while in office
-mangles the English language
-National Parks will crumble under his reign
his administration has already approved logging in National Parks
-Tax cuts for the rich (if the rich already have all the money they could ever dream of, what else are they going to buy, French wine?)
-How can one have a "C" average at Ivy League schools? Don't you have to be smart in order to get in to Ivy League schools?
-"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning", Our president should at least sound smart when speaking on the topic of education
-"All crime is hate crime", he is a moron for basically saying that a hate crime is the equivalent of a misdemenor(sp?)
-attempted ban on gay marriage, you cannot dictate who people can love, and you cannot justify a ban on gay marriage with your Bible, some people are atheist
-"served" in the National Guard
Kerry + fought in the Vietnam War
+speaks out against war
+Wants to raise minimum wage
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit|
I don't think this is a good idea -- you would be better served looking for similar threads in the past if you're interested in other opinions. These discussions tend to erupt.
|By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:34 am: Edit|
|By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
that comic hit the nail on the head!
|By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit|
Yeah, okay, so the President can't say what he means. Neither can I. Who really cares? There are other qualities a person can have to be a good leader, not that I'm saying he's one. For instance, consistency would be nice.
And you, Avidread, are horribly misinterpreting some of his ideology. It might be good if you took a closer look at some of the issues you are berating rather than just spout the same weak logic used by so many others.
This thread serves no purpose but to incite. And contention is bad! I <3 everyone.
|By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:01 am: Edit|
I only have these 2 things to say. 1) Anyone but Bush. 2) Tom Tomorrow is a great comic strip artist and you all should check out the rest of his stuff.
|By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:39 am: Edit|
This has been open for a week, and it's only had 5 posts?!?! I thought it would have been shut down or there'd be 100 angry posts from both sides. hmmm...
|By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:51 am: Edit|
wow! bush is oh soooo awful
he stutters! omg! how terrible! he doesn't have 4.0 or straight A's on a piece of paper! guess taht means he's dumb and incompetent!
*rolleyes* whatever happened to the importance of courage, and how he handled 9/11. what i love about him is that he is himself...
unlike Kerry who FILMED things after the Vietnam War with his buddies for "future political purposes." Yes, he was heroic for serving 4 months in the military and the war, there's no denying that...but he's spent more than 20 years in the Senate, has voted against arms buildup measurements during the Reagan era repeatedly (which, if he got his way, we'd still be in the freakin Cold War cuz we won it cuz of those policies), he voted to cut military spending, and he voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
and yet he's pretending as if he's this big ole pro military patriotic strong american.
by the way, Hitler was a fabulous speaker and did incredibly well in school.
|By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:29 am: Edit|
WE WON THE COLD WAR?! Do you even know what the Cold War was?
I really haven't heard Kerry say much as far as being pro military, so I won't say that he's not, even though thats the impression I had, but between both of them, I'm not sure not many people could be worse than Bush when it comes to that. And being in the Senate doesn't really have as much to do with patriotism as it does with wanting to have a bigger voice in politics and what your government does. What did he FILM anyway after Vietnam that was so "bad"?
And yes, whatever did happen to the importance of courage indeed, what with Bush in effect dodging draft and even apparently being classified as AWOL for a few months from the Texas National Guard in lieu of actually fighting in Vietnam? How much courage does it take to, after a devastating terrorist attack in two of your nation's key cities, say " You did a bad thing today, and we won't do what you want, Mr. Terrorist"? (Even though some things, like signing the Kyoto Agreement, and taking it easy with even pre 9-11-2001 foreign occupation sure would be nice) What chief-of-state, possibly in need of an approval rating increase, would not say those things?
And by the way, so I guess since Hitler was a bad man who did well in school and was a deft public speaker, that means that to make anything noble and good of ourselves we should all do bad in school (get C's at Yale and fairly average SAT scores to boot), and apparently ignore proper syntax and logic when it comes to English speaking? Anyway, Hitler knew how to lead a country and build what would have become a very large empire, although his ideas were misguided and quite impractical and I would actually hate for the US to aspire towards becoming a very large empire as such.
|By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:43 am: Edit|
Not to say that it's necesarily "heroic" or "courageous" anyway to fight someone you don't know just because someone else tells you to, but that's how you, Shortcakefairy, and most of the American public measures heroism. Not in defiance and looking fear in the eye, but in blind faith and fighting strangers because you are ordered to.
|By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:24 am: Edit|
We did win the Cold War...no ifs ands or buts about it
Ronald Reagan was at the right place and came at the right time (when the Soviet Union was slowly becoming weaker) He knew how to use American resources, both military and economic to fight using inner strength and having the courage to point out the weaknesses and above all, evilness of the other side.
Sure Gorbachev was a willing leader and cooperated with Reagan, but that had little to do with why the Cold War ultimately ended the way it did.
Reagan, with the help of our key ally, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, led the West's victory of the Cold War "without firing a single shot"
What? Saddam Hussein and Iraq are "strangers?" I thought they've been on our radar for over 12 years. Hussein had been playing games with the international community ever since the end of the Persian Gulf War...when he promised to fully disarm his weapons of mass destruction.
Lucifersam, I respect your opinion, but from my point of view, I don't see Bush's decision to take action against Iraq as blind faith and being a puppet. With all the information he was given from every source in his possession, I truly feel that in his heart of hearts, he had to take the risk in going in, becuase he couldn't gamble with our safety and security. And no matter what the intent of going into Iraq was, I still see the outcome as successful. Iraq, though it has a long road of difficult challenges and struggles ahead, is a more hopeful place without Saddam---and the world is a safer place.
I like this analogy: Itís a Sunday night football game. The game is on the line, and from the quarterbackís perspective, he had to pass the ball to another player with the information he has in his possession. The coaches provided him with the intelligence to move forward with the play. Knowing the opportunities that were presented to him at the time, the quarterback took the risk. On Monday morning, all the sports commentators watch the replay second-guessing what he did. The quarterback watched the replay himself and realized that he did not have the full perspective, but managed to throw it to the best player. Regardless of the timing of the throw, the quarterback had the courage to make the play, using all the information he had at the time. Thus, he should not be regretful. The greater game was won in the end.
just reminding you that with the same intelligence Bush had...John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards also voted to go into Iraq.
I'm not saying Kerry is unpatriotic by any means, or a bad person for being intellectual and putting sentences together better than Bush. I just feel that his record as a Senator attests to the fact that he never believed in the necessity for military spending and arms strength etc...which is fine, but that's certainly not the image he's trying to put out right now, which is= strong on defense, strong on defense. Heck, it's politics and he needs votes...but i find that the way he's delineating himself to be quite misleading, and i personally don't think he can handle the War on Terror as well as Bush has. In addition to the War on Terror, handling the situation in Iraq is by no means some easy task, but i feel that the Bush Administration took on the responsibilit, and has an obligation to finish the job as well.
Democrats know that they can't win this election singing Kumbaya, and Let there be Peace, and less weapons spending.
I guess the worst place to post something liek this is on a college message board, but in my opinion, GPA, college-name, and background does nothing to define a person or a leader. My favorite leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan...did not attend fancy ivy leagues, (or in Lincoln's case, barely went to high school)
They were leaders with vision, and faced with the most difficult tasks of our nation's history-- (Lincoln-Civil War, Truman-Atomic Bomb, Reagan-Cold War) and they did not base their decisions on college education, but on COMMON SENSE, a sense of purpose, and good judgment-->Harvard can't teach you those things.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit|
There are many things to respond to but I don't think anyone wants a repeat of this conversation that we've had so many times. Nonetheless one thing stuck out ...
"becuase he couldn't gamble with our safety and security"
But he could gamble with the safety of thousands upon thousands of our young men and women with flimsy evidence at best?
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit|
Shortcake, I've got to run to an appointment and don't have time for a long post at the moment but you really really really might want to ponder the support for Saddam Hussein by the US during the Iraq/Iran war, a time when Iraq was using poison gas on both the Iranians and the Kurds. Donald Rumsfeld was one of the chief high-level US diplomats involved at the time.
US involvement with Iraq has been very...cynical.
|By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit|
Hindsight is 20/20, Craigk10. After we went in, and saw extensively what was going on inside Iraqi borders, it's so easy to pretend that we had that info before we started the war. Must we forget those hectic times after 9/11?
We were dazed and confused after the 9/11 attacks. We didn't know who was out there in the world, planning another terrorist attack. All our President had was the intel he received from CIA and other sources, and that evidence pointed to Iraq. He couldn't have known that the intel was faulty. And who knows what Saddam would have done had he had WMD? Aim them at the US or her allies, most likely. Invading was a calculated risk, but it was one that had to be taken given the circumstances of the time. Unfortunately, the risk didn't pay glorious dividends as Bush hoped. Although it sounds heinous, it could have ultimately boiled down to: if Americans have to die due to terrorist actions, who would you choose: civilians, or soldiers?
I think that people who feel that they can't vote for Bush solely because of his actions in Iraq are narrow-minded and ignorant. That is not to say that we should all vote for Bush, of course. His views on social issues are extremely conservative and may turn off anti-civil union and pro-choice advocates. Such people should obviously vote for Kerry. Of course, Kerry is anti-civil union as well, but he's infinitely more liberal than the incumbent.
As for myself, I'm undecided until the social views of John Kerry become more clear. Unlike most people here in California, I'm going to make an informed decision with my vote, not a "anyone but Bush because it's the vogue thing to do here."
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit|
go ask richard clarke if hindsight was 20/20.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit|
The Iraq evidence was terrible -- Chalabi was the insider. That part at a minimum he could've of recognized as faulty. I admit that there was intelligence out there, but there was also intelligence the other way as well. You have actually admitted to it being a hasty decision with "We were dazed and confused after the 9/11 attacks." I don't think that's a good time to, oh I don't know, get in a war. I understand what you are saying, but it comes down to the administration's tunnel-vision that never and still does not waver.
"if Americans have to die due to terrorist actions, who would you choose: civilians, or soldiers?"
How about we take on terrorism pragmatically with policy changes, etc. so no one has to die.
You are right that voting for Kerry because of Iraq is somewhat flawed because everyone was fooled (not me though and voting for Nader is all right with this reasoning). I can, however, vote against him because of how he handled Iraq and Afghanistan, which put American lives both at home and abroad at further risk.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit|
Thanks, I forgot about that one.
|By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit|
"How about we take on terrorism pragmatically with policy changes, etc. so no one has to die."
Uhm, right. That'll work. Instead of going to war to try to root out terrorism, let's readjust our way of thinking so that they're not terrorists anymore.
"I admit that there was intelligence out there, but there was also intelligence the other way as well."
If there are conflicting reports, one that says that Iraq is an immediate threat, and one that says it's not, and your view on how the world looks at the US has been shattered along with the World Trade Towers, what choice would you have but to risk being wrong for the chance that you could prevent disaster if you're right?
As for Richard Clarke, I agree that some of Bush's cabinet and intel sources need to get the boot. But after the Iraq war, I suspect they are all more aware of the implications of vague evidence than they were a couple years ago. On the other hand, Richard Clarke is an angry man who is the hero in his own life. I wouldn't point to Richard Clarke and say your view on Bush has been vindicated.
|By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit|
Why can't you people see that the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq never had anything to do with the War on Terror?
I irk whenever Bush propels his rhetoric on Terror. It sickens me that he somehow sees the war in Iraq the main front for his failed "War on Terror."
The administration's initial push for the invasion had nothing to do with terrorism - in fact, his only argument was to quell an "imminent threat" that Saddam's regime posed onto the American populace through his clandestine WMD program. It's clear now that he posed none. Faulty intelligence reports? BAH. I blame the itchy trigger finger of our incompetent president. If he had only waited a few moments longer, the administration might have seen that there were no WMD's there, and that the reports of the inspectors would have superseded the previous intelligence reports. But no, Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to either expose his weapons program or sit tight while we invade - an ultimatum that was, in hindsight, impossible for Saddam to even consider.
And in doing so, Bush effectively made us look like a tyrant in the eyes of the international community. Possibly even severed long standing alliances. Gave the terrorist something even more to fight on about.
Now I'm not taking Saddam's side.. the only slight justification I have for this fiasco we call an occupation is that an evil dictator has been toppled. But, keep in mind that I attack Bush because he made a mistake, and it pisses me off that he tries to only expose the seemingly serendipitous good that emerged from the war that was, undeniably, based upon err and wrongful judgment.
Continuously, the administration tries to justify Iraq by connecting them with other groups of terror, e.g. Cheney's recent failed and embarrassing attempt to connect Iraq with Al-Quieda yet again. What does this tell you? It tells you that we have an administration that REFUSES to admit its mistakes. Indicative of the Republican demeanor? So be it.
On Kerry: I donít think just because a senator voted against more military spending indicates that he is against the military, or against sustaining the most powerful military in the world. Thatís a dangerous political mindset. I once saw a Bush/Cheney commercial that specifically accused Kerry of not wanting to put more body armor on troops in Iraq, implying that Kerry cared nothing for individual soldiers. NUTS! The scores of men who served under Kerry in Vietnam will tell you how much he cares for the individual soldier. Come on people, Democrats donít put military spending on the top of their agendas. Do you know the whole story? Might there have been other bills that he wanted that money to go to? Social security, perhaps?
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit|
We are not going to root out terrorism with these wars. That's not going to happen. To get rid of terrorism (if that's your objective) you have to stop what makes people become terrorists (i.e. US policy). That's all I was saying. I guarantee there are more potential terrorists in the world post-war Iraq than beforehand. I don't understand how people can think that occupying Muslim countries will help solve this problem.
But people knew that many of the main intelligence sources (Chalabi) were bogus. The intelligence ratio was somewhere around 70-30. I understand it is a risk to not blindly accept 30% of the intelligence, but it's one that I would take.
By the way, I don't think there was anything out there that said Iraq was an "immediate threat" but just that it was a potential threat -- I could be wrong, however.
|By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:44 pm: Edit|
"By the way, I don't think there was anything out there that said Iraq was an "immediate threat" but just that it was a potential threat -- I could be wrong, however."
No, you're absolutely correct. North Korea posed (and still does) a larger threat than Iraq ever did, in terms of Nuclear arms capability.
|By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit|
Onnihs: your blind and unilateral rage against the Bush administration only shows that you don't have a full understanding of the situation at hand. No political problem is in black and white, and your tirade is reminiscent of Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh: extremists of both sides of the political spectrum handicapped by an inability or unwillingness to see beyond their own stunted beliefs. While your vigor is refreshing to some extent, I think that you should try being more reasonable about it. Although Craigk10 and I disagree on a large part of the Bush-Kerry debate, it appears to me that he has done his research and isn't a victim of the "media hates Bush so I must hate Bush" movement.
Craigk10: I think that Chalabi was considered more of an ally in taking Iraq than an intelligence source. I must admit my knowledge on the subject is limited, though.
update: Onnihs, are you saying that we should have gone into North Korea instead of Iraq? That's even stupider than invading Iraq in the first place. North Korea did not have any Al-Qaeda ties, a claim (whether eventually found true or not is irrelevent) that was attributed to Saddam's Iraq.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit|
Chalabi was a main intelligence source and one of the favorites in becoming the new leader of Iraq ... then they figured out he was talking to the Iranians about us breaking their codes.
Why couldn't North Korea be as much of a threat as Iraq? The only real thing Hussein and Bin Laden shared was hatred of the US ... doesn't that fit North Korea as well.
Go read page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report and you'll see that the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was not accepted even pre-war. (There is nothing in what presented that was acquired since the conflict began).
|By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit|
Pookdogg, I'll be reasonable about it as soon as the administration admits to its wrongdoings. Why don't you be reasonable to the scores of innocents killed by agreeing that we've wronged them by conducting an unjustified preemptive strike on their sovereignty - an illegal act, btw, in the eyes of International Law.
Be careful who you accuse of being blind and unilateral. The very person I accuse of incompetence boasts more qualities of "stunted beliefs" and unilateral ideas than I do. I'm simply one of the oodles of whistleblowers that are trying to exploit the wrong path our nation has taken in the cradle of this administration. And yes, in respect to this presidential election, things can be seen in Black and White: Youíre for Bush, or youíre against him. Simple as that.
And yes, in the context of the initial claims of the administration, North Korea posed a much larger and imminent threat than Iraq. It still does. If you find the notion of invading North Korea ridiculous, then it should be clear that invading Iraq was just as ridiculous. And the claim that Al-Qaeda had ties to Saddam was ridiculous itself! You don't go and INVADE and CONQUER a nation just because it has unproven (UNPROVEN!) ties with our enemy. So you think we should invade Saudi Arabia as well? How about Iran? Sudan? They surely have some kind of ties with Al-Qaeda. Nope. But we sure did invade Iraq with a quickness.
I find it funny how you can only critique the manner in which Iíve delivered these arguments, but can offer nothing to rebut them. Nice work.
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:44 pm: Edit|
-Purple heart winner- and he won it thrice
-Is an intellectual
-Won 3 purple hearts
-Won 3 purple hearts
-Is a liberal weenie
-Is the UN's bi-otch
-Is Herman Munster
-Offer flip flops
-Has more waffels than a house of pancakes
-Offers tax breaks
-Yes it's true, he does kick ass!
-Dumb as a doorknob
-Can't say nuclear...that really scares me
That's all I've got for now... ;)
|By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit|
In the end, Hunter1985 probably hits the nail on the head: amazing how accurate a flash cartoon can be, isn't it?
"...in respect to this presidential election, things can be seen in Black and White: Youíre for Bush, or youíre against him. Simple as that."
Rrrright. So if I agree with some of his policies, but disagree with others, where does that put me? Contrary to what you might think, I'm not a hardline Republican. I'm a moderate who is increasingly infuriated with the self-righteous attitude of ultra-liberals who hate Bush for overly simplistic reasons. Do I know who was morally right and wrong? Of course not. I don't even know if I'm voting for Bush come November. Depending on what my opinion of Kerry's social issues are, I may end up voting Kerry/Edwards. But with the playing field somewhat unfairly tilted against the President by unavoidable circumstances and a narrow-minded left (and right, I might add), I feel the need to try to really get an unbiased view of the whole situation. Because, unlike my color-blind friend Onnihs, I think that the election is far from good guy-bad guy black and white.
Now, onto Onnihs. You boldly and angrily say that the invasion of Iraq wasn't as necessary as the removal of regimes in North Korea and elsewhere. Well, unfortunately, the proximity of North Korea to South Korea and Japan makes it a much more prickly situation than Iraq. Saudi Arabia and other nations also differ from Iraq in many ways. Saddam's regime was infinitely more brutal than the rule of Kim Jong Il in North Korea, and last time I checked, North Korea hadn't tried to invade the South (a la Iraq-Kuwait) in over half a century. The justifications behind the actions Bush has taken are many, but they don't often reach the surface of public awareness. If one is just willing to dig, though, he or she may find some truth. Does that truth say that Bush was a good president? One of the worst? I don't know yet. I'm still diggin'. Until you dig, you'll never know.
Unfortunately, I may be speaking to a brick wall here. I am open to new ideas to make the Bush puzzle more clear, but all I received are the same old Michael Moore-induced opinions that I get from every liberal I talk to. Unfortunately, the brick walls I run into when talking to ultra-conservatives are equally frustrating. The way you dictate your posts suggests that you are passionate about what you believe in, which is good, of course. But a passion paired with an inability to think from the other side is useless at the least, and dangerous at the worst. Consequently, I'm labelling this discussion as over, lest I get sucked further and further to the right wing. To quote Wyclef Jean, "I'll be gone till November."
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:19 pm: Edit|
"Saddam's regime was infinitely more brutal than the rule of Kim Jong Il in North Korea"
Let's not go into that comparison -- it really could go either way. The number of deaths due to famine in North Korea (preventable famine also) should not be ignored and is every bit as terrible as what Hussein did. Also, Iraq hasn't tried to invade Kuwait in over ten years so the time continuum argument doesn't really work. Both would do it again if they could. They both were potential threats, which does bring up a good question -- why Iraq? I'm not a conspiracist by any means, but it is a good question. No one is saying we should've invaded somewhere else -- we're just posing this interesting question.
You say that there are many good reasons to invade Iraq, but that the public isn't aware of them. That's a flawed argument because it would be the administration's fault for not making them known and it should anger the American people for not being told. The fact that the public has to "dig" to get those "facts" is a huge problem for me personally in trusting this administration.
|By Kousuke (Kousuke) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit|
anyone wanna explain to me what was so AMAZING about how bush "Handled" 9/11? i dont know any other way anyone could have handled it. what, did you expect someone to punch the firefighters and say "work faster, its because of your attitude that people die"? probably not. i think him taking pictures with people and looking sad, wasnt something that was so "OOOOOOOO, AAAAAAH, HES AMAZING."
|By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit|
As far as North Korea goes, to me logical diplomacy between them and the US must be exhausted before talks of war go up.
And earlier I was not trying to paint Bush as an absolutely mindless subhuman or anything like that, but to ME how he did handle both "9-11" and Iraq and how he's been handling North Korea, and actually most other countries, could have been went about in much more logical and ultimately peaceful ways.
And although I wasn't very old at the time, from what I've read about it (and I've read a lot), the only good thing Reagan really did during his Presidency for America itself was the improvement of the economy. The whole Soviet Union mess is easily arguable however, although the Cold War still was not really won by anyone. Kennedy and Carter, despite a few of their own significant faults, were much better Presidents.
I would like to add that Hunter1985, although still seemingly biased or maybe just way too middle of the road, did a very good job above.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit|
Let's not praise Reagan too much. Did he help the economy? Yes -- but what part of the population benefited because of it? The elite.
By the way, both sides need to simmer down and use some logic. A little less sensationalism would help. This isn't targeted at anyone specifically, but it just turns people off to your argument. I could go further then I do, but it would make me less persuasive because no one would agree with me and just shut down.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|