SearchRecent blog posts
» more Latest videosSyndicate |
Please sign in to post or comment.
Liberals first, Americans second?Posted by gimpel on July 16, 2006 - 12:05 PM After 444 days of impotent “diplomacy and negotiations†by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan gained the release of the American hostages. The threat of using power by a man willing to use that power is quite effective. But, Ronald Reagan didn’t have Cindy Sheehan, the New York Times, Michael Moore, the mainstream media, or the rest of the extremist liberal frenzy attacking him on a daily basis. Presidents have always had to deal with those who disagreed with them. But those in disagreement generally stayed within certain boundaries, and kept their criticism within certain proportions that fell far short of treason. Once again, the world is trying “diplomacy and negotiations†with Iran. In 1980, Iran feared the future President. Now, they appear to fear the current President. All Americans should be united by the threat to freedom in the world. Our President is weakened in the world by the shameful, irrational dissent of the extremist liberals. And the evil in the world attacks… Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 17, 2006 - 4:03 PM.
Well said. I think a lot of this administration’s mishaps have been over exposed and over analyzed by the media. The problem is that they will report what they want and how they want. Perhaps we got into this situation in a bad manner or for the wrong reasons as some might say, but we're in it. I think the next elections will be very skewed by items of unimportance for our country. Global warming (myth), same sex marriages, etc when we should be focusing on our economy, our troops, matters of diplomacy, and keeping our country safe without compromising our freedoms (i.e. not being under surveillance [insert 1984 reference here]). And all these "cause heads" compromise our freedoms because they're trying to make everyone happy (i.e. reverse racism, homosexuals getting violently upset because someone disagrees with homosexuality, basically getting mad at someone for having an opinion not their own). They are slowing the forward progression of society and we need to stop protecting stupid people and let Darwinism (survival of the fittest) unfold as it should. Submitted by rottie on July 17, 2006 - 9:22 PM.
You need to review your history. The Reagan administration negotiated a deal with the Ayatollah in Iran. The conditions for the release of the hostages were as follows: no US interference in Iranian dealings, the unfreezing of Iranian assets inside and outside the US, the cancellation of all sanctions, and the return of the Shah’s property. In January of 1981, the agreement was signed, and on January 20, the day of Reagan’s inauguration, the fifty-three hostages were released after 444 days in Iran. This was not the only time the Reagan administration submitted to the will of terrorists and brokered deals with the Iranians. Remember Iran-Contra? If you are going to make blanket statements about liberals, at least you can present the facts. Not some right wing fairytale aimed at discrediting people that are interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course anything not right wing conservative won't be posted so I don't know why I bother. Submitted by gimpel on July 18, 2006 - 8:40 PM.
I prefer real history to make believe history… things that actually happened to the wild imagination of Reagan haters… Your version was made up, and has been repeated so many times that naïve people believe… Submitted by mydtwc on July 18, 2006 - 12:59 AM.
Gimpel's Bread seems to forget a lot of things. That is if it doesn't fit into the right wing agenda. There is nothing unusual about that though. It seems to be a common conservative malady. Lies and half truthes while all the time holding themselves up to be the "PARTY OF GOD". "THE MORAL MAJORITY" What a joke that is!!!! Most republicans are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on Gods green earth. Submitted by kevinbgoode on July 18, 2006 - 8:08 AM.
You know. . .as a gay American, I find it really offensive that you believe that gay citizens get upset simply because YOU don't "approve" of "homosexuality." Why on earth would you even be so arrogant as to think any of them care at all about your "opinion" on someone else's relationships? It seems to me that the only issue has been securing legal rights to have control over universal life experiences, something which seems to upset some heterosexuals for some inane and unexplained reason beyond some "disapproval." It is utterly amazing that people who expect to ignore the observations of others into THEIR lives expect to have the right to stand in judgement of others, particularly without knowing much about the experience of those lives. Yes. . .wedge issues will be used, because that has been the disingenous manner in which the Republican Party has campaigned in the last election cycle. Will the pressing problems be tackled for this nation? Not a chance - because the same middle-school minded people who elected these middle-school minded leaders don't appear to have the capacity to handle real issues. I don't regard a President as "strong" who: 1) launches a "culture war" in his own country at the same time we are supposed to be fighting wars overseas; 2) cannot seem to use even the simplest manners at a dinner table during a major international conference at someone else's country; 3)seems incapable of following the law, even though he claims to represent a party that is always talking about the "rule of law"; and 4) cannot realize that this country has serious problems that must be addressed. If this was a strong President, there would have been enough troops in Iraq to get the job DONE instead of multiple tours of duty, a much-too-large National Guard presence, and the exorbitant cost in money and materials. A strong President would not be giving unbidded contracts to a pet corporation who overbilled the taxpayers of this nation. A strong President would not have stood for having his own judicial nominee undermined BEFORE the Senate could even have a single meeting simply because a group of religious extremists threw a tantrum. Why is it that conservatives hate America so much? Submitted by gimpel on July 18, 2006 - 8:41 PM.
I’ve never typed the words “gay†or “homosexual†in this blog. Well, until now. Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 19, 2006 - 10:30 AM.
You were offended because I used that as an example to make an argument? And did you just address the president's table manners as a point to disregard him as a strong leader? I never said that I didn't approve of homosexuality. If you're gay then you're gay, it's a free country, I don't care, keep work on getting your marriage tax break. Plus gay guys leave more women for the picking and they'll go shopping with them so I don't have to. And YOU obviously care about my opinion otherwise you wouldn't be offended by it. Submitted by kevinbgoode on July 21, 2006 - 1:08 AM.
Your previous remark: "homosexuals getting violently upset because someone disagrees with homosexuality, basically getting mad at someone for having an opinion not their own)" - where exactly did that come from? Isn't the whole point of a blog to encourage discussion? I was directly my remarks to your statement and asking why you thought homosexuals gave a care to (assuming your) opinion "because someone disagress with homosexuality, basically getting mad at someone for having an opinoin not their own)" Surely you have some reference point for such a remark. Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 21, 2006 - 11:56 AM.
I do have a reference point from that. I read an article that came from a Boston newspaper where some homosexual men became violent towards a guy that was protesting gay marriage and they sent the guy to the hospital. Just the reverse of what we normally hear when a bunch of meathead rednecks beat up a gay guy. Reverse discrimination. Submitted by kevinbgoode on July 21, 2006 - 10:48 PM.
If your reference point is a solitary news item involving one victim and a small group, and that qualifies to broadly brush 20 million Americans, then wouldn't it obviously follow that the number of incidents involving violence against gay Americans indicates that it is actually "heterosexuals getting upset because someone disagrees with heterosexuality, basically getting mad at someone for having an opinoin not their own?" Submitted by dragondust16 on July 18, 2006 - 8:57 AM.
I agree that President Bush has done things that have been mistakes and they have cost this country. However, every President that we have had has done something stupid and selfish along the way. I also don't agree with everything Bush has done because anyone with a functioning brain would see that it was wrong. However, that does not make me anti-Bush, only an American that thinks for herself. The media on the other hand is completely mindless. The media here in this country is hell bent to do everything possible to make Bush look like the biggest joke this country has ever elected. Therefore, all the uneducated and lazy people that refuse to think for themselves or do a little research believe everything that is printed in the paper or is aired on CNN. The media knows this, and in turn they print half-truths and slanted stories that sway public opinion. It is just like the war in Iraq. When was the last time you actually heard anything good about what is being done over there? (Besides blowing up terrorists) When was the last time you heard praise for the fighting men and women who are making a positive difference? You won't normally because that doesn't sell newspapers or make ratings go up. The media is after money 24/7 that is how they choose their stories, and it is how they choose their words for those stories. It is that simple. There are a lot of good things happening over there and there are still soldiers fighting there to save a people from a terrorist government. Women were being rapped and murdered for little of nothing, children were being run through wood chippers to make their friends join the Iraqi military, and whole groups of people were being eradicated like mice. That is why we are there. These soldiers should have our respect, if for nothing more than doing a job that the rest of us are too queasy or chicken to do. If more 'Americans' would stand up and say we aren't going to put up with this liberal nonsense and half-truths, then this country would see a turn around, but since most are not even thinking for themselves what do you expect. Submitted by imdstuf on July 24, 2006 - 2:01 PM.
It is not just the media, many soldiers have been stating how bad things are over there. When we initially attacked we destroyed their infastruction so bad that it will take years to repair. If we had not gotten ourselves bogged down in Iraq, we might not have Iran and North Korea showing off like they are. They ( actual countries of nuclear threat) know we are bogged down after attacking a country that was no real threat. As for history, who helped Saddam Hussein get into power? Us. Go look it up. We are in Iraq to provide money to Halibertin. This is dragging on like Vietman, pumping money to the war machine. As for the biased liberal media....I guess being surrounded by Fox News, The Augusta Chronicle, Austin Roads, Rush Limbaugh..I never knew the media was liberal. Submitted by lazydazy on July 26, 2006 - 10:49 AM.
Okay, imdstuf, being that you are surrounded by Fox, The Augusta Chronicle, Austin Rhodes, Rush, (the last two I have no use for either)etc... How come you don't mention the fact that there are a lot of good stories coming out of Iraq from soldiers coming home since those shows/networks you named seem to be the only ones that mention it? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on personality types in relation to political views. Just my own personal observation, but liberals seem to be generally "glass half-empty" people and conservatives are more "glass half-full" people. Liberals seem to be more "woe is me". Conservatives are "look on the bright side". Interesting.... Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 18, 2006 - 9:14 AM.
I think the media is the reason for the way Americans are perceived today. Many people in other countries perceive Americans in a bad light, and why wouldn't they? When they turn on the TV or open their news paper they watch/read about how we hate our president and the people that like him are a bunch of rednecks. There's no way to please all the people in a nation but we shouldn't make our leader look like a horrible person that's dumb as a brick even if that is true. Why? Everything rolls down hill. If a Lieutenant looks bad then his whole platoon looks bad even though his platoon maybe locked on. This is why people abroad think Americans are war hungry and stupid. Submitted by mydtwc on July 18, 2006 - 1:53 PM.
The media????????????? That is the joke of the century. For the most part this president AND this whole administration has been given a free pass by the media. In fact the republicans like to talk about the liberal media being so bias. I have to agree that most of the media is bias. However they are conservative bias and certainly not liberal bias. TAKE THIS NEWSPAPER FOR INSTANCE. FOX NEWS is another good example. They are no more than the PR firm for the white house and republican party. I am posting ba story that was just released an hour or so ago. Just another example of this administrations overstepping legalities. If Bill Clinton had done 1/10 of what George Bush has done, the republicans AND the media would have crucified him. WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program that monitors Americans' international calls and e-mails when terrorism is suspected. The department's Office of Professional Responsibility announced earlier this year it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency intercepts some telephone calls and e-mail without court approval. At the time, the office said it could not obtain security clearance to examine the classified program. Under sharp questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales said that Bush would not grant the access needed to allow the probe to move forward. "It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" asked Specter, R-Pa. "The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales told the committee hearing, during which he was strongly criticized on a range of national security issues by Specter and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the panel's senior Democrat. Last week, under a deal with Specter, Bush agreed conditionally to a court review of his antiterror eavesdropping operations. When the program was disclosed in December, it outraged Democrats and civil libertarians who said Bush overstepped his authority. Bush's 2001 directive authorized the National Security Agency to monitor _ without court warrants _ the international communications of people on U.S. soil when terrorism is suspected. The administration initially resisted efforts to write a new law, contending that no legal changes were needed. But after months of pressure, officials have grown more open to legislation. Under the deal with Specter, the president agreed to support a bill that could submit the program to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a constitutional review. Last week, Gonzales said the bill gives Bush the option of submitting the NSA program to the intelligence court, rather than requiring the review. Submitted by dragondust16 on July 18, 2006 - 4:03 PM.
****up on soap box**** Alright, first of all I agree that the media has its own agenda as does the President. I am not disputing that. However, I disagree that the majority of the media is right wing republican backers. I agree that Fox News is more middle road than most, but not republican. My point is that the media leaves out information that all Americans should be entitled to. A well rounded (that includes liberal and not so liberal) story instead of one slanted in the direction of anti-war, pro-gay, anti-soldier, and anti-Bush. Now open your eyes and journey over to CNN right now and read their headline stories and tell me where the majority (not all, there are exceptions to all rules) of the stories fit. Do they not fit into those categories? Now what side do those issues fall on? I can tell you it isn't into the conservative right. Now travel over to any other media you can think of, or better yet open a newspaper and tell me how many of those stories fall into those categories? The majority will. There is also the other issue of the thought process at work here people. When you read a story it isn't going to have a disclaimer at the top "Ok kiddies now this story is going to bash what our fighting forces are doing" no they are going to show you the dying Iraqi's that were killed by our bombs or they will show you a soldier covered in the enemy's blood. Or tell you how many "innocent" people have been killed in the crossfire. But they refuse to tell you that those "innocent" Iraqi's where just carrying machine guns and were shooting at our soldiers, or that the blood on that soldier came from the man that was just trying to kill him or his buddy. That head isn't just a hat rack, how about using it a little. When you read a story or see a picture for an article, ask yourself why they chose the words they used and the picture they provided. Better yet ask yourself what information is missing. It is all to point your mind in one direction. The way they want you to think. Obviously, most people go along like sheep. Oh and by the way....IF Clinton had done his job when he was in office and taken care of the first terrorist attack on the WTC then there probably wouldn't have been another, but since he was a wuss and too scared to do anything but send 4 missles over we lost many innocent lives. Bush may be wrong on some things but at least he's got a set. Submitted by mydtwc on July 18, 2006 - 6:05 PM.
Dragondust 16 first of all to say that Fox News is middle of the road is downright laughable. They are so far right that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell probably are left of them. CNN is pretty much middle of the road. If a station isn't in lockstep with the right wing, according to the the right wing nuts, they are liberal. Nothing could be more right wing than this paper. But if they run a factual story that doesn't absolutely agree with the conservative agenda, the wingnuts will be screaming liberal media. And as far as your having a disclaimer junk goes and what some of the stories say about our fighting troops, just look at the 100,000 dead NON-COMBATANTS to get some sort of a picture. The Abu-Grahib prison scandal, the torture, the rapes, and HADITHA. The following was your statement from your previous post. There are a lot of good things happening over there and there are still soldiers fighting there to save a people from a terrorist government. Women were being rapped and murdered for little of nothing, children were being run through wood chippers to make their friends join the Iraqi military, and whole groups of people were being eradicated like mice. That is why we are there. ---------------------------------------------------------------- You know it's kind of funny. I thought we were there because of weapons of mass destruction. I can still remember Secretary Of Defense Rumsfeld saying it was a slam dunk. That we knew they were there and knew where they were. When there were no weapons of mass destruction they tried to implant in all of the idiots heads that we were there because of 9/11. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. And the REALLY sad part is there were no terrorist in Iraq prior to our invasion. Now we have created enough to last for the next 50 years. Now I am pretty confident that we have killed more innocent Iraqi's since this war started than Saddam Hussein ever came close to killing. In fact, I personally would stake my life on it. We have totally annialated their infrastructure but that is really a good thing because now Halliburton can get billions in no bid contracts. You know; the same Halliburton that was caught several times overcharging 100s of millions of dollars and didn't even get a slap on the wrist. OH AND BY THE WAY WE STILL DON'T have the man responsible for 9/11. Osama Bin Forgotten!!!!!!!!! Submitted by gimpel on July 18, 2006 - 8:46 PM.
Hmmm… everyone thought they had wmd’s Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem: the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decadelong war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.... I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Bill Clinton, July 2003: "[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted-for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there." Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. ... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we." Howard Dean, Democrat, September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Howard Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Saddam] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf war. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country." Howard. Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner." Submitted by mydtwc on July 19, 2006 - 6:44 AM.
Gimpel, I am going to accept that all of your quotes are real and legitimate. One particularly caught my attention. Bill Clinton, July 2003: "[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted-for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Now all of the conservatives say Clinton never did anything. It sort of sounds like JUST MAYBE something was done in 98 and he just never got verification of it. However Dubya should have been working off of better intelligence than that. Do you remember Hans Blix, the U.N. inspector? He said there were no weapons of mass destruction there. Of course every conservative pundit, cartoonist, etc. made fun of him and said he couldn't find his glasses if they were on his forehead. Some of the people that were with the C.I.A. said the Bush administration had been told there probably weren't any weapons there but chose to ignore that advice. They ignored and in some cases poked fun at anybody that disagreed with what they wanted to hear. Just like Ambassador Joe Wilson who disputed what they said about the aluminum tubes. They outed his wife Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative in an effort to discredit him. Of course Mr Bush said that if he found out where the leak came from they would be taken care of. Well we now know that his second in command along with his top dirty trickster Karl Rove was involved. And once again I will have to say that after all of the denial, at least Mr Bush is as good as his word. He is taking care of them. And another thing that should be mentioned here is that the senators and congressmen including Kerry and Hillary Clinton DID NOT HAVE ACCESS to the same intelligence that the president had access to. Of course the mindless followers that listen to people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the LIBERAL MEDIA (LMAO) didn't know that because they are drumming it in peoples heads that the congress and the senate saw the same intelligence that Dubya did, which just isn't true. Submitted by mydtwc on July 19, 2006 - 7:16 AM.
And I almost forgot gimpel to say I am sorry that your candidate lost in the primary for Lieutenant Governor. You never said so but I am sure you had to be for the good CHRISTIAN Ralph Reed. The man that started the CHRISTIAN COALITION. This is just another GOOD example of your GOOD CHRISTIAN REPUBLICANS. I have studied the bible pretty throughly and I will guarantee if Jesus were walking the earth today, he wouldn't be a republican. Oh and getting back to your original post and your reply to rottie. If you are even 1/2 as smart as I think you are, you know that what rottie said is 100 percent straight facts. But yet you choose to try and poke fun and basically say he is full of crap and just a Reagan hater, etc. If those words were coming from a position of not knowing better, that would be one thing but I'm pretty sure in your case it's not coming from a position of ignorance. So that means to me that you are plainly and simply A LIAR..... I am still waiting on you to tell us a little about yourself and whose payroll you're on. With the conservative drivel (AND LIES) that you're putting out I am betting that you have a vested interest in the republican party doing well. Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 19, 2006 - 9:11 AM.
Jesus was a libertarian ... not many people know that. Oh and Buddha and Muhammad are Centrists if anyone was wondering. Who are you to speak for Jesus's political views? A bit self-righteous ourselves maybe? And Fox News is conservative and CNN is liberal, end of discussion there (people blinded by their party). Why do you care whose payroll he's on? Are you going to call his boss and complain that you don't like his blog? When it comes to politics everyone lies, even if it's unintentional. The media reports what they think is important which may not be the whole story, or tell the story that they want to tell it. Politicians slip slide and flip flop so much they don't know if they're lying or telling the truth. And if you studied the Bible so thoroughly you'd know that the first letter in the word Bible is capitalized. And which are you claiming: ignorance or are you a liar? Submitted by mydtwc on July 19, 2006 - 1:42 PM.
Jesus was a Libertarian??? Amazing the things you learn on here. Is Fox conservative? Is the Pope Catholic? Like I said they might as well be the public relation firm representing this administration. That wouldn't be quite as bad if they didn't try to pass what they do as news. And then they have the nerve to call it fair and balanced on top of that. What a joke that is! Is CNN liberal? I sure haven't seen anything that give me that impression. They pretty much report the news the way it happens but like I said if a radio or TV station, magazine or newspaper doesn't report the news in lockstep with what the conservatives want to hear and actually are fair and balanced they are accused of being liberal. Why do I want to know who gimpel works for? Do I want to call his boss and complain that I don't like his blog? No because I have a feeling that his "BOSS" has something to do with him making the blogs in the first place. I would just like to see a little honesty about what the real agenda is. And as far as your everybody lies when it comes to politics statement, I have got to disagree there also. I will admit that when it comes to the politicians themselves, the lying has gotten totally out of control. That doesn't mean that we have to lie right along with them. This administration has told more lies than any administration in history all the while talking about what good moral people they are. Not only have they proven to be the most inept, they have proven themselves to be the most dishonest. Now for whether bible is capitalized or not capitalized. I could very easily claim ignorance on this one (S.C. education and all) HOWEVER neither of those things is the reason I don't capitalize bible. Why do we capitalize BIBLE? Before I go into detail about why I don't, I would like to hear your reason why you think we do. Oh! And by the way. Have I studied the bible? Yes for many years. I have been a member of Curtis Baptist since Reverend Lawrence Bradley was the minister. Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 19, 2006 - 2:48 PM.
The Bible is capitalized because it is a proper noun, a name. It is refering to a title of a specific book. There are different versions of the Bible, but they are all the Bible. We don't call it the Book (well some do), what book is that someone refering to? Die fröhliche Wissenschaft? (On that note its a good read and a favorite book of mine, good poetry at the beginning.) Isn't SC ranked somewhere around 48 out of 50 for state funded education systems? And yes CNN is liberal as I am assuming you are. The reason you don't think CNN is liberal is because you're liberal and agree with it, much like people that are consevative may not think that Fox News is conservative, which it is, or that's my theory. I get all my news from Univision, and one day I'm going to learn Spanish so I'll know what is going on, and from making people mad on blogs. Ok you're liberal and Baptist in the south ... don't they have rules against that? And I dont' know who that Bradley dude so I have no frame of reference. Submitted by I4PUTT on July 19, 2006 - 3:22 PM.
Rottie Final months The hostages come home, as celebrated on the streets of Washington, D.C.The death of the Shah on July 27 and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in September, 1980 made Iran more receptive to resolve the hostage crisis, while Carter lost the November 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan. Shortly after the election, but before the inauguration of President Reagan, the Carter administration, with the assistance of intermediaries such as Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib, opened fruitful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. This resulted in the "Algiers Accords" of January 19, 1981, committing Iran to free the hostages immediately. Essential to the Algiers Accords and reportedly a non-negotiable requirement of Iran that the Carter Administration reluctantly conceded was Point I: Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs. It reads "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Other provisions of the Algiers Accords were the unfreezing of 8 billion dollars worth of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced. On January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were formally released into U.S. custody, having spent 444 days in captivity. The hostages were flown to Algeria as a symbolic gesture for the help of that government in resolving the crisis, where former President Carter, acting as an emissary for the Reagan administration, received them. The flight continued to Rhein-Main Air Base in West Germany. After medical check-ups and debriefings they took a second flight to Stewart Air Force Base in Newburgh, New York and a bus ride to the United States Military Academy, receiving a hero's welcome all along the route. [edit] Submitted by mydtwc on July 19, 2006 - 7:41 PM.
I'll start with your last assertion that CNN is liberal and me being liberal wouldn't notice not unlike a conservative might not notice Fox being conservative. The "PINBALL WIZARD" (DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND KID) would see Fox News (and I use that term news loosely) for what it is. Everything they do has the conservative slant to it. CNN has never shown themselves to be liberal at any time that I was watching them. There basically is no slant to their reporting. Just reporting!!!! That is the way it should be but like I said, if it doesn't have that conservative slant, then they must be liberal. While I haven't seen it out of CNN, I will admit their parent company does have liberal leanings. And yes being a Southern Baptist liberal probably does conflict with all the rules of the universe. I think you are going to start to see more and more of it though. Now for the bible/Bible thing. How much do you really know about the bible? When I say that, I mean things like who wrote it? Is it really God inspired? Who decided what would be included and what would be excluded? Do they have the original text? Then we get into questions like why all of the discrepencies???? Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." OR can God be seen? God CANNOT be seen: This is just a few of hundreds of things that I have come across Things like whether God was CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD: "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11) Or does God tempt us? "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13) And it goes on and on with examples that I just don't have time for right now but I think you should pretty well get that picture. The Bible has been, or I guess, was is more appropriate, written by men. Who knows what kind of agenda they had. Then it has been transcribed, rewritten, translated and who knows what in the interim. It is a known fact that some of the things that are in the Bible aren't found in any of the old manuscripts anywhere. When you look at some of the religious leaders of today, it makes you stop and think now would Pat Robertson hesitate changing a few words around if it furthered his agenda? Or would George W Bush, the leader of our country hesitate doing it or at least having it done if it furthered his agenda? I think the answer to both of those questions is NO. And if the reason for capitalizing is a show of respect, why is it that we capitalize Koran or even Bible when it is referring to other religions that we totally disavow? Isn't that being hypocritical or would it be sacreligious showing respect for something that we so frown upon and don't believe in? And more to the point I suppose is, do I believe the bible is the literal word of God? In a word no! Does that mean that I don't believe there is a Supreme Being? No but I am basing that on other things than what I read in the bible. I will close with what I think is one of the big contradictions that I have found: WHAT WERE REALLY Jesus' last words? Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 20, 2006 - 8:59 AM.
Dude, I'm atheist, so I don't really care about all that. I was just showing you that you capitalize the Bible because its correct English. Did you not see the excerpt that I tacked on from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English? Submitted by mydtwc on July 19, 2006 - 10:36 PM.
I4PUTT, so what you seem to be saying is unlike gimpels original post stated, Jimmy Carter was the one responsible for getting the hostages released, not Ronald Reagan. And Ronnie didn't "get them released by just just being Ronald Reagan." I actually could have seen where he could have done that though, given his proud service of his country in the military. They knew they didn't want to mess with him. Same thing goes for George W Bush and Dick (give me another deferrment) Cheney. When it was evident that Dubya's number was coming up in the draft, daddy had him jumped right over a long waiting list and got him safely tucked away in the Texas National Guard. We won't even get into his missing year that he was in Alabama. We'll just stick with the undisputed facts. This is the man that has led us to the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" that hasn't even got started good yet. He has cost us over 2,500 lives that never should have been lost and close to 20,000 injured troops with about 10,000 missing arms, legs, eyes and in a lot of cases 2 or even 3 of the above. There have been over 100,000 Iraqi civilian fatalities and God only knows how many wounded and maimed. This doesn't even begin to talk about the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars that have been thrown away because we were in a war that we never should have been in. Saddam Hussein was more or less the one person holding Iran in check. A balance if you will. With that gone I expect to see the violence escalate and matters to only get worse. And here is a question for you; how much more are you paying for a gallon of gas now than when the war started????????? I don't really see that getting better anytime soon either. Yeah in the proud Ronald Reagan tradition Dubya is just doing a bang-up job, just like he did with Katrina. You are so good at googling check out some of the stuff FEMA spent relief money on. Things like a 62 inch plasma TV and beer making equipment for the Coast Guard. THAT'S OUR OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDER MR BUSH'S CLOSE WATCHFUL EYE. LOL Submitted by gimpel on July 20, 2006 - 6:24 AM.
Goodness, Mr. Mydtswc, first you call me an idiot, then a liar, then you point out Bible discrepancies (everyone already knew them), then you say what Jesus would and would not do, would and would not be. Just because I might just be a conservative? Submitted by mydtwc on July 20, 2006 - 8:57 AM.
gimpel, I'm still waiting to hear just whom you may be and what the agenda is behind your steady barrage of conservative LIES. The same kind of LIES that Karl Rove used to discredit John McCain AND several others to get George elected in the first place. Somebody that apparently was trying to take up for you, proved you were full of crap in your original post. If somebody wants to use the slightest bit of their brain for thinking, they would see what a regular thing Lies coming from the RIGHT are. I certainly wouldn't say the LEFT is totally spotless either but I don't see as many OR as often coming from that direction nor do I see the steady drumbeat of people like you that keeps trying to convince people that they REALLY AREN'T LIES BUT THE TRUTH. I think I see why you call your blog GIMPEL'S BREAD because I think this right wing drivel is where YOU GET YOUR BREAD(or should I say money). I somehow get the feeling that you are a HIRED GUN As far as discrepancies in the bible/Bible go, I didn't even scratch the surface. How about things like: 2nd Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. Two books supposedly written hundreds of years apart, by different authors and they are exactly the same. Now was one of these people an Ann colter plagarist or what is your explanation? Another quick example that always bothered me was: 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven BUT Romans 10:13 (King James Version)says 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Like I said, this is but a few of hundreds. Some could possibly be explained away but some (at least to me) defy explanation. Especially when you have been told all your life that the bible/Bible is God's perfect instrument. What makes it especially bothersome now is this RELIGIOUS RIGHT thing that it seems people like George Bush want to use to govern (CONTROL?) the country with. It appears a theocracy is where some GOOD CHRITIANS would have us heading. Just like the just vetoed bill yesterday for stem cell research that could ultimately save millions of lives and improve the QUALITY OF LIFE for many millions more. I am just waiting for you blog on that thanking Dubya for being such a standup guy. Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 20, 2006 - 9:10 AM.
What about all the poor unborn babies? Save millions of lives? More like trading lives. We will kill this unborn baby that could grow up to be the next Einstien, Gates, MLK, the guy that cures cancer or AIDS. However, I do think though that as long as abortion is legal we might as well use the fetus for stem cell research; no point in letting it go to waste. Submitted by kevinbgoode on July 21, 2006 - 1:22 AM.
Well, unless you are married and remained completely virginal...including not engaging in self-pleasure, you likely killed millions of potential genious babes just for a few moments of pleasure. As for the complaints about the media, it was the Reagan Administration which pushed for deregulation and tossed out the Fairness Doctrine, which helped make media ownership and one-side "news" viewpoints a staple rather than a commitment to ethical integrity. At the time, Reagan sold his proposal as a hope to increase the number of sources for information to the American public. . .I'm not sure he envisioned what actually happened. And I doubt he would embrace the state of affairs as operated in this Administration. Submitted by weekapaug05 on July 21, 2006 - 12:04 PM.
That's an awful argument. That’s like saying when you have sex and actually conceive that you may have brought one life into the world but you killed 1,000,000. I'm talking about an actual zygote, a living being with 46 chromosomes. Submitted by kevinbgoode on July 21, 2006 - 10:40 PM.
I see. . .and so you are in charge of determining "life" as well? Every sperm does have the potential for fertilizing life, doesn't it? And wouldn't the most practical lifesaving use for that sperm be to just ban sex completely and have it all put into the sperm bank? Submitted by gimpel on July 22, 2006 - 9:02 AM.
the Fairness Doctrine was a severe violation of free speech, and totally unnecessary after cable tv and talk radio... Submitted by I4PUTT on July 20, 2006 - 9:57 AM.
That is so typical, mydtwc Submitted by webdesigns on July 20, 2006 - 7:10 PM.
WOW mytdwc Did you really make an arguement for Saddam Hussein to have remained in power? Do you really support a rapist being the leader of any country? Just for clarification, I'm not referring to former President Bill Clinton this time. Let's just see what my good friend google says about your favorite murderer. The Personal History of Saddam Hussein The current leader of Iraq is was born on April 28, 1937, in a small village of al-Auja near the town of Takrit. His early child hood was spent in a mud hut in a mostly Sunni Muslim part of Iraq, which is approximately (100) one-hundred miles north of Baghdad. Hussein's father, Hussein al-Majid, died or abandoned the family (according to who is reporting the story), within a short time of his birth. Accurate records are difficult to obtain in a country where Hussein's birthday is celebrated as a national holiday. He was reared alone by his mother Subha, until she took a second husband, Ibrahim Hassan. Hassan, often said to have been brutal and a thief, was a sheepherder by profession and enlisted Saddam in his ventures. According to a former personal secretary of Hussein, his step father abused Saddam and sent him to steal chicken and sheep to be sold. This pattern continued until 1947 when, at the age of ten, he was allowed to move in with his mother's brother, Khayrallah Tulfah, in Baghdad. In Baghdad, Hussein began to learn more than reading and writing. His tutor, Khayrallah had been "cashiered" from the Iraqi army for supporting a "Pro-Nazi" coup attempt that failed. Khayrallah's bitterness towards the British and imperialism, soon was transferred to Saddam. In fact, some confidants of Hussein point to his relationship with Tulfah as a turning point in his political awareness. To demonstrate Tulfah's importance to Hussein, he was later made Mayor of Baghdad under the Hussein regime. Saddam finished intermediate school (roughly the equivalent of 9th Grade) at the age of sixteen, and attempted to be admitted to the prestigious Baghdad Military Academy. Unfortunately, his poor grades prevented him from doing so, and he became more deeply involved in political matters. In 1956, he participated in a non-successful coup attempt against the monarchy of King Faisal II. In 1957, he joined the Baath party, a radical nationalist movement. In 1958, a non-Baathist group of army officers succeeded in overthrowing the King. The group was led by General Abdul Qassim. In 1959, Saddam and a group of Baathist supporters attempted to assassinate Gen. Qassim by a day-light machine-gun attack. The attack was unsuccessful, but it helped to place Hussein in a leadership position in the Baathist movement and furthered the process of nationalist political indoctrination. After the attack, in which Hussein is slightly wounded, he fled to Syria. From Syria, he went to Cairo, Egypt where he would spend the next four (4) years. While receiving aid from Egypt, he finished high school at the age of twenty-four and continued his political education. While in Egypt, he was arrested on at least two occasions for threatening a fellow student and chasing another down the street with a knife, both for political differences. In 1961, he entered Cairo University School of Law, but did not finish his studies there. In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Qassim's devotees and showed their bodies (in close up) on the nightly news for more than one night. Saddam, hearing the news, quickly rushed back to Iraq to become involved in the revolution. And involved, he was, as both an interrogator and torturer at the infamous "Palace of the End", in the basement of the former palace of King Faisal. According to reports by Hanna Batatu (a government reporter), Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, due to his extreme efficiency as a torturer. The Baathist party split in 1963 and Saddam had supported the "winner" in the latest party struggle. He was appointed by Michel Aflaq to be a member of the Baath Regional Command. In 1964, Hussein was jailed by some "rightist" military officers who opposed the Baathist takeover. Through other political influence provided by his older cousin, General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, Hussein became deputy Secretary-General of the Baathists in 1966. In 1966, Hussein escaped from prison and set up a Baathist internal party security system known as the Jihaz Haneen. It was to serve as the continuation of his political and real rise to power in Iraq. In 1968, another major upheaval in Iraq gave Hussein the greatest opportunity for further advancement; his mentor, Gen. Bakr and the Baathist seized the government. Hussein was made Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, in charge of internal security. At the age of thirty-one (31) he had acquired what could have been deemed the number two spot in the Baathist party. He would continue in the position for approximately the next ten years. During that time, he would continue to consolidate his power by appointing numerous family members to positions of authority in the Iraqi government. In his position of Deputy in Charge of Internal Security, he built an enormous security apparatus and had spies and informers everywhere in the circles of power in Iraq. During this time, Hussein also began to accumulate the wealth and position that he so relished as a poor sheep-herder in the desert of al-Auja. He and his family, now firmly entrenched in the infrastructure of the country , began to control the country's oil and other industrial enterprises. With the help of his security network and several personal assassins, Hussein took control of many of the nation's leading businesses. In 1978, Saddam had been working with othe r Arab nations to ostracize Egypt for it's diplomatic initiative in resolving Israel/Arab questions. An ally, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, almost became the undoing of Hussein's ascension. If a Syrian/Iraqi federation were formed against Egypt, Assad, not Hussein, would rise to a position of greater power in the relationship. President Bakr would lead the federation with Assad as second in command. Hussein could not allow that to happen and began to urge the President to step down. Again with the help of his family and security apparatus, Hussein was able to accomplish his task. On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody. A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran and conducted an eight year war against one of his nearest neighbors and the home of Shiite fundamentalist Muslims. Again, because it appeared that the Shiites could be a threat to his continued dictatorship, the Kurds (Iraqi minority) were sprayed with poison gas for participating with the Iranians in an attempted overthrow of his country. The war continued for eight years of brutality and even repression of Hussein's own countrymen (especially the Kurds). In 1988, after millions being killed, Iraq and Iran conduct a cease-fire and ended the bloodshed. By 1984, as many as 1.5 million Iraqis were supporters of Hussein and the Baathists. He continued to enlarge his security apparatus and army. In insidious ways, the party apparatus formed numerous government agencies to control and manipulate the citizens of Iraq. A statistical analysis of the population indicated that as many as fifty per cent of the Iraqis or a member of their family were employed by the government or military. The party and the people have become one. Hussein's domination of the country is complete. Even the war against Iran didn't end the peoples support for Hussein, although some small protests did dampen the population's support for the conflict with Iran. Ultimately however, the war with Iran only strengthened Hussein's resolve and, in some eyes, causes him to become a "hero" of Arab nationalism. This brings us to the chapter of Hussein's life that has not been thoroughly researched and written. It involves the 1990, summer invasion of Kuwait over a dispute about oil prices and political control of the Persian Gulf. The subsequent United Nation Resolutions and United States intervention in the defense of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other nearby countries will undoubtedly impact on the history of Saddam Hussein. Hussein has managed to survive the loss of a large portion of his army, a major psychological defeat, and control of the Northern and Southern part of Iraq, yet he continues in power in Iraq. His resilience is extraordinary, and so far he has managed to elude the allied powers, who would like to see him replaced as the leader of a major Middle-Eastern country. One thing is sure, Hussein is a man who is filled with pride. He is firmly entrenched in the history and culture of Iraq. If past history can serve as a guide, in regard to his future behavior, one can expect that he will use all of his resources to exact revenge against those that defeated him. The most viable route for revenge, by Hussein and Iraq, is the conduct of terrorist operations. No one should discount his future involvement in actions against the United States or her allies. Submitted by kevinbgoode on July 21, 2006 - 1:33 AM.
First, I do have issues about "allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power." yes - he was a dictator, who was sometimes brutal. It's not like he was that unique in the world - a quick look at some governments in Africa and we can see far worse humanitarian situations. Moreover, does it really matter how someone is murdered? At least to the victim? In the last month, over 3000 Iraqi civilians have died, the country appears to be on the brink of civil war, the government is raging about the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, and we are stuck with 130,000 troops who can't secure the country, can't prevent even more killings, and can't leave the country. We are stuck. Our troops have endured multiple and/or extended tours of duty, added stress elements (one reason provided for the rape/killings of one Iraqi family) and these just increase dangers for our own soldiers and add to potential resentment by the Iraqi people if we ever do leave. I'm not sure if $400 billion is a worthy investment when we announce we are going to charge our own citizens to be evacuated from Lebanon, still can't get the Gulf Coast rebuilt, and have infrastructure problems and deficits in far too many states just to deal with basic services. Our own federal deficit has ballooned, mostly due to the expense of the war and the occupation, and still the American people (and, apparently, our government) have little clue as to when our commitment will end. We also have little clue that Iraq will become an ally or even an effective hedge against an ambitious theocratic/far-right government in Iran. What we do know is that this conflict, no matter how nobly it is portrayed, cost this nation a lot of money, human lives, prestige and flexibility in dealing with the rest of the world. If we are to go it alone as a nation without regard for others, then we need to get used to being treated by the rest of the world as the bully - because that is how we too often appear. Submitted by webdesigns on July 20, 2006 - 9:18 PM.
Helllllllllllooooooooooooo mytdwc Nice call letters, mam. Before people started calling you on your historical errors, you were constantly here. Where did you go? Let's go back to the question about presidents serving in the military. President Jimmy Carter served in the Navy. However he was very inept at being the commander in chief. His bungled military rescue attempts in Iran and world wide perception that he was weak. Submitted by mydtwc on July 20, 2006 - 10:06 PM.
webdesigns, I think before you start talking about somebody embarrassing themselves and something equaling loco you need to learn to spell argument and actually make a post in your words instead of just cutting and pasting. Now just where in the world did you see anything in any of my post where I even remotely said or gave any kind of indication at all that I supported Saddam Hussein????? Was Saddam a BAADDDD man? YOU BETCHA!!!!!!! Should we have invaded Iraq???????? Absolutely not!!!! It could have been one of the biggest strategic mistakes this country has ever made. Read "Blow The House Down" by someone named Baer whose first name escapes me right now. He is an ex C.I.A. operative. Read his book and see if you still think removing Saddam (AS BAD AS HE WAS) from power was such a good idea. In the last 30 days civilian Iraqis have died at the rate of over 100 per day. We sure did them a favor didn't we? And it just continues to get worse. Embarrassing myself??? No I don't think so. It does appear that the wonderful George W Bush has become such an embarrassment that even the republicans are distancing themselves from him. Weekapaugh and I4putt, I will get to your reply when I have a little more time. I don't want you to feel slighted. Submitted by mydtwc on July 20, 2006 - 10:16 PM.
Well I guess we now know that webbdesigns and I4Putt are the same person because it wasn't you webbdesigns that asked me about the presidents. It was I4Putt. Yep yep!!! Definitely a republican. Maybe KIN TO KARL ROVE ONLY NOT QUITE AS SMART. OH and if you saw me I don't think you would think chick at all. Submitted by mydtwc on July 20, 2006 - 11:59 PM.
By the way Webdesign/I4Putt, Do you have any other names that I should know about??? And while I am thinking about it, What are you talking about when you say I used to be on here all the time??? I haven't ever been on here all the time and I sure as heck haven't ever been called on any historical facts. So let's see, so far you have been wrong about the name (even got the wrong gender)me being on here all the time and my being called on historical facts. You also slipped up and let us know that I4Putt and Webdesign are one and the same. Are you also weekapaugh05 and gimpel???????? I just love it when people get on here and talk to themselves. LOL Submitted by I4PUTT on July 21, 2006 - 9:01 AM.
Good morning mam |
Monthly Archives for gimpel |
Recent comments
Posted 6 hours ago by baronez111
Posted 7 hours ago by carlyle
Posted 8 hours ago by mcwalden
Posted 11 hours ago by Dashiel
Posted 1 day ago by timada