Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 09:10:03

A fact? Okay, so it's a fact that if we elect Kerry, we invite the terroists to think that we are weak- and this is based on what, terroist network poll?

We're engaged in a war, if we change leadership in the middle of it primarily because of it we can't help but send the enemy a message that our resolve is weakening.

Again, don't make your decision based on that, but it's there.

Where as it is not a fact that global warming is occuring when growing evidence continues to suggest that it is?

I'm not denying that the climate has gotten warmer over the last 200 years, merely questioning the assumption that it's the direct result of our own activity and that by enacting policies that just happen to harm us we could make it all better. Just as I'm not saying that Bush is all-good and Kerry will destroy us.

Watch carefully, the jumps happen fast.

We elected Bush and the terroists attacked. Something tells me that if we elect Bush again, they will attack again. We elect Kerry, something tells me that they will attack regardless. If we don't want to give in to the terroists, I guess we better go shop till we drop too!

That, and kill them.

Yes, I just used a smiley after advocating killing some people. It's gonna be a long day.

clark · 2004-10-28 09:37:40

We're engaged in a war, if we change leadership in the middle of it primarily because of it we can't help but send the enemy a message that our resolve is weakening.

If we change leadership because we are in a war... Kerry vows to keep fighting. That dosen't sound like we are losing any resolve there. The fact that Bush and Bush supporters even mention the issue seems to me a bit misleading and used solely as a scare tactic. The wolves are waiting.

I'm not denying that the climate has gotten warmer over the last 200 years, merely questioning the assumption that it's the direct result of our own activity and that by enacting policies that just happen to harm us we could make it all better.

Right, man made pollution has no effect on the environment. Curbing pollution will not help. Maybe the Kyoto accord could have been better implemented, but Bush is patently ignoring the science and is doing nothing to deal with the issue.

Of course, long term models tend to paint a pretty picture for North America- it's Europe and the Pacific islands that suffer the most. So hey, our own self interest isn't served by this issue. Let the rest of the world learn to swim.

That, and kill them.
Yes, I just used a smiley after advocating killing some people. It's gonna be a long day.

Hmm, well both canadites promise to kill them. There is a neccessity, so have fun.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 09:41:11

Missing explosives?

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelea … 9043]Blame our soldiers? Gawd. Rudy hits a new low here.

Blame the troops, not Bush? Yup. Good plan.

Bush is soooo not a strong leader.

clark · 2004-10-28 09:46:25

It was faulty intelligence. Bush was misled.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-28 09:48:40

Lemme see, American's being lectured on the where-fore of our democracy and the relationship of our federal government by a Canadian, an Australian who supports democracy because he hasn't found a better suit, and Bill, who feels. Is this Springer? :laugh:
Robert, be forwarned (and I for one thank you though) that some Brit's got into trouble when they sent some letters to some Amerikan's out in Ohio with advice on how to vote. We can be a touchy lot, or feely, as Bill demonstrates.

The American federal government is currently in a dispute over softwood lumber. The claim is that Washington doesn’t like how Canadian provinces manage their lumber industry; they want to dictate resource policy to Canada: how the “stumpage fee” will be calculated. The American lumber lobby wants to eliminate Canadian imports so they get a larger market share, which is a direct violation of free trade, but before surviving Canadian companies increased exports to previous levels America just imported lumber from Europe. So American companies can’t provide more than they are anyway. But the excuse is about how Canada manages a domestic resource industry. If America applies that much pressure to control Canadian domestic policy, shouldn’t Canadians have an influence on American government?

There is also duration of pharmaceutical patent law, managing the fishery, grain and dairy marketing boards, berry picking, even the ban on beef has been extended long after scientists said the border should be re-opened. President Ronald Regan sent a coast guard cutter through Canadian arctic waters without permission or notification deliberately to incite Canada to spend more money on military. At one point (post 9/11) Washington even claimed Canada didn’t have enough military protecting itself from terrorism so tried to base American troops in Canada.

If you want Canadians to stay out of American politics, then keep Washington out of Canadian policy.

We're engaged in a war, if we change leadership in the middle of it primarily because of it we can't help but send the enemy a message that our resolve is weakening.

Shouldn’t you refocus the war on those who attacked the WTC? This distraction with Iraq not only demonstrates weakening resolve, it demonstrates America will respond to a single terrorist attack by thrashing around at practically every country in the world, offending long standing allies, and passing domestic laws like the “Patriot Act” that undermine freedom more than any terrorist attack could. Need I mention the prisoners in Guantánamo? I’m not convinced that Kerry is any better than Bush, but Bush’s response hasn’t been effective. It’s 3 years after 9/11; now is definitely the time to review leadership.

clark · 2004-10-28 09:54:33

If America applies that much pressure to control Canadian domestic policy, shouldn’t Canadians have an influence on American government?

Do you really want to live under the Stars and Stripes? :laugh:

Just keep sending your entertainers, they influence us enough.

If you want Canadians to stay out of American politics, then keep Washington out of Canadian policy.

I will try. However, I have been unable to keep them out of Iraqi policy, Afghanistan policy, Latin Americin policy, Tawinese policy, European policy, Russian policy, African policy, Hati policy, Cuban policy, or a whole other slew of other countries policies. No promises though.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-28 12:55:17

Actually, now that you mention it, US & Canadian policies have been getting progressively less equitable over the past couple of decades. All trade partners vie against each other a little, but lately we've become downright cutthroat. I mean, are we trying to sell trade goods or run for office?

I've never had anything against Canada. Heck, Canadians invented car air conditioning! Every time I've looked at the thermometer for the past month has renewed my love for that wonderful confederation.

Palomar · 2004-10-28 13:06:45

*What I'd like to know is (AND I'M BEING SINCERE):

What has been the STARTING POINT of all this animosity??

I mean in the minds of non-U.S. citizens.

A lot of (NON-Middle-Eastern in origin) animosity towards the U.S. started *showing* shortly after 9/11. I couldn't imagine why certain nations would light candles, place flowers around U.S. embassies and give condolences when mere months later "we deserved it" is echoing around major portions of other Western nations. Not ALL persons of those nations felt we deserved it, but apparently enough have.

And that was *months* prior to the Iraqi invasion.

So? What was THE flashpoint? Especially between Canada and the U.S.?

Also, I find it extremely perplexing that a nation which has kept closer ties to Great Britain -- with all that nation's history of colonization, abuses of other peoples, etc., etc. (80 years ago Britain was in our shoes; mightiest nation on Earth) -- on the other hand has such antipathy for the U.S.

? Maybe I shouldn't ask or comment, but I am genuinely perplexed.

Why is Great Britain "okay" and its past swept under the rug, and "only" the U.S. has been horrible and repulsive? History doesn't matter, just now does? That won't wash with certain folks (of previously colonized nations).

Again, I'm being sincere. Might get into trouble for this. :-\

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-28 13:19:55

It was the rhetoric, Cindy. A good President would've embraced the world, rather than scoffing at it. A good President would've accepted problems with the US, rather than absolving the US completely (I think the best time to admit your mistakes is when everyone is looking to you and supporting you, this is not a weak thing to do). You don't even have to come out and say "the US has contributed to some terroristic behaviors in the past" all you have to do is say "this is a time where peace is paramount, and we're going to go about this the right way." The fact that Bush was never actually truely liked throughout his Presidency didn't help matters.

Anyway, did anyone see Kerry's speech today? My god.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ...y_dc_71

Kerry Uses Bush's Own Words to Call Him Unfit

Kerry said the weapons were not "where they were supposed to be, you were warned to guard them, you didn't guard them. They're not secure, and, guess what, according to George Bush's own words, he shouldn't be our commander in chief and I couldn't agree more."

With Tuesday's election deadlocked, Kerry took aim at the president's perceived strength -- national security -- and hammered him for a fourth consecutive day on the missing explosives.

Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of a candidate who will say anything to get elected."

Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr. President, I agree with you."

"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he was given."

Holy cow. To coin a word or two from internet jargon; 0WN3D.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 13:30:51

*What I'd like to know is (AND I'M BEING SINCERE):
What has been the STARTING POINT of all this animosity??

I too am interested in some input on this.

I might have mentioned this here previously, back in August of '02 I was staying in Canada for a few days and happened to pick up a newspaper which had a section on the rapidly approaching one year anniversary of 9/11. Page after page of "they brought it on themselves", followed by some choice critiquing of our stumbling through Afghanistan, breaking things and killing civilians, so it implied. "WTF?" was my immediate response. I started paying a bit more attention to the local media and got much the same impression everywhere. All long before the Saddam smackdown, sure it was discussed, but I just don't buy that it's the big motivator.

The US invasion of Iraq is to anti-Americanism in Western nations what the Palestinian issue is to the radical Islamicists. A convenient excuse that masks deeper reasons.

John Creighton · 2004-10-28 13:48:44

The US invasion of Iraq is to anti-Americanism in Western nations what the Palestinian issue is to the radical Islamicists. A convenient excuse that masks deeper reasons.

You can say that but the US is not the only country in the world and if it tells the rest of the world to pound sand in issues of trade and world security some resentment should be expected. But then again no country is perfect. Canada complains about the US on the beef issue but Canada did the same thing to Japan and Japan tests all of their cows. So maybe the size of the US in terms of military, economics, population and landmass plays a role as well. I myself hold no animosity.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 13:59:05

Just being the big guy breeds resentment. Being rich breeds resentment, being powerful breeds resentment. Sure, it doesn't take much to get some other countries pissed at us. I understand that.

What I don't get is the mindset of Americans who feel that because we're resented for these things that we should act more submissive to our neighbors and try to be more like the "little guys" of the world. As world dominating powers go we are damn benevolent, I'm not terribly concerned if someone decides to give us a cold shoulder for awhile. They know we'll be there if they need us.

I'm not trying to come off as some anti-foreign bigot either, I have nothing against the Canadians, the French or anyone else. I just don't think it's up to us to placate them whenever they don't like what we're doing. <shrug> such is life, I suppose.

John Creighton · 2004-10-28 14:45:39

What I don't get is the mindset of Americans who feel that because we're resented for these things that we should act more submissive to our neighbors and try to be more like the "little guys" of the world. As world dominating powers go we are damn benevolent,

Don't be submissive be diplomatic be a leader

I'm not terribly concerned if someone decides to give us a cold shoulder for awhile. They know we'll be there if they need us.

The west knows that (maybe all of north americal europe and asia) now but if relationships deteriorate. It is in the interest of the westren world to get along. No no nation be it the US or french should try and take advantage of that.

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-28 15:22:28

Just being the big guy breeds resentment. Being rich breeds resentment, being powerful breeds resentment. Sure, it doesn't take much to get some other countries pissed at us. I understand that.

It's not that the USA is resented for being the biggest and best, people aren't "resenting" China for having doubled their GDP in ten years, with absolutely no indications of slowing down. It's that it is very well known that the USA says one thing and does another, the US supports western values, but then supports dictatorships, the US says they're doing the right thing in one given atrocity, but they don't act with another given atrocity (so the "the US is a world police force" argument is silly, unless you are to say that police should turn a blind eye when certain people do wrong).

But that's what's part of being American is about, going from one extreme to the next. Our two party system demands it.

No one hated the US when Clinton was in office. Indeed, Clinton even played police guy (just like loud mouth Bush is trying to do) and everyone loved him for it (despite the questionabilty of the Kosovo war). So, it's simpler than "people hate the big guy." They just hate it when it's shoved down their faces and a big cowboy is in charge.

They resent the US when the Republicans are in charge. The like the US when the Democrats are in charge.

Question is, which world would you prefer? A world where we are liked, or a world where we are disliked?

BWhite · 2004-10-28 15:29:10

Cobra, part of it is our hypocrisy and attempts to impose double standards based solely on power.

For example, a few years ago one team of US diplomats was in Belgrade to demand that Milosevic (or maybe it was some other Serb bastard) be turned over to the Hague for trial by an international court.

At the same time, another US team of diplomats was in Belgrade to pressure them to sign a treaty that Americans would NEVER be turned over to an international court.

Lets just say the Serbs were pissed. And I cannot blame them.

= = =

Pre-Iraq invasion German intelligence was warning that the WMD evidence was far from conclusive. Bush gave that the back of his hand.

That is why they are pissed.

Examples abound.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 15:41:31

What I don't get is the mindset of Americans who feel that because we're resented for these things that we should act more submissive to our neighbors and try to be more like the "little guys" of the world. As world dominating powers go we are damn benevolent, I'm not terribly concerned if someone decides to give us a cold shoulder for awhile. They know we'll be there if they need us.

Cobra, my problem with this is less that its not nice and more we DO NOT have sufficient power to make such a policy stick.

Its a recipe for folks to gang up and push us off the high hill even faster.

The 21st century economies will depend on consumer spending. Where will the 21st century consumers be? Not here, given current birth rates.

Cindy posted a comment that maybe "they" shouldn't buy our good. God forbid that happens because then our economy will be 100% screwed.

= = =

While Bush and FOX was pushing freedom fries, Chirac and Beijing came to terms on the Galileo GPS alternative and just today I saw the Russians signed a deal to build a Soyuz launch pad in SOUTH KOREA!

Repeal the Outer Space Treaty of 1967? Yeah and watch the rest of the world blow right past us. . .

Palomar · 2004-10-28 17:27:40

Cindy posted a comment that maybe "they" shouldn't buy our good. God forbid that happens because then our economy will be 100% screwed.

*Erm...Bill, sorry, I feel this (unintentionally of course) misrepresents what I said.

Robert Dyck commented on assimilation, other nations and the U.S. I responded that if another nation doesn't like U.S. culture and if they feel we're trying to assimilate them, it's *their* duty to keep out of their society what about ours they don't like (whether blue jeans or soda pop or whatever).

Not that I -want- them to do this, of course. I'm simply trying to point out that if they don't like our pop culture and etc., keep it out of their nations or quit complaining.

They're trying to make it sound like *everything* is our fault. On a commercial level, no one is forcing them to assimilate our culture. They don't have to buy/view/wear/drink.

In fact, some folks in Germany seem to be boycotting American goods -- particularly fast food franchises. At least they're not hypocrites (i.e., "America is the Great Satan Evil Imperialist so I'll walk over and get a Big Mac and wash it down with Pepsi.")

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 17:50:33

I can feel the hate... swelling in you now.

No one hated the US when Clinton was in office.

Well, aside from the Islamic terrorists hitting from time to time. And the Chinese and Russians weren't so much liking us as taking advantage of our... good nature. Western Europe isn't "the world". But yeah, under Clinton we sat here in our fortress and didn't do much. We even gave the world a few laughs. They got a little peeved when we unilaterally went into Kosovo and every time we bombed Iraq. And Sudanese medicine factories. And a Chinese embassy... but we were just "hangin' out" on the world stage. Setting the stage for 9/11.

Now, God forbid, we actually have to get up and do something. We have to use some military force for our own interests rather than helping out someone else.

They resent the US when the Republicans are in charge. The like the US when the Democrats are in charge.
Question is, which world would you prefer? A world where we are liked, or a world where we are disliked?

I'd prefer a world where we're liked for who and what we really are. If we have to try to make the world love us, put how others perceive us ahead of what we think is right, then screw it. That's no way to live. Go around kissing butt and giving stuff away and everyone will like you. No one will respect you and you'll be remembered as a sap.

At the same time, another US team of diplomats was in Belgrade to pressure them to sign a treaty that Americans would NEVER be turned over to an international court.

Not the most tactful approach, but I can't fault the intention. Given the anti-Americanism in the world, even before Iraq, before 9/11, I wouldn't want American troops being turned over to some international court either. Have the Chinese or the Taliban or some African-dictatorship-of-the-week pass judgment on Americans for human rights violations and warcrimes? Oh, where do I sign up?

Pre-Iraq invasion German intelligence was warning that the WMD evidence was far from conclusive. Bush gave that the back of his hand.
That is why they are pissed.

That, and some arms deals. And that "Oil for Palaces" money.

Of course we all know that once George Bush starting talking about actually enforcing a UN resolution there suddenly were no weapons of mass destruction. And Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, doubleplusgood, don't touch the dial on that telescreen.

Repeal the Outer Space Treaty of 1967? Yeah and watch the rest of the world blow right past us. . .

I've always been an advocate of just kind of ignoring it, actually. Don't actually go out and claim anything until we have a good foothold and someone else is almost ready to go. Even then, there are ways around it without actually blatantly going around it.

What a campaign season eh? Republicans think we're all gonna die in a nuclear/chemical/biologic cloud if Kerry wins, Democrats think we'll be shunned and hated eternally by the rest of the world if Bush wins. What wonder it is to live in such an age when reason has yielded to such pure emotion. ???

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-28 18:03:07

CC, I think it's the clarity of your thought processes I like the most.
Good post, as usual.

Palomar · 2004-10-28 18:23:06

CC, I think it's the clarity of your thought processes I like the most.
Good post, as usual.

*I'll definitely 2nd that, Shaun.

Of course we all know that once George Bush starting talking about actually enforcing a UN resolution there suddenly were no weapons of mass destruction. And Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, doubleplusgood, don't touch the dial on that telescreen.

*Lol! That one is priceless, Cobra.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-10-28 18:34:44

What I don't understand is WHY you believe George Bush helps you achieve the goals you describe?

The man is a phony who talks the game you like but fails to walk the walk.

Euler · 2004-10-28 18:35:56

if another nation doesn't like U.S. culture and if they feel we're trying to assimilate them, it's *their* duty to keep out of their society what about ours they don't like (whether blue jeans or soda pop or whatever).

A disturbingly large fraction of the good that are considered "US" culture aren't even made in the US anymore. If people in other countries are wearing "American" clothes, it is probably China or India that is actually benefiting.

If we have to try to make the world love us, put how others perceive us ahead of what we think is right, then screw it.

It is not about putting how others perceive us above what we think is right; it is about putting what we think is right above what we perceive as our self-interest.

Of course we all know that once George Bush starting talking about actually enforcing a UN resolution there suddenly were no weapons of mass destruction.

Before 9/11, GWB's own administration was saying that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. That is why it was so suspicious when we suddenly started claiming that there were WMDs in Iraq despite the lack of any strong evidence to support such a claim.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 19:19:57

Daily Show. Must watch tonight.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/2 … 7/31]Zogby says. . .

PS - - Ron Reagan Jr. rocks! Who knew?

= = =

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

= = =

A Canadian media http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/041028/w1028104.html]view:

His most ardent supporters, evangelical Christians, believe he's a messenger from God sent to fight for liberty around the globe.

This frightens me.

The prime reason he gave for invading Iraq in 2003 was discredited when a final weapons report found no evidence deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had banned stockpiles.
And a massive final report from the commission studying the 9-11 attacks concluded there's no evidence Saddam was ever collaborating with al-Qaida terrorists who attacked the United States.
But a stunning poll released Thursday suggested many Americans still think there was a link and there were weapons.

This shows me most Bush supporters have their heads in the sand, ignoring the truth.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-28 20:05:08

*What I'd like to know is (AND I'M BEING SINCERE):
What has been the STARTING POINT of all this animosity??
I mean in the minds of non-U.S. citizens.

There have been a lot of hard feelings in Canada long before that, but most Canadians chose not to express it to Americans. The U.S. government as well as big business has treated Canada with contempt.

I remember one time during George Bush senior's term when the New York state chapter of the American Medical Association lobbied to adopt Canada's health care system. I thought the U.S. had finally recognised Canada did something right. The reaction from most Americans was "Why Adopt Canada's? If we want a national health care program we'll go to Europe." So much for the compliment; they turned a potential gesture of good will into another expression of contempt. President Bush responded with "We won't copy anybody's anything, we'll re-invent the wheel." He ordered a multi-million dollar study that was filled somewhere no one would look at it.

Fishery: the east coast provinces of Canada were based on fishing since before the first colony. There were permanent homes of Portuguese and English fishermen in Newfoundland before Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, or even the colony of Roanoke. When fishing was endangered on the Grand Banks, Canada instituted quotas. Most American fishermen wanted to honour the quotas, but a few ignored them and the rest felt they had to compete before all the fish were gone. Violation of the quotas damaged the fishery so much that the fishery had to be closed to prevent extinction. Species after species were fished to near extinction and the same offenders, particularly 2 American boats, pushed each endangered species until all fishing had to be banned. American lawyers argued against Canadian authority, and the U.S. government only got involved when those 2 boats were seized. What had been the economic basis of the east coast for 500 years is destroyed, along with a way of life.

There are other rude and blatant attacks on Canada's economy, but the shear number and extent has gotten completely out of line. Within Canada, after years of growing economic problems that cause a larger per capita national debt than the U.S. and greater tax load, our finance minister made some hard decisions and corrected the situation. Some of the means were hard to take, but we stopped the spiralling deficits, reduced taxes, actually repealed a tax for the first time in living memory, and started to pay down the debt. Just as Canada's economy was finally succeeding, Dubya's economic attacks on Canada knocked down our surplus to nothing and halted economic growth. This has led many to feel the dependence on the U.S. economy caused by NAFTA was a very bad idea, and left us vulnerable to U.S. political whims.

Add to this domestic politics. Ontario and Quebec used to have 51% of the population, and almost all of Canada's industrial capacity. The west has been growing, B.C. by Pacific trade and Alberta by oil. The west has long felt marginalized but now has sufficient economy to be treated as equals with Ontario and Quebec. But there are as many rednecks in Alberta as Texas. Alberta and B.C. are the political power base for the Reform party, which can only be described as right wing. After the Progressive Conservative party was destroyed at the federal level, the Reform party became the "Official Opposition". That means the party with the second most members in the House. The Reform party gave the west a credible political voice in the federal government, but it also represents the right-wing. There are an uncomfortable number of people in the Reform party who want to join America's hell-bent-for-leather conquest of the world, as well as adopting policies from the extreme right-wing of the U.S. Most Canadians are shocked; they want to be peaceful, moderate, and respect foreign governments. The merged Conservative party had to suppress their right-wing members from the Reform party; pundits said they "gagged anyone who might say anything remotely redneck". This demonstrates how moderate mainstream Canada is. So part of the lashing out is defence of Canadian values, fighting against what is perceived as assimilation into U.S. culture through a domestic political faction.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-28 20:53:38

At the same time, another US team of diplomats was in Belgrade to pressure them to sign a treaty that Americans would NEVER be turned over to an international court.
Not the most tactful approach, but I can't fault the intention. Given the anti-Americanism in the world, even before Iraq, before 9/11, I wouldn't want American troops being turned over to some international court either. Have the Chinese or the Taliban or some African-dictatorship-of-the-week pass judgment on Americans for human rights violations and warcrimes? Oh, where do I sign up?

So America wants others to be held accountable, but wants to be immune themselves? Do I really have to say why this is offensive?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-10-28 09:10:03

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#127 2004-10-28 09:37:40

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#128 2004-10-28 09:41:11

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#129 2004-10-28 09:46:25

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#130 2004-10-28 09:48:40

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#131 2004-10-28 09:54:33

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#132 2004-10-28 12:55:17

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#133 2004-10-28 13:06:45

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#134 2004-10-28 13:19:55

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#135 2004-10-28 13:30:51

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#136 2004-10-28 13:48:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#137 2004-10-28 13:59:05

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#138 2004-10-28 14:45:39

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#139 2004-10-28 15:22:28

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#140 2004-10-28 15:29:10

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#141 2004-10-28 15:41:31

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#142 2004-10-28 17:27:40

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#143 2004-10-28 17:50:33

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#144 2004-10-28 18:03:07

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#145 2004-10-28 18:23:06

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#146 2004-10-28 18:34:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#147 2004-10-28 18:35:56

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#148 2004-10-28 19:19:57

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#149 2004-10-28 20:05:08

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#150 2004-10-28 20:53:38

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer