Graphic and Question of the Day

FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 12:03:11 am

I definitely am. But I'd pay to see this one!

FROM: Paul
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 8:01:14 am

I would too, Ryan. I wonder how many more years of Bush Backgrounds we'll have....

FROM: IanC
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 8:23:45 am

I'm sure you'll have him for another full term.
We're being just as stupid in the UK. We're already halfway through Blairs second term and I wouldn't bet against him getting a third.

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 9:18:24 am

Nothing like a good ol' recycled Ping on a rainy day. ;p

FROM: Chris
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 10:01:57 am

Summer is rerun season...

FROM: Andy
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 10:19:46 am

A slogan advertising how you should visit the monkey house a local zoo would be a humorous and quite fitting advert.

FROM: dave
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 4:48:21 pm

But I need my daily dose of Orwell!

"Jobs & Growth" = massive tax cut for the wealthy

"Protecting Our Homeland" = cuts in funds for first repsonders and port security

"Supporting Our Troops" = cutting veterans' benefits

FROM: Chris
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 4:56:09 pm

Jobs & Growth - since the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes - they should get the cuts.

Protecting Our Homeland - pork projects for the home states with a particular emphasis on at risk districts.

Support the troops - Democratic disinformation, Veterans benefits are up year over year for both of Bush's budgets.

FROM: dave
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 5:16:52 pm

I see what I see, you see what you see.

Ever see "They Live" with Rowdy Roddy Piper? I've got a pair of those special sunglasses...

FROM: Marcus Mackey
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 6:26:16 pm

Jobs & Growth - since the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes - they should get the cuts.

The logic behind this statement? Okay... so the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and the great divide of disparity and despair grows. Class distinctions only cause greater problems... if you're ignorant to those facts, then you're probably one of the arrogant upper class.

I think Henry Ford would argue with this philosophy (it's counter to what he used to be successful in business)... and he was far more successful overall than Reaganomics, the last great GOP pyramid scheme that failed. You give Bill Gates more $... you think he's going to cut you a bigger check? Or do you think he'll simply attempt to make more $ out of greed? Putting the $ into the ground-level people that actually could use the $ is the 'WISE' and logical effort... of course that's only true when someone isn't paying your campaign funding so you can get the pretty and well-produced TV ads to present your slander and muckracking.

No brainer.

Protecting Our Homeland - pork projects for the home states with a particular emphasis on at risk districts.

Ahhh, the Homeland Securities Act. I love how the "so-called" Conservatives (they're just as bad as the so-called Liberals, who are really Extremists) get on and bash the Liberals, in entirety, for creating warnings that don't "PRECLUDE" freedom of speech, they just attempt at trying to push for teaching morality and making parents become more involved in their youths lives. Noone says you can't walk into a store with you 10 year old and get him an Eminem or Limp Bizkit CD... it just says that they can't walk in there on their own until they're 'OF AGE' to do so and understand the ramifications of their actions.

They also blast the Liberals for taking their right to bear arms away... and honestly, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yet, what possible use does an AK-47 ASSAULT rifle have for an American trying to defend his homeland? Noone said anyone's going to take away your Remington's, or even your Smith and Wesson's... but Christ, when it comes down to weapons that are "DESIGNED" to exterminate people en masse at a high rate of speed... why not preclude them? It's not like you're going to take your Uzi, AK-47, or M16 hunting?!? If you do... more power to you, but it's hardly sporting.

Granted, I do believe we've added a greater element of bureaucracy to ourselves, and we've overextending government's reach to being bloated, unresponsive, and a red-taped induced mess (like GM for politics)... and that's definitely FDR's (yes, a Democrat ::gasping::) fault and those that followed him. Yet, how is the Homeland Securities act, a very Orwellian approach to keeping us all neat and tidy (read 1984) and in good little rows any better than what the bad, bad Liberals impede? Ashcroft is more of a dolt than any Democrat you can find in history... and it gets shown more and more by how much of a Dic(k)tator he wants to be. You want an extremist? This man would tattoo the barcodes right on us if he had his way...

Hypocrisy at it's best.

If you've actually read it, you'd know that.

More and more, I begin to realize how we're chasing our tails no matter which party gets in. The only decent and logical party out there, is the Libertarians... and they don't stand a chance because they don't get the marketing $ and propaganda throwers that the other parties have.

The war against terrorism? A joke. By the time you spread yourself far and wide to stop it... the countries you "FREED" from the leadership will fall back under the same or similar powers. Look at Afghanistan.... we left there to go after Iraq and the place is "STILL" in chaos. Then we went after Iraq, and it's now in chaos with suicide bombings against our troops, landmines in tunnels, and people trying to undermine our efforts to restrain any effort against their own personal freedom. Now we're talking Iran and North Korea in the news... all the while we spread our ability to "DEFEND" our homeland thinner and thinner, and only seek to build an image of a bully throwing it's might against 3rd world countries that have "LITTLE" potential of defending itself against a "SUPER POWER".

Oh and that's before I get into the War on Drugs which both parties continue to push... and which is "OBVIOUSLY" the second generation of Prohibition, itself a great failure in American History. Of course, if you all were truly "CONSERVATIVE"... you'd understand that. Adding a law to the policy makes it almost romantic... and turns it into a black/grey market cash cow for other countries. Legalize it and put the FTC and FDA on it, and we can restrict it, grow it ourselves, and cut funding to overseas terrorist markets... we can also implement rehab programs on a regional and local level that are privately rather than state or federal funded; much the way our government was run before FDR put in all of the stupid programs that have led to inflation to begin with.

Support the troops - Democratic disinformation, Veterans benefits are up year over year for both of Bush's budgets.

There's disinformation on both sides... I've gotten enough slanderous emails bashing Clinton about things that were outright "FALSE", and seen Republican voters turn Oliver North into a Saint or a Divine person for "LYING" to protect their preferred candidates. Half of the people that send out the stupid chain emails believe it's verbatim, even after you take 'em to snopes.com and prove it "WRONG". If Clinton is a heathen for lying about relational misconduct, something that is noone's business but his own, even if we all disapprove (and I do)... how is Oliver North any better when he lied to protect Reagan (who admitted and denied involvement in Iran Contra, in the same sentence) and Bush when it involved arming an opponent?

Hell... want disinformation? Where's the chemical weapons? We blasted the U.N.'s Arms Inspectors and we've had as much time and "FAR" more control over where we can and can't go... and guess what? WE AIN'T FOUND SHIT!

If the Iraqi's were a nation of people wanting their freedom... why are our troops getting bombed and put in harms way by civilians? Read the f'ing news for a change, it's all there. Stick your Democratic Misinformation up your ass... because there's just as big a smokescreen coming from the other party.

Oh and the most comical note I've seen this month? Bush and Blair's preaching ever onward about that mobile chemical weapons lab. A British news magazine got quotes from experts that said it "COULD NOT" possibly contain chemical weapons, and that it contained hydrogen tanks for launching surveillance balloons. Freakin' balloons? What were they afraid of? Little rubber Hindenburg's floating around?!? "AHH AHHH... I got hit with some water!" LoL

How 'ya like them apples?

I'd rather have a man that lied about an affair in the White house, than a man that openly has been wrong time after time and has "NOT A SHRED" of physical proof putting our people, who are here to "DEFEND" our homeland, out on the frontline on an offensive that was a fallacy and a joke, and a disgrace to the democratic way the United Nations works. Right or wrong in severing Hussein from power, we're no better in helping the war criminal that Ariel Sharon is. You want to know why Sept. 11th happened? Pay better attention to "diplomacy" for a change, and don't take the ignorant, self-centered, we the American people can do no wrong. We voted the militant jackasses in that put us in the position we're in... and now we're a part of the Holy war as a result. Hell, the fact that we even armed and trained the Israelites escalated the atrocities of the war from rocks and sticks to weapons of mass destruction "ON OUR OWN".

That's even before you get to the stage of speaking of terrorism in and of itself. Prior to the Revolutionary war, there was a set standard for how a war was fought. You fought in neat little rows, on an open field, with your different elements of military guidance, your infantry, your artillery, et al. Our ancestors were the first "EVOLUTION" away from this philosophy when we implemented "guerilla" warfare where our minutemen hid behind trees, in fox holes. That is how "WE WON"... and terrorism, like it or not, is an evolution of that. How can Palestinian's defeat Israelites with rocks, stones, and Coke bottles when Israel has tanks, machine guns, and rockets? By sneak attacks... a/k/a Terrorism. It's COMMON SENSE. I'm not condoning it... but war in and of itself isn't something that one can logically condone... because it never solves the root of the problem, and only causes more problems over time. After all, Russia was an ally with us 'til WWII, then the Cold War hit through disagreements. Prior to that, the actions our allies in WWI took against Germany pissed off an entire country, and led to WWII and the rise of Hitler. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Oh, and for the arrogant and masochistic chest thumping anti-French blasters out there. You see that big statue of Lady Liberty standing in the harbor? Well that was given to us by the French. Wonder why? They came over and helped us defeat the British. Without them we'd still be the x # of colonies under British reign... so before you want to preach on and gloat about us saving their asses in WWII... study up on your U.S. History. It might make you think 2x's before blasting them.

Oh and for the record... I do support my troops. My father was a Vietnam war veteran, my Great Uncles and Grandfather served in WWII. My uncle is an ex-POW from Korea. My second-cousin Talia served in the war we just fought. Before I get blasted as a right-wing Liberal Extremist that knows nothing about the fallacies of the "REAL" hypocritical Conservatives and the "REAL" extremists... consider those elements, and consider the aftermath of what's going on over in Iraq right now, and the fact that our government has obviously "DISINFORMED" the people about the real reason for the war. After all... we're batting a lower average than the U.N. inspectors who didn't have the freedom to go anywhere and everywhere that we as the current "LEADERSHIP" in Iraq have. Funny how we pushed, poked, and prodded... and now with the ability to go wherever we please, we've not found anything more than they have.

Not to mention a 6' tall bearded Afghan on Dialysis and a former militant dictator of a third-world country that supported anyone that would stand up to us simply 'cause he was tired of our shit... they're both running free. All it's going to take is another Sept. 11th to happen for the egg to be on the person's face who has his head shoved so far up his ass... "OF COURSE" they have to put banners and slogans behind him to boost him up in his arrogance, ignorance, and egotistical virtues.

But hey... "Let's roll" why don't we? After all... that's what our allies in the Israeli's do? I mean... anytime a Palestinian terrorist attacks, they send a tank into Gaza. Hell, the Palestinians are being forced to "NOT" come into Palestine... their "HOMELAND". From a country that segregated and separated African Americans... we sit and watch as Sharon builds a 30' concrete wall around a people that are pissed because they were uprooted from their homeland, and their home city.

Ahhh well, in another 4 years you can probably vote for Strom Thurman then... turn the country back another 100 years in evolution, and sink us further into debt. But you can have your little waiters and maids sayin' "yessah mastah" if 'ya wish. I'd rather not contribute anymore to this old school ignorance that put us in the situation we've been in, in regards to racisms.

If more people could see the forest for the trees... the World would be a lot better off.

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 7:05:49 pm

Hey, let's just boil it down to this:

Would you rather have Bush or HILARY CLINTON?!?

I rest my case. Bush in '04.

FROM: dave
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 7:31:44 pm

phew!

Note to right-wing media and its devotees: HILLARY IS NOT RUNNING. You can put her up against Bush in as many hypothetical polls as you like, and hype up her chances, but it's already too late to get in the race to have any reasonable chance. That's just the reality of the money game nowadays.

FROM: Chris
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 9:41:52 pm

Dave,

I bet she runs in 2008 though! She didn't explore 2004 because with Bush's post 9-11 popularity she didn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

I'd fisk the hell out of marcus' screed, but I have a life and I'm not about devote 60 minutes of it to him.

FROM: jk
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2003 -- 10:11:40 pm

Dave Walls, marry me.

FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 12:09:38 am

OK, everybody... breathe... now repeat after me:

"I hate everybody... I hate everybody..."

It's so much easier to hate everyone equally.

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 12:58:29 am

jk --

Who knew that the hatred of Hilary could bring us together?

jk and I will be registered at the Pottery Barn, for those who would like to start the shopping early. :)

How ironic that hate...brings love.

FROM: Zigfried
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 1:39:47 am

hillary's in a precarious position... if she holds out until '08, she faces the serious situation of losing in '06 especially if rudy wants that seat. that leaves her in the same pergatory as algore, and we all know how that turns out.

as far as that moron marcus macky complaining about how bill gates doesn't deserve back some of the taxes he's paid because he won't do anything useful with it... hhhhmmm, marcus... who has created more jobs with their money, bill gates or you... i think bill more than deserves to get some of his money back. and the "class warfare" crap from the liberal playbook is getting mighty moldy. liberals = whine, whine, whine.

no wonder you liberals got your butts handed to you during the last mid-term elections. america is fed up with your constant whining and not fixing anything.


the liberals are like a dot com company... they get money they haven't earned and love to spend it because it's not their money. well, libbers, those days are over. just ask all of those liberal idiots that got voted out of office. and gray davis is next.

FROM: bj
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 8:12:24 am

I think Marcus Mackey is in dire need of a sense of humour

FROM: jk
DATE: Thursday June 19, 2003 -- 11:40:51 pm

Dave W, can Jim Furyk be our Best Man? And no, Gwen Stefani can NOT sing at the reception. No way.

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Friday June 20, 2003 -- 12:26:42 am

Wow, maybe we ARE meant for each other..Gwen Stefani is way overreated, and Jim Furyk would be a fine best man. ;)

FROM: jk
DATE: Friday June 20, 2003 -- 10:16:47 am

Are we annoying anyone yet?

FROM: Marcus Mackey [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday June 26, 2003 -- 8:40:05 am

First of all...

Where did I say I was a "Liberal"? When you make an assumption, at least in this case, the only one becoming the highlighted bold root I pose above is the one not paying attention. I said I was "Libertarian" in beliefs above, and also made it quite clear that there are some considerable conservative vantages I follow, vantages that are far more conservative than the Republican entities in power. ::gasping::

In fact, Harry Browne would be a great example of someone I'd support and vote for. So pull your right vs. left wing head out of your assuming @ss and *READ* before you blast. Libertarians are *NOT* liberals, they're quite the opposite I assure you. Read up on http://www.harrybrowne.org/ if you don't believe. They're more conservative (as in staying conservative to what the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written for) than the "so-called" conservatives I bashed earlier along with the Liberal Extremist FDR and his school of over-bureacratic modern Democrats, of which Clinton (not Hillary, Bill) was *NOT* one of. Many of his policies he pushed through were "REPUBLICAN" policies, with exception to environmental concerns, which... I'm sure many on here would agree need some semblance of enforcement?

Secondly... if you are going to call someone a moron, learn to spell their name properly before making yourself out to be the bigger dolt. It's "M-A-C-K-E-Y".

Thirdly... did we come here to read or look at pretty pictures? If you're going to blast someone for posing logical discussion on a "discussion" site, it often helps to "DISCUSS" matters, no matter at which length. I choose to do mine at greater lengths... que sera. Your mileage may vary. I'm not blasting you for only being able to enlighten with a paragraph on a subject, and not getting much of anything correct in the process, am I? Doesn't look that way to me...

As far as getting buried in the last election... seems to me that the greater overall # of votes, even with conceding that Bush won the electoral college, ::gasping:: went to Gore. You can search for the facts yourself. Gore had a considerable overall vote margin, but based on the electoral college results (presuming they were accurate, and noone to this date really knows for certain)... Bush won. Yet it was hardly a "LANDSLIDE" as you attempt to paint it, and honestly before the election... Bush was said, via polls (showing their accuracy) to have 60% of the popular vote overall (false, more like mid-30%) and it was said that he had $20 million more in ad budget to work with compared to his competition (something I support McCain in, this needs to end). Even so, if you actually were capable of reading earlier, I said if I had to vote for any candidates it'd likely have been Harry Browne, Orrin Hatch, or John McCain. *TWO* of which, are Republicans. ::gasping:: Ohhhhh... I'm a bonafide Liberal, eh? I agree with some elements of what they say, but I also agree with quite a few Republicans, but overall... Libertarian is probably closest to my party beliefs based on just about *EVERY* article Browne has written on his site, plus his book.

Rah-rah militant dolts that seek to stop warring by starting wars and continually support entities as allies that are just as bad as those they endoctrinate as enemies isn't doing anyone any favors. I mean... are we not still seeing our troops dying in Iraq as this is written from people that we "SUPPOSEDLY" freed? ::gasping:: Are we trying to push for a peace in the Middle East that ::gasping:: isn't working because either the Palestinians or Israelites break it the minute they agree to it and fire off some rockets or drive a tank into Gaza or commit some terrorist atrocity and circumvent the peace effort? In an area of the World where Holy Wars are "PARAMOUNT" through history... we expect to be the great voice of reason, all the while sticking our nose in a situation, not to mention siding with the side that just about every other Islamic or Arab nation over there "HATES". This has gone on since ::gasping:: The Crusades. Remember that time in history? Read up on it.

*NEWSFLASH*

If they "HATE" them... why would they not "HATE" us for "HELPING" them?!? Are you that blind to not see it? I was teary eyed and "Let's roll" myself after Sept. 11th for those people that periled in those towers, the planes, and the Pentagon. But... if you do the math and pull your head out of your red, white, and blue the world revolves around you and your @ss for a second and do the research... you'll find quite frankly that there's a lot of evidence(s) throughout history, both from our homeland and from others, that *SHOWS* why attempting to do as we are is only going to seek to deliver us *FROM* power quicker, and cause our reign as super power to slip faster when we can't defend ourselves through over extention as Worldwide police officer. Spread yourself too thin... and how will you defend yourself? It's Vietnam part II for those that are old enough to remember what we put ourselves in being the quintessential freedom fighters. You might not understand that the best Offense is a Good Defense, but the majority of our offenses have failed or produced mixed results. World War II was us putting on our best defense, and a showcase of us doing it in perhaps the best diplomatic showcase we've had since The Revolutionary War. Even so, the bureaucracy after WWII led to the Cold War and some hatred towards our former ally, Russia, for quite some time.

Sept. 11th was a reaction to our alliance with Israel... it wasn't people bombing us 'cause we have Britney Spears and MTV and 'cause we dress funny compared to what *THEY* consider normal. No... it was "politically" driven, a political siding that goes down as something that many other more astute diplomatic nations have tried to avoid in great fashion over there because they've seen what we're going through in the past in differing ways because they've dealt with terrorism of that magnitude for *FAR LONGER* than we have. The WTC bombing was our first large scale terrorist attack on our soil and most of us didn't even know what to think after it. After the planes hit the WTC... we were all after blood, when the blood that spilled was most likely a result of our past ignorances in the Worldwide community. I won't even begin to lay blame for our sidings with Israel over the Palestinians for as long as we have... who knows who started that B.S., but it's heir-apparent that we need to nip it in the bud and level off our support for both sides 'til peace is achieved, and hopefully let them handle it more on THEIR own terms so as to not make us look like "The Great Meddler" that we're coming off as Internationally already.

You might consider what they do to be "immoral", but morals are based on "moral majority", and even so... that doesn't mean they're always right. On an isle of cannibals, is it morally wrong to eat your compatriarch? I'd probably have to say "NO", it's probably considered "condoned". Does it make it right? That's something that only the moral majority can decide. Catch-22 if you will?

That's where ethics stem from in majority, and there are many Fundamentalists in our great country as there are overseas and abroad. Muslims, Amish Mennonites, Quakers, Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses... et al. Each one has their own differing perspectives on ethics and morality, like their philosophies or not.. they're entitled to them whether you approve or not, as long as they do no harm to you. That's the key and deciding factor... not what they believe, but how what they believe in effects you. After all, I'm Irish in nationality (born in the U.S.) and my homeland has a holy war of it's own focused on Christianity that stems from The Crusades and The Inquisition. Are we meddling in Ireland to get the IRA on our case? No... even England tries to avoid that confrontation.

Why do you think the Brits are up in arms with Tony Blair (approval rating slipped the minute he supported Bush, and hasn't returned to favorable post-war)? You have a nation where a large majority don't even support the man that is standing firmly behind our president?!? Even worldwide, there's countless other nations that would just as soon we let the U.N. handle it, and how much worse were they doing?!? WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANYTHING MORE THAN THEY DID! LoL Read the news... I'm not lying to you! It's all there everytime CNN or Fox flashes up a headline about our findings that we were so "CERTAIN" over and blasted Blix and the other arms inspectors "REPEATEDLY" over for their lack of timeliness, something we ourselves haven't succeeded very far in finding (with considerable time and greater control) any new evidences that point to anymore chance of the weaponry we "SAY" they had, or "SAY" they were capable of making.

Ask any Libertarian about how they feel about Extremist Democrats (I choose not to use the term "LIBERAL" because it's like calling a Republican a Conservative, 90% of them *AREN'T* anymore conservative than the Liberals you all are bashing; they just cater to a handful of *ISSUES* you tie yourselves to, and more than not... it's a 50/50 with *NO* progress on all fronts) or Republicans and you'll find that most aren't favored anymore highly than the other. There's elements that Clinton lobbied for that I disagreed with, never said there wasn't... but we went from a balanced budget to a man that has put us in the red, and even though his budget "SAYS" balanced... I'll believe it when I see it, especially if we have to bail out both Afghanistan and Iraq now, both of which are in considerable states of disarray. This isn't even taking into account what we'll *SEEMINGLY* have to do with Iran, North Korea, and between Israel and the Palestinians. Plus, Liberia... that's a whole new ball of wax that just crept in that you can be sure we'll put our big Texan hat on and "CHARGE" into...

Bush's favorability is a knee-jerk reaction to how he handled Sept. 11th. It's based more on emotion than factual proof, evidences, eliminating *REAL* problems, or substantiating claims. The fact is... we've "STILL" not found any chemical weapons, there's "STILL" no sign of Saddam (who could still enact terror), and we've "STILL" not caught Osama bin Laden (who I fear even more than Saddam for as long as he's been out there and able to rally troops and plot again).

Oh and the Federal Reserve is "STILL" having to bail out the economy with yet another interest rate cut. Proof once again that tax breaks for the wealthy do not fix things when you have poverty-stricken lower class people that are on unemployment. We have a Social Security problem that "NOONE" wants to touch for fear of putting the guillotine to their throats, and we've got dire needs in both Unemployment, Economy (still not up to where it was), and need for some semblance of reform for statewide economic problems in various states. We can blast Democrats or Republicans all we want... but my pal in W Va. has a state with a 6 billion debt for unemployment racked up, and Illinois has been in considerable debt after Governor George H. Ryan retired. Oh, dare I mention that Ryan was an old-school Republican?

Oh and last I checked... I bashed FDR above, one of the great ::coughing:: *Liberal* minds. The same one that started the onslaught of programs and laws and policies that many of you "Liberal haters" blast. Oh, and dare I mention he's a Democrat?!? OoooOOooooo... but I'm a Liberal? I think you need to learn to pay attention and *READ* the above posting a little closer next time before you open mouth and insert foot.

Libertarian *DOES NOT* equal Liberal. In fact... they're quite contrasting, and Libertarians are quite possibly the "MOST" conservative entity because they believe in what this country's government was written as from day one by our founding fathers (to limit the power of the presidents and congress and put it squarely in the people's hands), and believe we've over-extended ourselves through bureaucracy into "TONS" of red tape. Red tape that every Republican lobbies against... up until it comes to returning power to the people and decentralizing the government so that states have more control over their well-being. After all, what works in one state doesn't work in *ALL* states, and not everyone should be punished for their beliefs on things in comparison to someone else.

As far as the social class debate... as a Libertarian, I do believe that it's a problem. That's not the liberal whining you consider. It's been "PROVEN" by people understanding macro-economics that a tiered financial system only seeks to create greater disparity and detriment. Granted, it's an ideal to have the "PERFECT" system, but the closer we are to a level system, the better off we are. All the more reason to at least "TRY" to get as close as we can... we may not ever reach the ideal, but who knows how far we can get? We could either blast it as "IMPOSSIBLE" and give someone grounds to screw us to death... or try to achieve and see how far we can get.

Oh and comparing me to Bill Gates... how about Henry Ford to Bill Gates? Henry cut the costs of his cars so people could afford them, thereby creating more jobs. He also delivered higher wages. ::gasping:: How many jobs did Microsoft create when they leveraged their monopoly to kill off Netscape? What about circumventing Sun Microsystems and weakening their position with Java? What about the bundling policies, the picking and choosing, the detriments to consumer choice by eliminating competitive options through selective bundling? How about restrictive choice?

Microsoft is the modern day Standard Oil, IBM (who actually handled their own monopoly situation via a break off and farming out of technologies), or Bell Telephone (now AT&T and the various realigned Baby Bells and their various wireless brands) where they've repeatedly circumvented through violating business trade laws, trade laws that "BOTH" Republicans and Democrats have continually supported, all of which were created in FDR's time.

Trickle down economics doesn't create more jobs... it hasn't in the past, and it won't now. There's more greed at the top of big business, and with the DOJ (a slow-moving testimony to centralized government) not being able to enforce Federal Trade Laws any better than they have, business has grown more and more cutthroat with the consumer suffering the most as a result while businesses work and strive long and hard to employ tactics to undermine their competitor rather than "compete". None of them are saints... and there's very few enterprising Henry Fords out there that actually choose to develop a system like he opted for. Not to put Henry or Harry (Browne) on pedestals as patron saints... but saying Gates is enterprising is like saying Al Capone was shrewd. They both worked loopholes in systems to their benefit, both broke laws... and both were convicted for their crime (in Gates' case... they were found for wrongdoing 2x's), yet who gets away with a slap on the wrist and outlets for increasing marketshare (a major financial investment in education, an area Microsoft "DOES NOT" hold a considerable marketshare) as part of their settlements and who "FINALLY" spent time in jail?

FROM: Marcus Mackey
DATE: Thursday June 26, 2003 -- 8:54:36 am

FROM: Marcus Mackey
DATE: Thursday June 26, 2003 -- 9:06:06 am

last Hits U.S. Patrol in Baghdad as Attacks Mount <--- Continued defiance. The war has just begun over there, and even when we're gone... will they appreciate truly what we did for them?

Iraqi Scientist Gives Up 12-Year-Old Nuclear Parts <--- best we've found so far, articles that are 12 years old, with no evidences of anything existing or operable as a result of them.

Arafat Says Truce Deal Close <--- Everytime one side agrees to the terms of a truce, warring or some other fighting breaks out. Even with a truce, will it end? Doubtful... because the Palestinian's want to get Palestine back. Their only means through lack of a solid military compared to Israel's is ::gasping:: terrorism, much as our only means against England during the Revolutionary War was guerilla warfare.

Ariel Sharon, War Criminal - Google Search <--- interesting allotment of articles. There was an article posted in the Chicago Tribune amongst the list at one point. The Tribune is a decisively Republican paper in Chicago; which is why it came as so odd.

Sorry for the previous posting above... I accidentally hit "enter" at the wrong time and it sent it through.

FROM: Sharon
DATE: Sunday March 14, 2004 -- 9:08:34 am

To much to read Marcus....If you think you need to "write" all that just to make a point? I rest my case.

FROM: Paul
DATE: Sunday March 14, 2004 -- 9:10:42 am

Your case has no defense. Nice job!

FROM: Shannon Cordray
DATE: Monday March 22, 2004 -- 10:42:09 am

It may not be my place to say this, but I think you guys bashing Marcus should just leave him alone or reply in a well-thought logical manner. He may be pretty long-winded, but he is well-informed and has his facts together enough to make a very decent presentation. Not to insult anyone here, but I think that replying with empty insults is just a sign that you are flustered and you don't know how to reply. Perhaps you're getting carried away with you're emotions, but you should instead try to channel that passion into something constructive.

FROM: Fan of history and gunplay [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday June 22, 2006 -- 10:34:23 am

UN gun ban *LINK Inside-------CNN QUICKVOTE - Is the UN trying to outlaw guns in -- the U.S. ? Liberal Bs. http://www.hillary.org/hc/Hillary_Clinton_Forum_1301_chat1.cgi