How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Presidential Debates   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Presidential Debates

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


50 posted 10-06-2004 07:12 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

You're right, Balladeer. I made that observation as well and I don't think effectively followed through in forming a solid argument to back the claim.

Here are some other bloopers I observed for the evening. I'll go to Cheney's first:

First of all, Cheney was mentioning Kerry and Edwards' records, saying Edwards was virtually absent a majority of the time, and Cheney plays a distinguished role in the votes. Then he goes on saying he never has met Edwards until the debate.

Before the war took place, Cheney and Edwards, in fact, did shake hands. And they also met at an Annual National Prayer Breakfast.

Secondly, Cheney exaggerated Kerry's voting record on taxes. It's down from the 350 originally claimed by Republicans, but still a stretch when the 98 also include voting for lower taxes. Some of the votes were also cast on a single tax increase. Cheney also distorted Kerry's quote from last Thursday out of context on the "global test". Kerry said in his debate that he would not cede to anyone the right to move pre-emptively against a threat, but that he would do so in a way that proved to Americans and the world that he had taken the action for a legitimate reason.

Finally, Chenry clearly said that he never suggested a connection between Iraq and September 11th. However, in 2003, he said that if efforts to establish democracy in Iraq succeeded, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
.
.
.
Now, Edwards also stretched a bit at times.

Edwards claimed the cost of the U.S war in Iraq is at $200 billion and counting. Cheney was actually closer. The $200 billion includes Afghanistan and the global war on terror. Of course, another $56 billion aside is being pushed through for the war, with half already approved, so it comes a bit closer. But Edwards exaggerated the total.

The body armor comment is also a bit off. He seemed to insinuate the 40,000 troops in Iraq didn't have the body armor they needed didn't have any at all. The fact is, they didn't have the most updated brand of armor, but they did have armor nonetheless.
.
.
.
Regardless of the errors, both candidates made strong arguments and I don't think either candidate will get much of a bounce from this debate like Kerry did for the first debate with Bush.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


51 posted 10-06-2004 07:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

One more for Edwards, Noah. He claimed that a bill was introduced in Congress lowering military salaries and hazardous duty pay even as soldiers were fighting in Iraq. In fact, the bill specifically designated that all soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were exempt from that bill.

You're right, though. I doubt that many minds will be changed by the debate. It was good, though, watching two such talented speakers in action.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


52 posted 10-06-2004 09:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't think the spirit of Rangel's bill is very well represented here.  If you look into the matter I think you'd find that the reason he was proposing it is because IF there was a draft that was administered fairly (IE -- everyone has to serve either in active duty or national service, male and female, rich and poor) then, we'd think DAMN hard before we commited troops into battle.

It's Rangel's contention that even the all volunteer Armed Forces unfairly targets the lower income kids because it offers them economic incentives that are difficult to match through any other means. Which, in his opinion, doesn't move us any further from the Economic Cannon Fodder scenario as put forth by Colin Powell.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


53 posted 10-06-2004 09:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh, and, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the Berger issue just yet.  The Justice Department (that would be John Ashcroft) had been looking into the matter for 8 months to determine if any crime had even been committed before the story was reported at the opportune moment of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report and the DNC in July, then, the Wall Street Journal reported that everything that Berger had taken, whether intentionally or not, were merely copies and that the 9/11 Commission had been given everything anyway and that Berger had been cleared of charges.

Then, the National Archives released a statement that the WSJ article was wrong -- that the investigation was still pending, but the JD was still not sure that a crime had been committed -- only a breach of procedures -- and that Berger had only removed copies.

Since then, the story has disappeared out of the realm of credible media into the blogosphere -- it's difficult to tell where the surreptitious investigation stands,  which just means -- someone, in the current administration, doesn't want this story out there -- even though there was a rumor floated that the White House was going to de-classify the memo that Berger had taken becuase it had information that was embarrasing to Berger.

Needless to say -- at the very least Berger's public service career is over -- though he can always be a lobbyist or a Fox News pundit (they'll hire anybody -- like -- Dick Morris for instance).

I'm going to talk to one of the 9/11 Commission members tomorrow night -- I'm going to ask about this -- but, I'll bet I won't be able to get a for the record response... whata ya bet?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


54 posted 10-06-2004 09:47 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Um, yeah, and George Soros isn't just any billionaire investor and philanthropist Noah, he's the primary backer of moveon.org.  He's released this statement,

quote:

We do not own the FactCheck.com domain name and are not responsible for it redirecting to GeorgeSoros.com. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events. We believe that Vice President Cheney intended to direct viewers of the Vice-Presidential Debate to FactCheck.org.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 10-06-2004 10:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, Reb, we had that draft during Korea and Viet Nam....didn't stop anyone from committing troops to battle then.

Actually, to deviate just a minute, I thought the draft was a good thing. No, it's not something I'm going to debate. It's my own opinion based on my own personal experiences. I was a fairly "rough" kid growing up, no family life to speak of and no controls placed on me. My abilities in sports let me get away with anything. When I went into the service it was possibly the first time in my life anyone had actual control over me and I basically went in to avoid the draft which would have gotten me sooner or later. It was the first time I was in a position where I had to follow the rules or else. It was the first time I couldn't just say "screw it", get up and leave. It was also the first time that I felt I really belonged to something. Kids that age want to belong to something, be a part of something. Those with a good family life have that. Those without look for it somewhere. If it's the gang in the neighborhood that makes them feel accepted, they go for it. I know it probably saved me and I can assure you I knew many kids that it saved just as well.  I remember that, when the draft was abolished I thought it was too bad and I still think it was. Juvenile delinquency went up dramatically and not by any coincidence. Many kids gravitated to the strongest "father" figure they could find, good or bad. Like I say, this is all from personal experience. I'm not preaching the positives of having a draft- I'm simply saying what it did for me and others I knew.

As far as the service is concerned, it's not the army of the past. Back then people who couldn't find work or have any skills were likely to go into the service to get those 3 squares, a guaranteed paycheck and a chance to travel and be part of something. When I went in I went through boot camp and, on the last day, I was told what my job would be and where I was going. These days are quite different. A man can choose which vocation he wants to work in, where he wants to be stationed, receive a fairly good salary, accumulate money for college and have excellent benefits. It is a job that compares very well with good civilian jobs. Yes, it's true that in civilian jobs people don't shoot at you (normally) but the reality is that a microscopic percentage of people in the service see battle or war-time conditions. For most it is a normal job. They can have a home off-base, go to work an 8 hour day and go back home at night. It's not the place where only derelicts and dummies go to anymore.

Personally, I would like to see the draft come back because I think it would help many young men. On the other hand, I don't think it would work the way it did back then because it's a different world now in too many sad ways....such is life.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


56 posted 10-06-2004 11:38 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
A man can choose which vocation he wants to work in, where he wants to be stationed, receive a fairly good salary, accumulate money for college and have excellent benefits.

Right, Mike. About the same way you and I "chose" to volunteer for various and sundry duties.

What recruiters promise and what the service delivers are just as far apart today as they were forty years ago.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 10-07-2004 12:11 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Right.....whatever you say, Ron.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


58 posted 10-07-2004 01:26 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/11/60II/main616849.shtml

For those who think the ones who enlisted are having a great time, are happy they signed on for so many wonderful benefits
you might want to visit the above link.

"hello muddah, hello fadduh
here i am at
camp bucca"

Just to offer you some reality material before you watch more 'debates.'  
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


59 posted 10-07-2004 02:02 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Those mentioned in that interview were MP's.  Military Police.  That is an MOS, or military occupation.  They signed up for that.  They chose.

Though that interview was done by Mr. Rather back in May, they have long since lost all credibility with me, from forged documents to spreading the draft hysteria under the guise of investigative reporting.  They will have to work very hard to regain that.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


60 posted 10-07-2004 02:38 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

I can't speak for anyone else..but I got exactly what I volunteered for...and wanted to change vocations real quick..but, was too late....The worst part about that war is what is trying to occur now....Wrong war wrong time" attitude while I was shucking rice to hide behind.....That sucks and anyone that feels that way should be put on the front line!!!!!!!!!!!!! And by that, I mean it sure isn't good for the morale of the brave young men that are in the line of fire....

[This message has been edited by Toerag (10-07-2004 04:58 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


61 posted 10-07-2004 09:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

He was never found guilty because he was never charged or tried due to the political climate of those times, Raph, a climate that he and his group helped engineer. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been.

I personally don't see much difference if he was merely introduced to the representatives of the Viet Cong and then resumed his honeymoon, or sat in on their meetings with the others from his group, who did sit in on the meetings. He still came back to the states with the enemy's agenda as his agenda, and propagated that agenda by means of lies and distortions at the expense of his fellow soldiers. He was one of the principal leaders of that group. He was their spokesperson. I'm sure he knew exactly what the group was doing in those talks, and I'm sure they had his stamp of approval in attending those meetings.

His group also funded Jane Fonda and others of her ilk in their demoralization of the troops and the folks back home.

As Toe said, the worst thing that happened to our guys over there was that 'wrong war, wrong time' mentality that they fostered and financed. They also fostered the idea that we had gotten involved in a war that we were not able to win. They were so well-funded and organized and relentless as a political force that they succeeded in their efforts. But that doesn't make what they did right. Sure, they ended the war, which was their goal, but the end does not justify the means that they used to do it.

Traitor may be a dirty word, but it's nothing compared to the dirty names Kerry called our troops back then. And the anguish that he caused them and their families by the stigma with which he branded them is all too real.

It may have taken the Vets thirty-plus years to let their voices be heard regarding Kerry, but as the daughter of the veteran in the article I referenced said, they aren't  motivated by political partisanship. They are speaking out now only because Kerry is running for the highest office in the land, and they know that he is deficient in character for the position.

And if I were a betting person, I'd take their word over his anyday.

After Kerry is defeated in November, maybe we will finally have that parade for them that they deserve. It is long overdue.

  

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


62 posted 10-07-2004 10:33 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I agree with you, though I see less relevence with what he did in 1971/1972 compared with his 20 year U.S. Senate record, which I'm still learning a bit about, snippet at a time from FoxNews, since Kerry seems indisposed to letting his fellow Americans know.

And a parade for Vietnam Veterans, with tickertape instead of spit, is very long overdue.  My dad is 73 now, soon be be 74, but even he would appreciate it.  He was in Korea (the forgotten war) and Vietnam (the wrong place, wrong time, wrong war).  Public recognition for either would be good.  Odd how the U.S. is blamed for Vietnam, and not France, who quickly left French Indo-China after we bailed their butts out.  With France, we seem to have a history of doing that.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


63 posted 10-07-2004 11:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Between 1845 and 1846 relations between Mexico and the United States pushed past the breaking point over where the border was between the two nations.  Historically it had been at the Nueces River but after Texas independence the Texans and President James K. Polk wanted to extend it to the Rio Grande.  

Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor into the disputed territory with an army that provoked a war that led U.S. troops all the way to Mexico City.  Polk claimed that it was a defensive measure and that the Mexicans had provoked a war.  The Whigs thought differently.  They thought it was a war of aggression.

Among those protesting Polk's actions were notable statesmen like Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, former President John Quincy Adams, and a lot of ordinary citizens like Henry David Thoreau who refused to pay his one dollar poll tax.

One young Freshman Congressman from Illinois introduced the 'Spot Resolutions' demanding that the President prove to everyone that the spot where initial American blood was shed was actually inside the United States;

quote:

Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused to receive him, [the envoy of the United States,] or listen to his propositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil:"  

And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities;  but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens:"  

And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, that "the Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil."  

And whereas this House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil:   Therefore,  

Resolved By the House of Representatives, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House --  

1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution.  

2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico.  

3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army.  

4th. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.  

5th. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or the United States, by consent or compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.  

6th. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the messages stated; and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the enclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.  

7th. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through the Secretary of War.  

8th. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.  




'Wrong war, wrong time' was certainly the protest of these great statesmen -- including that young Freshman Congressman, Abraham Lincoln.

'Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you will be
criticized anyway.  You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.'
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

'Any man who would refrain from criticizing the President in a time of war is guilty of moral treason.'
--Teddy Roosevelt
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


64 posted 10-07-2004 11:48 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise, if you turned even one hundredth of the zest with which you attack Kerry, to non-partisan, logical analysis of Bush, his administration and their tactics, then maybe there'd be a point to this discussion. There's a little more than the being Republican at stake here.

You're of course, entitled opinion and to your disgust/mistrust of Kerry. What is deeply disturbing, and the reason I won't comment on the matter anymore, is that in the face of all the Bush administration has done with regard to the current war, you've found absolutely nothing disgusting or questionable and everything justifiable.

It's never been a matter of Kerry's character or trustworthiness, regardless of the candidate your choice was made long ago.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


65 posted 10-07-2004 11:58 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Odd how the U.S. is blamed for Vietnam, and not France, who quickly left French Indo-China after we bailed their butts out.  With France, we seem to have a history of doing that


Bailed their butts out? The Viet Minh, who fought the French as well as the Japanese, were allies funded by the United States. It wasn't until the Viet Minh declared independance(pledging alliance to the US for recognition of said independance) that the US stepped in against them.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 10-08-2004 12:01 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, Ali, complete with tickertape!

Someone proud of their record in the Senate would talk about it, I would think. I guess there's not much there to indicate presidential material.

And how would we have passed a 'global test', as Kerry proposes that he would have done prior to engaging Saddam if he had been president, with allies such as France, Germany, and Russia, who are now known to have had a very serious financial interest in Saddam remaining in power? What would Kerry have done when they pooh-poohed the idea of going to war to depose Saddam? He wouldn't have gone to war if he wasn't successful in gaining their approval, according to his own words, right? Now, after the fact, we know why we couldn't get their approval. It just wasn't in their financial self-interests for Saddam to be deposed. He owed them TONS of money that they wouldn't get if he was gone. So I guess Kerry really would have put their interests over our interests in the final analysis. Not a good quality in a man who would be president. But wait! Given that it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place anyway, according to Kerry, maybe he wouldn't even have sought their approval in the first place because he wouldn't even have considered going to Iraq to begin with? Or maybe it was only wrong because the 'allies' pooh-poohed it? It gets so confusing.

Yes, we certainly do seem to have that type of history with France, don't we?

L.R., defending a sovereign country, at their request, against communist aggression, and deposing one of the world's most notorious terrorists during a war on terror, are not territorial border disputes. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Kerry has one of the strongest anti-war records possible. He even voted against going to war with Saddam when Saddam invaded Kuwait even WITH U.N. and 'ally' support, even with it passing his so-called 'global test'.  If Kerry had been president then, Kuwait would now be a suburb of Iraq.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


67 posted 10-08-2004 12:13 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

No Denise -- we're talking about protesting war, not what the terms and conditions of those respective wars were.

Teddy Roosevelt's comment happened to be in regards to his criticism of Wilson during WWI.  

We could equally discuss the Alien and Sedition Act that certainly would have landed Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, and Kerry in jail.

That the atrocities Kerry protested against did happen is fact (there are pictures and film) -- that he is continually misquoted by taking his testimony out of context is a fact -- that he left the VVAW after they became too radical is a rarely discussed fact -- that he had no control over what the Vietnamese would do or not do with his testimony is a fact -- that he had a right to say what he said is a fact -- that that war was a mistake is an opinion held even by Colin Powell -- read the Economic Cannon Fodder thread for a direct quote -- that those who were against Kerry turned his argument against that war into an argument against the soldiers is a disgrace and the main perpetrator is the one John McCain said is dishonest and dishonorable [O'Neal].
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


68 posted 10-08-2004 10:44 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Hey Reb and Aenimal...yall want to meet and discuss politics and women over a few beers?...scotch?....okay, forget politics...just wimmen....?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


69 posted 10-08-2004 04:01 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

sounds good to me Toe  
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


70 posted 10-08-2004 04:26 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

LOL, now that would be a very, very interesting 'debate' and subsequent poll.
Methinks a new thread would be required.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


71 posted 10-08-2004 05:14 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Um...uh....ya need a ride aenimal?...LOL
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


72 posted 10-08-2004 05:27 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't know Buzz -- don't you think politics is the safer subject?  

Forget that brown water from across the pond wouldja?  Let's just grab a Jack...
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


73 posted 10-09-2004 07:28 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Hey reb...I only live about 30 minutes from "Jack's" Daniels Dist., I can almost smell the aroma?...Okay, Jack it is....But politics?....Yea, you may have a point...but I'd imagine the three of us would all agree about women....(you know, what they're good for, how they tax us etc...)
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


74 posted 10-09-2004 11:32 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

There's a thought.  I could bring along a bookcase game I just found in a cupboard while looking for a Boy Scout Manual to help the youngest with nocturnal desert critter tracks.  Mr. President: Political Campaign and Election Game, by 3M Company, copyright 1967 and 1971.  Now, wouldn't that be a hoot!  Crazy thing is, I do believe all the cards are still there!

Hrm...I wonder if there's any mention of stem-cell research or abortion in there.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Presidential Debates   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors