You are President

Bill White · 2004-06-16 20:11:56

Banning firearms is a good way to start a civil war in the US.
If you campaigned on that
A.) you would never win
B.) Someone would cast their 'ballot' from a rooftop and you would have .50 caliber hole in you

Don't take either of these guys seriously, there is some major league troll bait being set out.

I have refrained from joining in, preferring to watch genuis at work.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-16 21:18:04

I'm not trying to troll, I'm not even saying that's my opinion. I'll I'm saying is that there is a large survialist community that would not accept the outlawing of firearms as a huge infringement of their rights. Firearms rights are an important issue to many Americans, myself included, and also a very devisive issue. I don't think it's too big a stretch of the imagination that if there one day was a point blank revokation of the the 2nd amendment it would cause a civil war.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-16 22:03:48

Now that I have defended myself I might as well jump into the fray.

If I were POTUS and had an agreeable congress these are the changes I would make.

A.) Set a national initive to be completely engery independent in 10 years, this would be accomplished by making nuclear power, hydrogen refineries, bio-deisel, and fusion power, and shale and tar sands oil extraction completely tax free. I would also mandate a national fuel formulation, and open oil exploration and extraction in the entire country, the California Coast, and Gulf of Mexico

B.) Abolish the tax system. The only tax is a 10% flat tax. It's simple, it's fair. Everyone is giving and equal share, there is no punishing the sucessfull. This is the only way that is equitable. Also without capital gains or bussiness taxes there will be even more motivation for investment.

C.) Balance the budget by disbanding the horribly inefficent and overly socialist social programs that overstep the bounds of the mandate of our government. With no more social security, medicare, medicad adnaseum there will be more then enough room in the coughers to balance the budget.

D.) Double the budgets of the national labs and NASA giving NASA the mandate to establish a permanent human presence on Mars and in the asteroid belt with an expanding presence.

E.) Make the individuals who work for companies who are working on in space or near space comerical ventures tax exempt. This will help promote investment in space and hopfully speed the industrialization of near space.

F.) I would mandate the Air Force to have the capabilites to acheive space control and launch on demand. Also I would start a crash program to develop a space based strike system based on either large rail guns or directed energy that would be deployed in orbit to allow zero lag time strikes against targets anywhere on the globe. Unit commanders in theater would only have to upload a set of GPS cordinates to the national strike system and they would receive instant support. This would also make the bomber obsolete and further widern the American technical and military supremacy. Also it would allow a definitve first strike option against our enemies nuclear assets without having to worry about retaliation.

G.) I would announce that the US was leaving the United Nations, that their globalist socialist agenda was countrary to the national identity of our country and a threat to our soveigntry. The UN building would then be converted to the new Museum of Arms and Armaments for the sake of irony.

F.) Remove the restrictions on civillian ownership of weapons so long as they pass a thorough backround check. I would also make basic military and weapons training a required part of the curiculum of the all public high schools.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-17 05:22:15

G.) I would announce that the US was leaving the United Nations, that their globalist socialist agenda was countrary to the national identity of our country and a threat to our soveigntry. The UN building would then be converted to the new Museum of Arms and Armaments for the sake of irony.

Not quite as evil as what I'd do, but I like it.

F.) Remove the restrictions on civillian ownership of weapons so long as they pass a thorough backround check. I would also make basic military and weapons training a required part of the curiculum of the all public high schools.

My only concern here is what constitutes a "thorough background check" as we are talking about American citizens exercising Constitutional rights. If it's just a NICS type check for criminal history that's fine and sensible, but the wording here could also be used to authorize very invasive checks.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-17 06:52:15

Cobra, I did envision a evolved NICS system, but your right the wording of the way I wrote it does leave alot of room for abuse, but given that under my system you would be free to own everything from GE mini-guns to M-1A Abrams MBT I think that there need be a system to make sure the insane and criminal cant get their hands on them...although with the omnipresence of civillian weapons would largley negate this problem even if they did get their hands on them.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-17 06:59:05

...but given that under my system you would be free to own everything from GE mini-guns to M-1A Abrams MBT I think that there need be a system to make sure the insane and criminal cant get their hands on them...

But can we freely assemble bearing arms, that's the question.

Protesting. With tanks.

clark · 2004-06-17 08:37:04

Suddenly, I have never been more motivated to get to Mars as soon as possible. :laugh:

Dook · 2004-06-17 09:16:01

B.) Abolish the tax system. The only tax is a 10% flat tax. It's simple, it's fair. Everyone is giving and equal share, there is no punishing the sucessfull. This is the only way that is equitable. Also without capital gains or bussiness taxes there will be even more motivation for investment.
C.) Balance the budget by disbanding the horribly inefficent and overly socialist social programs that overstep the bounds of the mandate of our government. With no more social security, medicare, medicad adnaseum there will be more then enough room in the coughers to balance the budget.
D.) Double the budgets of the national labs and NASA giving NASA the mandate to establish a permanent human presence on Mars and in the asteroid belt with an expanding presence.
F.) I would mandate the Air Force to have the capabilites to acheive space control and launch on demand. Also I would start a crash program to develop a space based strike system based on either large rail guns or directed energy that would be deployed in orbit to allow zero lag time strikes against targets anywhere on the globe. Unit commanders in theater would only have to upload a set of GPS cordinates to the national strike system and they would receive instant support. This would also make the bomber obsolete and further widern the American technical and military supremacy. Also it would allow a definitve first strike option against our enemies nuclear assets without having to worry about retaliation.

A 10% flat tax is about as unfair as you can get. Flat taxes are regressive taxes, they affect the poor more than the rich. Think of the families where both parents combined income is only $24,000 a year and paying $200 a month in income taxes not to mention other taxes as well.

End social security and medicare! You are just going to steal all the money that people have invested in the social security system all these years? Angry old ladies would vilify you on every street corner. You would be impeached and history would remember you as the worst President ever.

Asteroid belt? Why? Mining asteroids can't repay the cost of the missions so its a waste of resources for little scientific value.

First strike capability on our enemies nuclear assets? I don't think any President would mind having that available but you had better keep it Top Secret or higher so potential enemies don't find out.

Military and weapons training required in high schools? Many, many parents would not allow their children to be taught this and you would lose in the courts.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-17 09:28:20

Military and weapons training required in high schools? Many, many parents would not allow their children to be taught this and you would lose in the courts.

Not necessarily, if a state allows its public school system to become dependent on federal money it is essentially bound to whatever strings the feds attach. This is used to influence course content and policy all the time.

It has become increasingly difficult to predict what the courts will do. In this case we'd have a public agency, financed with federal money educating students in constitutionally protected rights. The states can balance their budgets and dump federal funds, do whatever they wish. The parents can pull their students and send them to private schools. They could even opt out of the particular course as is presently done with sex-ed courses in some cases. Even if half opted out enough would get the training to have an effect, and they get a certification on graduation and can go buy themselves a gun. Those that didn't get that certification can take the class later, it wouldn't be much different than drivers ed.

The courts may well let it stand, depending largely on the leanings of the presiding judges, throughout the appeals.

Dook · 2004-06-17 09:45:18

Your idea of making it an optional course would work. Many schools already offer ROTC courses but PurdueGuy said he would make military and weapons training required. You can't force military training on school kids, federal funds or not. Parents would indeed resist and I have no doubt the courts would rule with the parents.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-17 10:07:49

Your idea of making it an optional course would work. Many schools already offer ROTC courses but PurdueGuy said he would make military and weapons training required.

One could require it as a condition of receiving federal funds. The schools would then have to offer it in the standard course. Everyone takes it unless they specifically opt out of it. Make the regulations somewhat vague with regards to whether a high opt out will result in reduced funding, and don't provide definate procedures for submitting those records.

You can say it's voluntary, but it's just very difficult to escape while partaking of other services. Like income tax. Individual parents still have the choice, but the district has incentive to persuade as many as possible not to leave.

~Eternal~ · 2004-06-18 12:47:06

Banning firearms is a good way to start a civil war in the US.
If you campaigned on that
A.) you would never win
B.) Someone would cast their 'ballot' from a rooftop and you would have .50 caliber hole in you
Don't take either of these guys seriously, there is some major league troll bait being set out.
I have refrained from joining in, preferring to watch genuis at work.

I called for the end to projectile weaponry, phasers of course are still welcome.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-18 13:36:35

B.) Abolish the tax system. The only tax is a 10% flat tax. It's simple, it's fair. Everyone is giving and equal share, there is no punishing the sucessfull. This is the only way that is equitable. Also without capital gains or bussiness taxes there will be even more motivation for investment.
C.) Balance the budget by disbanding the horribly inefficent and overly socialist social programs that overstep the bounds of the mandate of our government. With no more social security, medicare, medicad adnaseum there will be more then enough room in the coughers to balance the budget.
D.) Double the budgets of the national labs and NASA giving NASA the mandate to establish a permanent human presence on Mars and in the asteroid belt with an expanding presence.
F.) I would mandate the Air Force to have the capabilites to acheive space control and launch on demand. Also I would start a crash program to develop a space based strike system based on either large rail guns or directed energy that would be deployed in orbit to allow zero lag time strikes against targets anywhere on the globe. Unit commanders in theater would only have to upload a set of GPS cordinates to the national strike system and they would receive instant support. This would also make the bomber obsolete and further widern the American technical and military supremacy. Also it would allow a definitve first strike option against our enemies nuclear assets without having to worry about retaliation.
A 10% flat tax is about as unfair as you can get. Flat taxes are regressive taxes, they affect the poor
more than the rich. Think of the families where both parents combined income is only $24,000 a year and paying $200 a month in income taxes not to mention other taxes as well.
End social security and medicare! You are just going to steal all the money that people have invested in the social security system all these years? Angry old ladies would vilify you on every street corner. You would be impeached and history would remember you as the worst President ever.
Asteroid belt? Why? Mining asteroids can't repay the cost of the missions so its a waste of resources for little scientific value.
First strike capability on our enemies nuclear assets? I don't think any President would mind having that available but you had better keep it Top Secret or higher so potential enemies don't find out.
Military and weapons training required in high schools? Many, many parents would not allow their children to be taught this and you would lose in the courts.

How can you say that a flat tax would be unfair? It's the only equatable way to structer a tax system. With the current steped income tax system you are punishing the sucessfull and putting an unfair percentage of the fiscal burden on a small segment of the population. As you cited a lower class family making $24k a year would be paying $200 a month, and a middle class family making $240k a year would pay $2000 a month, and a upper class family making $2.4 million a year would pay $20,000 a month. It's an equal percentage, but the wealthier you are the more you pay. No deductions, no tax lawyers, no IRS. It's simple and it's fair. Under my system there would be no other federal taxes. No gas tax, no liquour tax, nothing. We could afford to do that by doing away with social programs. Also the revenues would go throught the roof spurred by the investment started by the tax cuts. Your right, it may increase the burden on the 'poor'. I consider this a good thing, they lower echelons curently pay no taxes, why should they not shoulder any of the burden when uncle sam takes nearly half of all I make? Let me tip you into to something, the poor in this country, all ideology and spinning aside are poor for a reason, the sucessfull are because they made something for themselves, that is the beautey of a capitalist meritacraucy(sp?), the cream rises.

As far as being villified by the elderly. Sorry to say it has to be done at sometime. Yes the people who have been paying into the moribound social security system will loose money, but they will save thousands in the long run by not having to pay into something that will be bankrupt long before they see it, and will recoup the losses by being able to profit from the money by investing it. Your retirement is your own respnosibility, plan for it well and reap the rewards, make your own bed and sleep in it. Same goes for medicare, we need to get away from this nanny state mentality. Private industry does it beter if we just get the regulation out.

As far as weapons training in schools, I personally think that everyone should have a basic knowledge of how to defend themselves and their country. I'm not saying we need to turn high schools into boot camp, but a basic hand to hand and fire arms combat course seems like a great way to build discapline and help increase the security of the homeland. In Switzerland for example it is required that all person 18 years of age undergo limited military training and then maintain weapons for each individual in their homes. This 'Swiss Defense' is one of the reasons that Switzerland was never invaded by Germany in WWII. (I know about the baking theory and don't think it holds water, I'll leave that debate to another time)

Also on the military side of the house, those mandates would of course not be made public.

clark · 2004-06-18 13:41:08

I dub the author of the previous rant, Ebeneezer Scrooge.

clark · 2004-06-18 13:58:49

How can you say that a flat tax would be unfair?

It is unfair because it forces those who can pay the least, to pay the most, in terms of relative net worth.

If I have $10,000 to live on, and you take 10%, I now have only $9,000 dollars to live on. I have even less when I barely have any to begin with. If you have $10 million to live on, and we take 10%, you still have 9 million dollars to live on. You get one less fancy car, my kids don't eat for a month.

That is not equitable. That is not safe for society as it creates disparity of such magnitude that it undermines social stability. People will start evaluating criminal activity as a neccessity, just to eat.

Under my system there would be no other federal taxes.

Then there would be no federal government, no federal judicial branch, no national standing army, no NASA, no missle defense shields, no CDC, no FDA, no export control, no checks along the borders, no control over interstate commerce, in short, no coherent structure by which to guide the union. Congrats, you just made America into a bastardized version of Africa.

I consider this a good thing, they lower echelons curently pay no taxes, why should they not shoulder any of the burden when uncle sam takes nearly half of all I make?

Because the uber rich are able to make oodles of money because we have rule of law and a stable society, the rich benefit more from a stable society more than the poor and down trodden. Government is what keeps the rich, rich. They should pay just a bit more for that privelage. Otherwise, some rather smart poor people, who by no fault of their own happen to be poor, will decide to band together, get some guns, and come take ALL of your wealth.

Let me tip you into to something, the poor in this country, all ideology and spinning aside are poor for a reason,

Let me tip you into something, people are poor often for reasons beyond their control. That isn't ideology, that's just reality. Yeah, we have a lot of latitude to improve our station in life, but just because we have that opportunity in general dosen't mean it always works out in practice.

Yes the people who have been paying into the moribound social security system will loose money, but they will save thousands in the long run by not having to pay into something that will be bankrupt long before they see it, and will recoup the losses by being able to profit from the money by investing it.

Oh, you mean invest it in companies like Enron? Global Crossing? Or a dozen other companies that play number games and run off with peoples pensions and life savings, making them poor and destitute? But I guess that's the individuals fault, cause now they are poor.

Same goes for medicare, we need to get away from this nanny state mentality.

Ever walk down the street and have to step over someone with TB? Want to find deformed babies in the gutter outside your home? Want to see grandma selling the last of her family heirlooms for a buck a piece so she can get her next insulin shot?

Brave New World you're devising.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-18 14:28:41

How can you say that a flat tax would be unfair?
It is unfair because it forces those who can pay the least, to pay the most, in terms of relative net worth.
If I have $10,000 to live on, and you take 10%, I now have only $9,000 dollars to live on. I have even less when I barely have any to begin with. If you have $10 million to live on, and we take 10%, you still have 9 million dollars to live on. You get one less fancy car, my kids don't eat for a month.
That is not equitable. That is not safe for society as it creates disparity of such magnitude that it undermines social stability. People will start evaluating criminal activity as a neccessity, just to eat.
Under my system there would be no other federal taxes.
Then there would be no federal government, no federal judicial branch, no national standing army, no NASA, no missle defense shields, no CDC, no FDA, no export control, no checks along the borders, no control over interstate commerce, in short, no coherent structure by which to guide the union. Congrats, you just made America into a bastardized version of Africa.
I consider this a good thing, they lower echelons curently pay no taxes, why should they not shoulder any of the burden when uncle sam takes nearly half of all I make?
Because the uber rich are able to make oodles of money because we have rule of law and a stable society, the rich benefit more from a stable society more than the poor and down trodden. Government is what keeps the rich, rich. They should pay just a bit more for that privelage. Otherwise, some rather smart poor people, who by no fault of their own happen to be poor, will decide to band together, get some guns, and come take ALL of your wealth.
Let me tip you into to something, the poor in this country, all ideology and spinning aside are poor for a reason,
Let me tip you into something, people are poor often for reasons beyond their control. That isn't ideology, that's just reality. Yeah, we have a lot of latitude to improve our station in life, but just because we have that opportunity in general dosen't mean it always works out in practice.
Yes the people who have been paying into the moribound social security system will loose money, but they will save thousands in the long run by not having to pay into something that will be bankrupt long before they see it, and will recoup the losses by being able to profit from the money by investing it.
Oh, you mean invest it in companies like Enron? Global Crossing? Or a dozen other companies that play number games and run off with peoples pensions and life savings, making them poor and destitute? But I guess that's the individuals fault, cause now they are poor.
Same goes for medicare, we need to get away from this nanny state mentality.
Ever walk down the street and have to step over someone with TB? Want to find deformed babies in the gutter outside your home? Want to see grandma selling the last of her family heirlooms for a buck a piece so she can get her next insulin shot?
Brave New World you're devising.

The rich are rich because of the government? Exuse me? Wealth is not created, ordained and distributed from DC. Wealth is created by the blood sweat and tears of entrapenours who create new products, services, and companies.

As for your assumption that no one could survive in a civil society without federal medical aid, you have very little faith in the capitalist system. Today in this country the vast majority of the people receive the greatest health care the world can offer thanks to the companies they work for. If granny is selling her heirlooms to pay for her insulin shot it's because the trial lawyers with frivialous mal practice suits have driven up the cost of health care. The biggest problem with this countries health care system is the abuse of the mal practice system, and the influence medicare and medicad exert over the medical establishment.

Also, I would advise you to read John Stossels book, 'Give me a Break' it gives a good examples on why regulation isn't always a good thing. I think that the medical establishment throught the scientific process would do a much beter job weeding out bad drugs the the FDA that delays for years why people die because they can't get their hands on a expiramental drug.

According to this years G8 summit the US GDP was 10.78 trillion. For the sake of argument let's say 10. 10% of 10 trillion is one trillion dollars, a little less then half the current federal budget. More then enough to maintain our military at a level even larger then it currently is (currently the budget is in the ballpark of $500billion, I would like to see $600billion, plus stream lining it by doing away with cost plus and the utilization of space systems get more bang for the buck.) That gives 300 billion for the national labs and space program. 20 billion for education. 80 billion for roadway and airport infrastructure. That's it. Hardly Africa. Plus the government has very little to do with the greatness of a given country. It would be a brave new world, one with much more freedom and oppertunity.

As far as the corprate scandals you mention, okay, there was a problem....small in the scheme of things, you may be able to find a dozen or so cases of wide spread finacial inpropriate in companies, out of the thousands in this country. The vast majority of people on the boards of US companies want the best for their employess and stock holders.

clark · 2004-06-18 15:03:40

The rich are rich because of the government? Exuse me? Wealth is not created, ordained and distributed from DC. Wealth is created by the blood sweat and tears of entrapenours who create new products, services, and companies.

I think you misunderstand, the rich remain rich because of the government. I agree, the government dosen't make rich people (unless you count the obvious corruption). People are able to create wealth and maintain that wealth because of the rule of law and a stable society, those that have, benefit the most. Look to third world nations where society is less stable, and you see less wealthy, or the concentration of much of the wealth in the hands of very, very few. Which, by the way, happens to destabilze a democracy by causing disparity in individual influence over the democratic process (need I mention the effects of lobbyists?)

As for your assumption that no one could survive in a civil society without federal medical aid, you have very little faith in the capitalist system. Today in this country the vast majority of the people receive the greatest health care the world can offer thanks to the companies they work for. If granny is selling her heirlooms to pay for her insulin shot it's because the trial lawyers with frivialous mal practice suits have driven up the cost of health care.

Again, you misunderstand. My examples are results of your choices in dissolving medicaid. You end up with people who cannot afford the medicine they need to survive. You end up creating social instability because when people are forced between the choice of dying, or commiting a crime in order to procure the medicine and/or the money for the medicine, they will choose the latter.

Medicaid provides for things like vaccinations, prenatal care, and emergency services- like when you crack your head open because you get hit by a hit and run motorist. without services like this we end up with rampant diseases, more instances of birth defects, and people who die in the streets.

This goes against commons sense, common decency, and just about every worthwhile religious teachings there are.

Also, I would advise you to read John Stossels book, 'Give me a Break' it gives a good examples on why regulation isn't always a good thing.

Give me a break. Regulation isn't always good, granted, but it does have it's place. In a disconnected society as large as America is, regulation has a greater place because it becomes harder to hold individuals accountable. If you get tainted meat from your market, who is responsible? The dairy farmer? The meat packing plant? The store where you bought it from? You end up placing the impossible taks of each individual trying to make sure that all of this is accounted for. Look beyond the horizon and you will see.

I think that the medical establishment throught the scientific process would do a much beter job weeding out bad drugs the the FDA that delays for years why people die because they can't get their hands on a expiramental drug.

You want to reform how the FDA does business, that's one thing. Doing away with their rigouros scientific process that places human experimentation as the final hurdle to market seems unwise. but hey, if you want to take an experiemental drug with unknown side effects and unknown positive effects because some lab rat didn't immediatly grow a tumor in 90 days, more power to you. I would rather have confidence that the stuff I buy on the shelf is pretty safe. Don't make me play Russian roulete with you.

As far as the corprate scandals you mention, okay, there was a problem....small in the scheme of things, you may be able to find a dozen or so cases of wide spread finacial inpropriate in companies, out of the thousands in this country.

A dozen companies that represent a major portion of their respective industries, that's only the ones that have been caught.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-18 15:21:48

You know Clark, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, lol. I'm not swaying you, and your not swaying me but I think we can both agree is that we live in a country, one of the only examples in the world, where we can have such debates in a civilized and rational fashion. Such disaprate positions in other parts of the world result in civil war.

LOL, also, I have to throw in as an Air Force officer, I don't agree with much of what you say but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it.

clark · 2004-06-18 16:36:49

I prefer to disagree to agreeing.

I'm glad we live in such a country where we can have civilized and rationale debates too, I just don't understand why you would advocate things that would destabilize our glorious country thereby making such discussions from disparate points of views nearly impossible without civil war.

Stick to flying fly-boy, leave the civics to the civilians.

You can tag your next bomb with "First Amendment" for me, thanks.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-18 18:45:09

You're so lucky I don't have the energy for political discussions clark.

clark · 2004-06-21 08:08:51

Apparently I am very lucky.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-21 13:38:23

If I were President, and judged the mood of the people to be overwhelmingly against our occupation of Iraq (or wherever we are at the time) I'd rail against it to build public support and promise never to commit American troops to unnecessary wars.

Meanwhile I'd initiate a black project to build quick and dirty space-based laser or kinetic energy weapons platforms powerful enough to smite anyone who causes too much of a problem, thereby keeping the promise not to send troops while pre-emptively dealing with potential threats. Using the peacenik cloak to fight a cleaner war.

Automated Laser Armaments Array I'd call it. ALAA for short.

I'd also announce on inauguration day that I would not seek nor accept a second term, just so my opponents know I'm serious and immune to criticism.

clark · 2004-06-21 13:42:22

I'd also announce on inauguration day that I would not seek nor accept a second term, just so my opponents know I'm serious and immune to criticism.

Just one continous one, that never ends, eh? :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-21 13:51:04

Just one continous one, that never ends, eh?

:laugh:

I'd still be able to claim that I kept my campaign promises in a strictly technical sense. It all depends on what your definition of "term" is.

At the inauguration I'd also leave off that "so help me God" part that isn't really part of the oath anyway. Everyone would be looking, waiting for it... Good fun.

clark · 2004-06-21 13:56:50

Well, hopefully you can avoid the first-term abortion.

[did I just say that out loud?!]

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-06-16 20:11:56

Re: You are President

#77 2004-06-16 21:18:04

Re: You are President

#78 2004-06-16 22:03:48

Re: You are President

#79 2004-06-17 05:22:15

Re: You are President

#80 2004-06-17 06:52:15

Re: You are President

#81 2004-06-17 06:59:05

Re: You are President

#82 2004-06-17 08:37:04

Re: You are President

#83 2004-06-17 09:16:01

Re: You are President

#84 2004-06-17 09:28:20

Re: You are President

#85 2004-06-17 09:45:18

Re: You are President

#86 2004-06-17 10:07:49

Re: You are President

#87 2004-06-18 12:47:06

Re: You are President

#88 2004-06-18 13:36:35

Re: You are President

#89 2004-06-18 13:41:08

Re: You are President

#90 2004-06-18 13:58:49

Re: You are President

#91 2004-06-18 14:28:41

Re: You are President

#92 2004-06-18 15:03:40

Re: You are President

#93 2004-06-18 15:21:48

Re: You are President

#94 2004-06-18 16:36:49

Re: You are President

#95 2004-06-18 18:45:09

Re: You are President

#96 2004-06-21 08:08:51

Re: You are President

#97 2004-06-21 13:38:23

Re: You are President

#98 2004-06-21 13:42:22

Re: You are President

#99 2004-06-21 13:51:04

Re: You are President

#100 2004-06-21 13:56:50

Re: You are President

Board footer