Lucky...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why's it rhetorical? It's asked in earnestness. I was truly asking you if you plan to vote for Obama even though you state that you support socialism -- because the implication would be that Obama, for you, is the next best thing to voting for a socialist. Some say he is a socialist, and I am not all that inclined to disagree. Time will tell -- if he gets elected. If I need to spell it out for you, yes I am voting Obama. I don;t think he is Socialist, but I wish he was. If he is, good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now that is just inflammatory bullshit. http://www.nogw.com/images/time_machine.jpg Are you sure? http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/Bush-hitler-blair-mussolini.jpg And http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/Bush_Hitler_what_would_hitler_do.gif So asyou can see, the evidence is overwhelming!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Besides, it makes clear how you are going to run to the establishment Democrat party, rather than have the balls to vote for who you truly think should run the country. If no one will ever "waste" his vote on a 3rd party candidate, how will we ever break free of this horrible 2-party system that the left is always decrying? I'm not going to run the party. I don't know the Socialist Party, so I am voting for who I want. We will never breask free of the 2-party system. We had a chance with Perot, whom I voted for, thankfuly splitting the R vote and giving us 8 wonderful years of Clinton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Name me a socialist country where it is not the GOVERNMENT administering every-mother-fucking-program! As far as I know the gov always does, that way it's objective, unlike a fascist corporate-run POS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To hear you tell it, we're supposed to picture a big ol' town meeting where all the population gets together to give each other "free health care" and drug needles and... whatever else you're supposed to get "free" from a socialist system. Which illustrates your ignorance of the Socialized med system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, so I should have read further at the start. Finally I have my admission from an Obama fan that the reason they want him is because he IS a socialist wannabe. I can't speak for him, but I hope he is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not nearly as much as I wish that people who want to live in a socialist country fucking MOVE to one and leave America alone! Well, nanny-nanny boo-boo (emphasis so you can more easily interpret it) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So Obama is actually concealing from American voters just how socialist he is... He is either selling people a bill of goods, or they know or believe he is this socialist and they are actually supporting socialism just like you are... Here come the black helicopters. You must be a hoot to jump with.... assuming you are even a skydiver.

Why would I avoid that issue? I agree, the war was started on false premises against a target of opportunity. It is a huge waste of lives and money and if for no other reason, this President will most likely go down as one of the worst in history. So what has that got to do with an arguement for Universal Care. I understand that employers finance unemployment. My point had nothing to do with who finances it, but was a comparison that welfare programs, excepting for a very small number of very needy cases, should have limits. Free health care, free food, free housing, free money, etc should have set time and dollar limits. Then it's off your butt and get for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why would I avoid that issue? I agree, the war was started on false premises against a target of opportunity. It is a huge waste of lives and money and if for no other reason, this President will most likely go down as one of the worst in history. Sounds good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>.So what has that got to do with an arguement for Universal Care. We haven't been wasting money on the Iraq War and that's it, we've had what Eisenhower warned us of this Militarty Industrial COmplex running this debt at the very least since fascist Ronnie was busy busting unions, thus people losing healthcare benefits. It's been a real tradeoff, war for health benefits. People weren't bitching about medical benefits in the 70's, but the Republican pigs came in and made the trade for the working person. That is my argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. I understand that employers finance unemployment. My point had nothing to do with who finances it, but was a comparison that welfare programs, excepting for a very small number of very needy cases, should have limits. Free health care, free food, free housing, free money, etc should have set time and dollar limits. Then it's off your butt and get for yourself. I'm a person who works hard, a person that went into the military very young, a person who was out of the house before 18, so I agree. But at this time the Republican fascist machine has handed the fucking country over to corporations, has done so for almost 3 decades. Healthcare should not be dealt with at a corporate level, it should be dealt with at a governmental level with an opt out for those that want to spend their own money. I posted info on The Rainmaker and of course the Republicans here avoided it. An insured man was denied medical care just cause. He died before he could get the help he needed thx to a corporate-run system.

Nor can you help yourself. I have seen you pounce on people for a typo or spelling error but it is clear that you don't apply it to yourself. You don't try and win people over . . . And that is this forum's winner for Understatement of the Year Award. We'll just say please and sorry when dealing with tough issues. Some of the powderpuffs here would not do well in arbitration, trial, etc...just ask LAwrocket or other lawyers here. It's fucking ugly at times and nothing like you see here.

You are straying farther and farther out into La-La Land, my friend. If this stuff happened about the liver transplants, IT WAS NOT THE [I]LAWS[/I] THAT DID IT! Or else, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE IN THE LAWS THAT SAYS, "IF YOU CAN PAY MORE, YOU GET TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE"!! You keep saying, "The LAWS are uneven, the LAWS favor the rich." You haven't shown us a single law that, as written, does what you speciously claim it does. P.S. There are whites who get arrested and imprisoned for crack cocaine crimes. You can see them in the crime/arrest blotter link found on palmbeachpost.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If this stuff happened about the liver transplants, IT WAS NOT THE LAWS THAT DID IT! It's within a system of priveledge, money and stature for favor. Wanna pretend it's isolated....have a good one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or else, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE IN THE LAWS THAT SAYS, "IF YOU CAN PAY MORE, YOU GET TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE"!! I don;t know that he paid more, he just used his stature or it was overtly present and the system worked for him and Alonzo. Wanna call it random? Cool, just like your neo-cons since fascist Ronnie and the debt, just a wild coincidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You keep saying, "The LAWS are uneven, the LAWS favor the rich." You haven't shown us a single law that, as written, does what you speciously claim it does. This is where I will help you out. You can just claim you knew this stuff all along as you always do. In the law, esp the criminal law, there is a concept of Due process. This governs the way people are processed thru the system. The dichotomy of due process, the way scholars define it like this: - Procedural due process - Substantive due process With procedural DP you get your initial appearance within 48 hours, arraignment, pretrial conference, etc...... You get your shitty court appointed lawyer and all the fun that goes with that. He sleeps thru most of your trial and you get convicted. As you're appealing and filing post-conviction relief, the appelate courts are telling you how you received due process, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. Now if you are rich, you contact you lawyer immediately after arrest, meet with him, have him tell the cops there will be no interview/interrogation. File all kinds of motions, try to get your bond lowered, interview 10's or 100's of witnesses, do a kickass cross examination...... you get the idea. This is called SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. So bro, even your own are going, Birdman, WTF, of course the rich get a better shake, figure it out. You can clammer till your fingers rot that since it's not written differently then it's the same. Wanna hear where this concept you speak of is BS? ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in the Declaration of Independence as a rebuttal to the going political theory of the day: the Divine Right of Kings So as Jefferson was chanting this BS, he went home and fucked his slaves. We had slavery for another 80+ years after that. I need to give your contact info to some telemarketers if you think because it's written it's true. And you call me naive? Were there laws allowing slavery? None that I know of, just none prohibiting it until 1863. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You keep saying, "The LAWS are uneven, the LAWS favor the rich." You haven't shown us a single law that, as written, does what you speciously claim it does. It's the application and enforcement of them that makes them uneven, can you figure that out, or are we still in the same denial of yours that claims we don't execute innocent people? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>P.S. There are whites who get arrested and imprisoned for crack cocaine crimes. You can see them in the crime/arrest blotter link found on palmbeachpost.com Clickl on teh GD articel, not the newspaper if you have a point to make. What is it, an arrest blotter? That means little, the procedural and substantive due process haven't yet begun, you have to compare identical cases and have it be random for any scientific value - as well a large sample size. And one more for you to ignore, the crackv powder cocaine issue, it's been recently reviewed at a federal level: http://www.ussc.gov/hearings/11_15_06/shelton-testimony.pdf Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. we all get the same justice...... joke

All you have managed to do is show that the supposedly better, European, countries have managed to make a system where there truly IS a set of laws for the rich and for the poor. You stated it unequivocally! The rich pay a higher fine than the poor do. The American system has the SAME penalty for everyone. This presumes that everyone has had the same opportunity to get into a position to afford it. If you can't afford it, you should have worked harder to be a success. (Not that the measure of success is how well you can afford to pay the fines when you break the law, mind you.) Also, EVERYONE has the same ability to abide by the law. That is non-discriminatory in the first place. You proved the CONTRARY to your own assertion. Congratulations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All you have managed to do is show that the supposedly better, European, countries have managed to make a system where there truly IS a set of laws for the rich and for the poor. You stated it unequivocally! The rich pay a higher fine than the poor do. Once again, you've illustrated my point, European Socialist nations statute their rich v poor differences, the US pretends they don't happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The American system has the SAME penalty for everyone. So to say that faced with the same charges and evidence of OJ, you would also be acquitted? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....bro, even your own are holding a hand up shielding their faces as to proclaim not knowing you. You don't know anything about the penalty phase of a crimjnal trial either, aggravating vs mitigating factors, presumptive sentencing, mandatory mins/max. Youi know nothing, yet claim to have it all figured out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This presumes that everyone has had the same opportunity to get into a position to afford it. If you can't afford it, you should have worked harder to be a success. Once again, my point. If you work for it, born into it, etc then you get representation. The lawyers don;t care if you win the lottery and pay them, they want to get paid and they will give you the best representation they can, get a PD and get basically nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Not that the measure of success is how well you can afford to pay the fines when you break the law, mind you.) No, it has to do with the kind of legal representation you can afford. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, EVERYONE has the same ability to abide by the law. That is non-discriminatory in the first place. But not everyone has the same propensity to be wrongly accused/convicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You proved the CONTRARY to your own assertion. Congratulations. How so, put it together.

Yeah, and then it fails. Are you voting in the American presidential election? And for whom are you voting? I'm really interested in knowing (if you are voting in this election) if you are planning to vote for Brian Moore, of the Socialist Party U.S.A., or Roger Calero, of the Socialist Workers Party... ...or Barack Hussein Obama, of the Democrat Party, who does not avow being a socialist. See, if you're voting for Obama, and you also avow that you want Socialism because it's just the greatest thing since having the government bake, slice, and butter your bread for you (and perhaps even chew it), I would begin to think that maybe it's because there's truth to the accusation of him being a socialist. As "corrupt" as you might believe the American Capitalist system is, has it ever been AS corrupt as we know the Soviet Socialist/Communist system had been? (and, um, still is?) Socialism fails? Fails to make as many people rich as does Capitalism, but it succeedsa t keeping people safer and healthier. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you voting in the American presidential election? And for whom are you voting? That's rhetorical, I think you know, so I won't play into your rhetorical question game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I'm really interested in knowing (if you are voting in this election) if you are planning to vote for Brian Moore, of the Socialist Party U.S.A., or Roger Calero, of the Socialist Workers Party... No, they don't have a chance to overthrow your Nazi. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...or Barack Hussein Obama, of the Democrat Party, who does not avow being a socialist. Communism = The government controls the means of production Socialism = The people control the means of production Capitalism = The market controls the means of prodution ***the elite control the market*** Obama wants to put the government back into the hands of the people, hence he is the closest of any candidate that will bring us closest to Socialism. This country is so fascist that it takes 50 years to get smoking laws to barely pass and enforce, even when we knew it was they right thing back then. So merging into Socialism will take as long, but first wew must get the Nazis out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, if you're voting for Obama, and you also avow that you want Socialism because it's just the greatest thing since having the government bake, slice, and butter your bread for you (and perhaps even chew it), I would begin to think that maybe it's because there's truth to the accusation of him being a socialist. Oh shit I wish he was. But see, whatever % he might agree with Socialism, he must hide it for fear of losing votes. I don;t think he is a Socialist, altho he probably has some Soc-leaning ideals, I only wish he was. Of course then I would have to vote for teh Dem that denounces Socialism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As "corrupt" as you might believe the American Capitalist system is, has it ever been AS corrupt as we know the Soviet Socialist/Communist system had been? I certainly won't defend old school Russian Communism, but to compare corruption is apples/oranges. They utilize different forms of corruption. I think the Russians were more totalitarian, even tho they did away with cap pun in the 1970's. The US is just fiscally oppressive as their intra-corrutpion, so it's hard to compare. Perhaps compare Russian Communism to that of Chian for a neater comparison.

More examples of rich v poor laws. http://blogs.news.com.au/barefootinvestor/index.php/news/comments/different_law_for_rich_and_poor/ 1) I forgot about this, a traffic ticket has a much harsher toll on a 30k/yr worker than a millionaire. I understand that some European nations are fixing that and making you supply a financial affidavit and adjusting the fine to meet that. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070607234922AAMJQAL The laws are not normaly different for the rich and poor. The way the laws are enforced is very much so different. Which is what I was saying. The same with crack penalties vs cocaine penalties, the courts for years punished crack offenses much more harshly, requiring a review of the higher courts. The idea is that lower class blacks smoke crack, vs higher class whites toot cocke. SO there is a racial as well as a class component to cocaine based drugs. This concept has been around for over a decade, but you know that because you such an achieved legal scholar. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1514702 And here is another great example. How about drunken trash Mickey Mantle getting a liver immediately when in need, then some other bastard had to die so he could have 6 more months. Alonzo Mourning was the same.

Why don't you ask Ken Lay? OH, that's right, he's dead. He died while awaiting sentencing to prison for the Enron scandal. I guess you have some arcane rationalization why his many millions of dollars shouldn't count against your assertion that the rich get different rules. Or how about Dennis Kozlowski? So much for your bullshit theory, not to mention your bullshit assertion of, and then backpedaling away from, the claim that "the courts have 'different rules' for the rich." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why don't you ask Ken Lay? OH, that's right, he's dead. He died while awaiting sentencing to prison for the Enron scandal. Did he serve 1 day for his crimes? You can only speculate then. If I were as, shall we say with an active imagination as you, I could say he was whisked off to a Carribean Island and pronounced dead here. I'm not as imaginative as you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or how about Dennis Kozlowski? 8 years for 400 million? Thank you for supporting my pioint. Poor people get that long for 50k. Shall we talk Steinbrenner, pardoned by fascist Ronnie for tax evasion. With that, just go away.

And that's the problem, it's not codified, it's realized tho. If we took a poll here about $$$ giving greater protections in the court system, I know the result would be that people believe that $$$$ leads to more immunity from the rules and the laws. Disagree? YOU SAID, and I QUOTE, "And in US Capitialism the people who design and run the rules of the system aren't subject to many of the nuances of it. For example, the court/penal system, has different rules for the rich who write the system than the poor." That is not ambiguous. YOU STATED that the COURTS "HAVE DIFFERENT RULES FOR THE RICH." And now you are engaged in the disgusting process of attempting to weasel out of what you said. I can barely watch, I find it so sickening. Well then help yourself and go vomit. The court system has the same codifed rules, they just play out differently for the various classes and statured people, so they are in fact different. As we discovered in a few threads ago, I know a FUCK of a lot more than you about the law, you were learning as the thread went along, which is great. You can hide behind this facde of, 'same people, same rules' until you're satisfied, but if there were a poll asking if OJ, Robert Blake and so many others got a free ride due to money and status, it would overwhelmingly indicate that moeny/status are everything. Take your boy Scooter Libby for example, convicted in a criminal court, cummuted by your guy, the same guy that signed was it 157 death warrants as gov of Texas w/o throwing 1 out, maybe investigating 1 or 2. Live in your world where the rules are the same for the rich as the poor, give me a call when you wake up.

You'll be happy--no, ecstatic--to know that your car can now run on carbon dioxide and water, since that what is the immediate byproduct of running its internal combustion engine. If Capitalism runs on greed, and we agree greed is bad, counterproductive, unfair, evil... blah blah, do you call yourself an anti-Capitalist? Are you an avowed Socialist? Please state for the record. Gladly, Socialism is the best system in the world, when other systems fail, they revert to Socialism. Capitalism is teh best system in the world as written in doctrine, but the problem is human greed and Capitalism is subject to greed like no other system. Socialism can corrupt and when it does, it becomes Communism or fascism predominantly. Show me examples of countries that are as Capitalistic as are we and that have not corrupted.

Mike won't be addressing people with potty-talk, he needs to be nurtured and spoken to with kind words.

Please do not put your words in my mouth. I'm doing really fine, and definitely don't need any change. Where did I put words in your mouth? Also, does it worry you that we are 10T in debt and that is the doing of the right? I could list all of the woes of the country for you to ignore, bit waste my time? So you think the country is doing great, no need for change? Cool, You're a McSame guy then.

I agree with your innanity, Obama is responsible for every Democrat and their mouth in the world OMG, why are you having such a hard time staying with this concept?? I did not say nor imply that Obama is responsible for what anyone else says. My point was only that what you are attributing to Obama's "class" can just as easily be attributed to his satisfied knowledge that any number of leftist pundits will be denigrating Palin on his behalf, even if not with his official sanction. The net benefit (if there is one) to him and his party will remain the same. Operative word, one of the few that you didn't emphasize, "can." It could be that he thinks that way, or it could be that he acts with class, all we know is what we see, all you know is what your imagination misleads you to imagine. The burden to "prove" conspiracies rests with the architects of said conspiracy..... go to work.

The beauty is your naivete, if you really believe that Obama is not confident that HE HIMSELF can sit back and not say anything, while assholes like James Carville or Marie Cocco will carry the ball for him. I'm not naive, you're over-inclusive. A former campaign manager for Clinton, a decade ago cannot speak for Obama. BTW, Marry Matlin is the scum. This has nothing to do with confodence, this has to do with a guy's class. Apparently you feel Obama is responsible for every Dem pundit on earth The issue is not whether Carville speaks for Obama. The issue is your unfounded attribution of Obama's reluctance to condemn or speak out about this pregnancy situation to his "class." He knows that others will do the work of whipping up antipathy toward Palin without him saying a word! That's why he can give the illusion of "class" by not saying anything! He knows it'll still get done, and it won't matter if it's done by those who don't have license to speak for him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He knows that others will do the work of whipping up antipathy toward Palin without him saying a word! Now you make assumptions as to what he knows...patently flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's why he can give the illusion of "class" by not saying anything! He knows it'll still get done, and it won't matter if it's done by those who don't have license to speak for him. All he can do is control himself, he is only responsible for what he does, how he acts, so your perceptions based upon conjecture and assumption are typical of what I expect, none the less patently flawed.

Obama's statement was not unlike Kerry's offer to take a paternity test. He gets credit for it, but it has no real value. Obama doesn't have to trumpet the unwed teenage pregnancy when there are armies of people, both partisan and not, racing to investigate a new name, and then if their politics dictate, smear the crap at her. It's rather perfect for him - the story has overtaken any other real discussion about the candidate, right as people would be forming their initial (and typically lasting) impressions. That was mine, so you want to ignore Obamas claas and the way he handled this? That helps your cause. you still have no clue what my causes are, even though it's pretty obvious to those in this forum with a pulse that I'm voting for Obama. Your's was, surprisingly, the most terse of the Obama is classy replies, so I cited it, but attributed to "many." As I wrote, and birdlike adds, it was a freebie for him. He doesn't have to take any action for it to get overplayed in our 24hr a day media. I don't give a fuck what the media does, it appears you are still amongst those that individual partyies drive MAJOR media sources. The mnedia will turn on it's own usual parties if it means ratings. Why bring in the media, they are not the condidate and they use the candidate for their success.

I agree with your innanity, Obama is responsible for every Democrat and their mouth in the world

The beauty is your naivete, if you really believe that Obama is not confident that HE HIMSELF can sit back and not say anything, while assholes like James Carville or Marie Cocco will carry the ball for him. I'm not naive, you're over-inclusive. A former campaign manager for Clinton, a decade ago cannot speak for Obama. BTW, Marry Matlin is the scum. This has nothing to do with confodence, this has to do with a guy's class. Apparently you feel Obama is responsible for every Dem pundit on earth

In other words, you have no answer. I don't attack people here, perhaps your guy, McSame, but until he becomes a member here I think he is within limits. Noted, you have no answer.

I'm more concerned about my own financial success. That's why I would not vote for Obama. And how were people's individual financial success under Clinton as compared to other neo-con times? Right, you just shot your own argument.

Capitalism does not actually "operate on greed." Greed is just an extreme degree of a desire to possess some wealth. It's like a person with a compulsive eating disorder compared with someone who eats normal amounts of food. You take a guy who owns and runs a hardware store. He is not necessarily operating based on GREED. Just a desire to do business to earn a living! Calling it unmitigated "GREED" that drives capitalism is simply wrong. It operates on competiton, greed is just the automatic byproduct. Then please inform Billvon. He is the one who stated that "capitalism runs on greed." He's your comrade. Surely he will join forces and cooperate with you, da? Actually I agree with him, since the automatic and instantaneous byproduct is greed, it esssentially runs on greed. And the longer Capitalism runs, the more that greed just becomes part of the protocol. Ultimatley, under a textbook sense, Capitalism runs on supply/demand and competiton..... real world, Capitalism = greed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>That sounds like a call for us to turn our attention inward, fix our own problems with a full application of 100% of our resources, while we tell the entire world to fuck itself after the next tsumani, famine, genocide, etc. and withhold all foreign aid. I'm on board. Count me in. That's where I am, and if we fix ourselves, then reach out. None the less, the point was that our aid is Imperialism, not compassion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there anything that a person cannot afford that you do not feel he should be entitled to nonetheless? Keep them off the streets and healthy, very basic care, then educate them and let them pay this back thru taxes as they become viable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If a guy wants to take six months off from work and drive in a Baja road rally, but he's been living from paycheck-to-paycheck and has three kids and a wife, should he be entitled to do that? But not lose his job or his car or his home? Who should pay for the things he WANTS but CAN'T AFFORD? You're sadly relegated to idiotic examples. Read my plan above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I would love to be a helicopter pilot, but at the moment I can't afford to get myself trained to be one. Gee, our system is so mean. Over in France of England, I guess anyone can go and do it, huh? Canada, maybe? Followed by more extremism. Color me shocked. Vacations to teh Baja, helicopter training @ 300 bucks an hour and that equates to basic healtcare. You make my points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>I'll bet those Communists were really friendly and cooperative with each other when standing on bread lines when rumors started that there would not be bread for all. I'm not a fan of Communism, it's just that it boads for a community well-being versus a personal well-being, fuck others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This must be an easy thing for you to copy and paste to show me. WHERE IS IT CODIFIED IN OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS, that there is one set of laws for the rich, and another set of laws for the poor? That is an outright lie. And that's the problem, it's not codified, it's realized tho. If we took a poll here about $$$ giving greater protections in the court system, I know the result would be that people believe that $$$$ leads to more immunity from the rules and the laws. Disagree?

Well, if you consider a "change" like rising YOUR taxes twice, you probably would differently on onslaught. Oh, like Clinton did with the 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill, he raised taxes immediately, mostly for the rich. So what do you think of Clinton's fiscal success? BTW, Bush has constantly cut taxes.

Look at the end result of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and give me an evaluation.

It took Clinton his 5th year to unfuck the doings of Reagan / Bush, so it will also take Obama that to unfuck the doings of the 3rd neo-con trash, maybe longer s he's been worse. American Republican voters need to look in teh mirror and wonder WTF they're thinking. They voted in the last 3 POS and they want the quad? Geniuses.

A freidn at work lost his kid 1.5 years ago in the Memorial Day Massacre where 10 GI's died. His assertion, we should have gotten out of there years ago, when Bush said we won. This guy is an Iraq vet himself, a Republican, etc...... he says to get the fuck out.