Yeah, I have to agree. When she started bitching about how much she works to pull down enough to have paid $70K/yr. in taxes, its enough to make me vomit. Then, to question how much people in the midwest pay because they aren't as fortunate to have achieved the social standing that she may or may not be happy with is ridiculous.

I'll tell you a little story that gave me a little perspective. I used to be a circulation manager for a major newspaper in Washington, DC. I worked downtown and in the Rosslyn/Arlington area of Northern VA for 5 years. Many of my contractors were foreign born guys.

One of my contractors was an Iraqi guy. He worked for me for 2+ years and I got the opportunity to get to know him pretty well. He was a veteran of the first Persian Gulf war. The only thing is, he was a member of Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard. He told me how bad Iraq sucked and how poorly people were treated under Saddam. He explained how soldiers didn't have enough food, didn't get paid regularly, were beaten, and how some "disappeared."

After the Persian Gulf war, he was allowed by his superiors to go home and visit family for a few days. Well long story short, he kept on walking. After about a week of walking, hitching rides, hiding, and scrounging for food, he found himself in a Jordanian refugee camp. This guy was now a dead man if he were to ever return to Iraq where he had sisters and parents still living outside of Baghdad. He remained in the camp for better than 2 years before he got word that the US State Dept would grant him entry into the US.

While living here, he worked multiple jobs at once and sent what he could to his family living in Iraq. You see, his family was an average Iraqi family living in what we consider poverty. It was almost comical the lengths that he would have to go to in order to get things to his family without it being confiscated by the government on its way. Hiding stuff in feminine hygiene products for example. Anyway this guy was so proud of the little that he had amassed working and was grateful to be working 18 hours a day to sustain himself and help out his family. He loved living in the US.

After 9/11 and conversations started about attacking Iraq, he was so excited about the prospect of his country being liberated from the Saddam regime. He knew that there would be a number of civilian deaths and that his family would be at risk, but he could see the light at the end of the tunnel. He could see himself returning to be with his family and not being afraid to be put to death. He told me that his family and neighbors were excited and they were all pulling for the US to intervene.

I haven't spoken to him since the invasion began, so unfortunately I can't speak to how he feels now. My sense is that he would be disappointed with the way that things have turned out. If I had to guess, I'd venture to say that he would say it was worth it if the country stabalizes and avoids a hardline regime taking power.

This is very long winded, I know. My point is that WMD or not, even most Iraqis thought that it was time for Saddam to go. George Bush and John Kerry both agreed with the average Iraqi and voted to go to war with Iraq. This is why it disturbs me so much when people say that George Bush is sending troops to their death for no good reason. This is also why the US can't just pull out like some would like to believe is the solution.

As far as 9/11, Clinton had opportunities to kill Bin Laden after the first bombing or the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, and the African embassies. He elected to pass on these opportunities. Clinton is as much to blame as any conservative for what happened 9/11. But you know what, I don't hold him responsible for the actions of lunatics any more than I hold Bush responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.

Well said tom. beer:

Dave Chappelle on conan (not exactly how it is said)

Conan: So who ya going to vote for

Chappelle: Well I was leaning Kerry, but after this 50 million dollar contract with Comedy Central, Bush is looking pretty good now.

I want to fuck albow....can that happen?

wait WTF oOo:



















pps: mans3chs? kthxbai

[img]http://s92915907.onlinehome.us/smilies/huge_hake.gif[/img]

GOLDEN.

Bleh. I for one never said that liberals, lefties, dems, or whatever you think we call you are evil, ammoral, dangerous, o whatever. I don't believe they take into account the long term effects of their p;ans for peace, the economy, or anything else. I'm tired as shit of these urban elitists saying that people in the red states are ignorant fundamentalist red-necks. Or all klansmen, or whatever. All white liberals bowing to the word and beliefs of the likes of jessie jackson and al sharpton, while real workin black people wish he'd stfu. I personally would like to see the "blue" states cecede and form their own country, like so many are now suggesting. See how well the get off without farmers and other red state hillbillys producing foods, doing all the physical labour. Heres an interesting fact: real working people tend to vote republican. they know that the republican agenda works for working americans. Urban elitists have no touch with these working americans. actors in hollywood have no idea what these people want or need. So please, urban elitists of america, SHUT THE FUCK UP

Politics...yay.

/me goes to post in the Officers forum about a Politics Forum

give piece a chance












yes i know its spelled wrong. thats the whole point you moron

[quote:72884]As far as 9/11, Clinton had opportunities to kill Bin Laden after the first bombing or the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, and the African embassies. He elected to pass on these opportunities. Clinton is as much to blame as any conservative for what happened 9/11. But you know what, I don't hold him responsible for the actions of lunatics any more than I hold Bush responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.[/quote:72884]

Clinton did a lot more about terrorism. You all claim Bush to be tough on it, the Truth of the matter is Clinton did a hell of a lot more.

http://cronus.com/terrorism/

It might be a good idea to rebuild the government; I guess that is called reforming. This country is big and has been the same for ... uh... 200+ years? Really, that means, this nation is very strong, but this nation is and has been growing very weak. Those are just some "side" thoughts. oOo:

[quote="Short Hand":bf110][quote:bf110]As far as 9/11, Clinton had opportunities to kill Bin Laden after the first bombing or the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, and the African embassies. He elected to pass on these opportunities. Clinton is as much to blame as any conservative for what happened 9/11. But you know what, I don't hold him responsible for the actions of lunatics any more than I hold Bush responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.[/quote:bf110]

Clinton did a lot more about terrorism. You all claim Bush to be tough on it, the Truth of the matter is Clinton did a hell of a lot more.

[url="http://cronus.com/terrorism/"]http://cronus.com/terrorism/[/url][/quote:bf110]lolzorz

where is the lollorzcaust when you need it ?

If the democratic party cant figure out that they need more than the north east and california to win the election, they are too dumb or too out of touch to deserve the presidency.

When this whole thing started, it was "anyone but bush", but kerry was so far left, he would never carry the south or the midwest.

Which demorats have been in the whitehouse in the last 20 years? And where have they come from? The south you say? Hmmm......

Which ones have been defeated? And where have they come from? The northeast you say? Hmmm......

And to think, you dont even need to pay me for this consulting work.

Quit letting the liberal northeast decide who wins the primarys, and the democrats may have a chance again. But as it stands, they are out of touch with the politics of the majority of the country. Howard Dean, John Clark, even Edwards would have beaten bush, Kerry was doomed from the start.