[quote]doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
After an 83-day filibuster by DEMOCRATS.
Started by Democrats.[/quote]
Hey, I’m not saying all Democrats are great, there have been some IDIOTS that called themselves democrats - and the war in Vietnam was REALLY started by the Viet Kong. We tried to take over where the French left off, foolishly getting involved with a civil war.
[quote]doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
After an 83-day filibuster by DEMOCRATS.
Started by Democrats.[/quote]
You’re wrong on number two. Eisenhower was the first president to put American troops (he euphamistically called them ‘advisors’) in Vietnam after the French lost control at Dien Bien Phu.
Nice try, though.
Bush’s got a 33 to 38% approval rating, depending on which polls you look at.
When Bill Clinton was fighting against being impeached by the GOP, his approval rating was almost double what Bush’s approval rating is now… mid 60’s percentage.
The more people get to see of George Bush, the less popular he gets.
Lets look at some approval ratings…
66% approval: Bill Clinton
40% approval: Liver and onions
36% approval: George W Bush
32% approval: Richard Simmons
30% approval: OJ Simpson
19% approval: Crotch Rot
18% approval: Dick Cheney
I’d bet that Crotch Rot is more popular than Bush, by the time his second term is over.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
After an 83-day filibuster by DEMOCRATS.
Started by Democrats.
You’re wrong on number two. Eisenhower was the first president to put American troops (he euphamistically called them ‘advisors’) in Vietnam after the French lost control at Dien Bien Phu.
Nice try, though.
[/quote]
You’re smarter than that. You aren’t going to compare sending in some advisors to LBJ sending in thousands of troops. We have advisors EVERYWHERE. Advisors don’t lead to war.
[quote]doogie wrote:
harris447 wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
After an 83-day filibuster by DEMOCRATS.
Started by Democrats.
You’re wrong on number two. Eisenhower was the first president to put American troops (he euphamistically called them ‘advisors’) in Vietnam after the French lost control at Dien Bien Phu.
Nice try, though.
You’re smarter than that. You aren’t going to compare sending in some advisors to LBJ sending in thousands of troops. We have advisors EVERYWHERE. Advisors don’t lead to war.
[/quote]
LBJ was a cock. JFK wanted OUT.
Watch “The Fog of War”.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
hedo wrote:
hedo wrote:
Oh come on when you left wing moonbats were in charge what did you do…for 40 fucking years. Your tore the country apart and weakened the nation year after year. Conservatism was a revolt to the excesses of liberalism.
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
Built strong international relations that are currently being destroyed by the Bush admin.
There’s this thing called grammar - learn to use it.
Theres more, I’ll get back to you on the rest.
It’s not your government, it’s ours. You left wing hacks have lost the momentum. More people become conservative everyday. Less then 19% define themselves as liberal and that base is shrinking not growing. Do you really think voters want to be associated with people…like you.
Name a source - frankly, I think this is a load of hooey. If everyone was so goddamned conservative, why do more and more people every day oppose the war in Iraq? Why are Bush’s approval ratings the LOWEST IN HISTORY?
I’ll note that the great anti-war protests in the US fizzled over the weekend. Fizzled as in 200 people in NYC, 250 in DC, 50 in Philadelphia. Hardly a grassroots movement. More like a media driven event.
There are a LOT of people who have just given up on protesting the war, because it’s plenty damned clear that those in power have no respect for democracy or public opinion. There were HUGE protests in the build up to the war, and throughout the entire early stages.
Now I think the overall feeling is that the g’vt made such a huge fucking mess, we’re obligated to stick around and clean it the hell up.
Your post is straight from the DNC website.
By the way have you checked the economic stats lately…you should. Even moonbats can find a job these days.
Try comparing the current economy to where it was when Bush stepped into office - it’s nowhere near where it was, our trade defecit is worse than ever, the national debt is OUT OF CONTROL. How can you idiots support Bush!? He tood the incredible momentum our nation had and drove it STRAIGHT INTO THE GROUND. Every time I see a “W” sticker on a car I just want to fucking barf.
Reagan shrunk govenemnt and defeated the Soviet Union. Not bad. All those Democracies in Europe were not due to the Carter Doctrine. By the way the Economy boomed.
Gulf WarI-you remember that one right.
Contract with America- smaller govt. less taxes. Even CLinton liked it.
oooh, Regan! Regan! Reagan! Dude, Reagan borrowed WAY too much money, BLOATED the budget with excessive military spending, and lowered taxes. We’re STILL paying for that shit. Small government my ass.
Of course I remember the first Gulf War. Bush I was smart enough to NOT INVADE. He didn’t overextend our military - smart decision. He didn’t do much for our economy, however, and spend way more money than we had.
I LOVE the idea of “smaller government” - the trouble is, you and all your idiot conny friends bought all the bullshit that the politicians crammed down your throats. Bigger military? YEAH, that IS bigger government! More laws that infringe on the rights of people because they’re gay? I’m sorry, but I’d classify that as bigger government - the g’vt should stay out of people’s way unless it’s to prevent harm and defend people’s basic human rights.
The economy has expanded under GWB depite 9/11 and natural disasters. Despite them!
expanded - NOT exploded. I think you should add “despite BUSH” in there too.
I was part of the Katrina relief efforts. To say the Federal government could not respond to the event betrays you as someone who gets their news from CNN only. I saw over 70 helicopters rescuing people and all were federal. Those gray ships in the river belonged to the US NAVY, not the state government. $150B despite fighting a war on terror is hardly the sign of a country that has been “too weakened” to respond.
good for you - I’m glad you could afford the time off work to help out - sadly, I couldn’t. …but read my post again - I NEVER said that we were too weakened to respond, or that we dind’t respond. I said that our ability to respond was weakened. The simple fact is, if we weren’t in a war that WE started for essentially NO REASON AT ALL, our response would’ve been faster and stronger, and as a result, fewer people would’ve died.
…so answer my original question, dingbat - you conveniently left the answer out while you were attacking me and citing total bullshit about how great the conservatives were in the 80’s.
so here’s the goddamned question again so your laxy conny ass don’t have to scroll up:
“AND JUST WHAT GOOD HAVE YOU MORONS DONE WITH THE POWER?”[/quote]
I answered your question asshole.
As to your sources it was reported on a lot of MSM sites. Look it up on the internet. I found it on the “right wing news”. Cover your eyes though, knowledge is dangerous.
Might want to look up some of the economic stats why you are at it.
The Vietnam war ended after Nixon was elected. LBJ didn’t have the courage. Peace in general. Man the 70’s were really a blur for you. Were you alive during that period? Iran? Cold War? Peace was obtained via a superior military force…it was in all the history books.
Civil rights were bipartisan. Even a revisionist has to see that. Jewish people who form the basis of the Neoconservatism movement were a huge part of it. More so then left coast liberals. To be perfectly frank both sides got us into that position. The only people who should be able to claim civilrights as an accomplishment are blacks in my opinion. They created the movement, politicans either supported it or they stood in it’s way.
The military is not the govenrnment. No point is arguing with such a naive view of the world. Your so misinformed it’s pointless. They are seperated for a reason. This was particularly important during the Clinton years as am sure you remember.
Your argument regarding the government being weakened by the war with regard to Katrina is tangental. It was also weakened by our committment of troops to Europe, by foriegn aid during the Tsunami and by entitlement spending. The two have nothing to do with each other. Try again and make sense this time moonbat.
Expanded not exploded. Yes I am sure Gore and Kerry would have steered the economy towards explosive growth by increasing spending and entitlement programs. That’s the way to grow the economy. You do know that the IRS brought in more money after the tax cuts then before due to the increase in economic growth they stimulated. I’m shocked if you didn’t? You could look it up. Enter “tax cuts bush” into google.
Grammar…read you first post. Your funny. Kind of like the smelly kid in high school funny.
You are way out of your league son. Read a little more and come back with a better thought out opinion. Wishing doesn’t make it so…if it did the dems would still be in control of the government.
If you can make a point that is not filled with feeble attempts at personal attacks and what passes for liberal with these days I’ll debate you. Otherwise have a great day. I know I will. After all Conservatives are generally happy with their lives and family. (same poll…look it up)
[quote]doogie wrote:
harris447 wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
After an 83-day filibuster by DEMOCRATS.
Started by Democrats.
You’re wrong on number two. Eisenhower was the first president to put American troops (he euphamistically called them ‘advisors’) in Vietnam after the French lost control at Dien Bien Phu.
Nice try, though.
You’re smarter than that. You aren’t going to compare sending in some advisors to LBJ sending in thousands of troops. We have advisors EVERYWHERE. Advisors don’t lead to war.
[/quote]
Of course advisors lead to war, because they weren’t actually advisors. They were oficers of the OSS.
You said started, not expanded. Did LBJ lie out his ass and foment a needless war vis-a-vis the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Yes. But The only reason Americans were there in the first place was because of Eisenhower.
Blame should be placed upon both parties for that debacle.
[quote]hedo wrote:
knewsom wrote:
hedo wrote:
hedo wrote:
Oh come on when you left wing moonbats were in charge what did you do…for 40 fucking years. Your tore the country apart and weakened the nation year after year. Conservatism was a revolt to the excesses of liberalism.
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
Built strong international relations that are currently being destroyed by the Bush admin.
There’s this thing called grammar - learn to use it.
Theres more, I’ll get back to you on the rest.
It’s not your government, it’s ours. You left wing hacks have lost the momentum. More people become conservative everyday. Less then 19% define themselves as liberal and that base is shrinking not growing. Do you really think voters want to be associated with people…like you.
Name a source - frankly, I think this is a load of hooey. If everyone was so goddamned conservative, why do more and more people every day oppose the war in Iraq? Why are Bush’s approval ratings the LOWEST IN HISTORY?
I’ll note that the great anti-war protests in the US fizzled over the weekend. Fizzled as in 200 people in NYC, 250 in DC, 50 in Philadelphia. Hardly a grassroots movement. More like a media driven event.
There are a LOT of people who have just given up on protesting the war, because it’s plenty damned clear that those in power have no respect for democracy or public opinion. There were HUGE protests in the build up to the war, and throughout the entire early stages.
Now I think the overall feeling is that the g’vt made such a huge fucking mess, we’re obligated to stick around and clean it the hell up.
Your post is straight from the DNC website.
By the way have you checked the economic stats lately…you should. Even moonbats can find a job these days.
Try comparing the current economy to where it was when Bush stepped into office - it’s nowhere near where it was, our trade defecit is worse than ever, the national debt is OUT OF CONTROL. How can you idiots support Bush!? He tood the incredible momentum our nation had and drove it STRAIGHT INTO THE GROUND. Every time I see a “W” sticker on a car I just want to fucking barf.
Reagan shrunk govenemnt and defeated the Soviet Union. Not bad. All those Democracies in Europe were not due to the Carter Doctrine. By the way the Economy boomed.
Gulf WarI-you remember that one right.
Contract with America- smaller govt. less taxes. Even CLinton liked it.
oooh, Regan! Regan! Reagan! Dude, Reagan borrowed WAY too much money, BLOATED the budget with excessive military spending, and lowered taxes. We’re STILL paying for that shit. Small government my ass.
Of course I remember the first Gulf War. Bush I was smart enough to NOT INVADE. He didn’t overextend our military - smart decision. He didn’t do much for our economy, however, and spend way more money than we had.
I LOVE the idea of “smaller government” - the trouble is, you and all your idiot conny friends bought all the bullshit that the politicians crammed down your throats. Bigger military? YEAH, that IS bigger government! More laws that infringe on the rights of people because they’re gay? I’m sorry, but I’d classify that as bigger government - the g’vt should stay out of people’s way unless it’s to prevent harm and defend people’s basic human rights.
The economy has expanded under GWB depite 9/11 and natural disasters. Despite them!
expanded - NOT exploded. I think you should add “despite BUSH” in there too.
I was part of the Katrina relief efforts. To say the Federal government could not respond to the event betrays you as someone who gets their news from CNN only. I saw over 70 helicopters rescuing people and all were federal. Those gray ships in the river belonged to the US NAVY, not the state government. $150B despite fighting a war on terror is hardly the sign of a country that has been “too weakened” to respond.
good for you - I’m glad you could afford the time off work to help out - sadly, I couldn’t. …but read my post again - I NEVER said that we were too weakened to respond, or that we dind’t respond. I said that our ability to respond was weakened. The simple fact is, if we weren’t in a war that WE started for essentially NO REASON AT ALL, our response would’ve been faster and stronger, and as a result, fewer people would’ve died.
…so answer my original question, dingbat - you conveniently left the answer out while you were attacking me and citing total bullshit about how great the conservatives were in the 80’s.
so here’s the goddamned question again so your laxy conny ass don’t have to scroll up:
“AND JUST WHAT GOOD HAVE YOU MORONS DONE WITH THE POWER?”
I answered your question asshole.
As to your sources it was reported on a lot of MSM sites. Look it up on the internet. I found it on the “right wing news”. Cover your eyes though, knowledge is dangerous.
Might want to look up some of the economic stats why you are at it.
The Vietnam war ended after Nixon was elected. LBJ didn’t have the courage. Peace in general. Man the 70’s were really a blur for you. Were you alive during that period? Iran? Cold War? Peace was obtained via a superior military force…it was in all the history books.
Civil rights were bipartisan. Even a revisionist has to see that. Jewish people who form the basis of the Neoconservatism movement were a huge part of it. More so then left coast liberals. To be perfectly frank both sides got us into that position. The only people who should be able to claim civilrights as an accomplishment are blacks in my opinion. They created the movement, politicans either supported it or they stood in it’s way.
The military is not the govenrnment. No point is arguing with such a naive view of the world. Your so misinformed it’s pointless. They are seperated for a reason. This was particularly important during the Clinton years as am sure you remember.
Your argument regarding the government being weakened by the war with regard to Katrina is tangental. It was also weakened by our committment of troops to Europe, by foriegn aid during the Tsunami and by entitlement spending. The two have nothing to do with each other. Try again and make sense this time moonbat.
Expanded not exploded. Yes I am sure Gore and Kerry would have steered the economy towards explosive growth by increasing spending and entitlement programs. That’s the way to grow the economy. You do know that the IRS brought in more money after the tax cuts then before due to the increase in economic growth they stimulated. I’m shocked if you didn’t? You could look it up. Enter “tax cuts bush” into google.
Grammar…read you first post. Your funny. Kind of like the smelly kid in high school funny.
You are way out of your league son. Read a little more and come back with a better thought out opinion. Wishing doesn’t make it so…if it did the dems would still be in control of the government.
If you can make a point that is not filled with feeble attempts at personal attacks and what passes for liberal with these days I’ll debate you. Otherwise have a great day. I know I will. After all Conservatives are generally happy with their lives and family. (same poll…look it up)
The Vietnam War ended after Nixon was elected because…we lost.
Are you claiming the man who secretly and illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia for no good reason whatsoever was a peacemaker? The rehabiliation of Nixon really shouldn’t be starting on our watch.
Iran? You’re referring to the hostage crisis, right? The hostage crisis that, while Carter did screw the pooch on it, Reagan “solved” by making a secret deal with the Islamofascists instead of wiping the off the map like he should have done?
And the Cold War? We won that, so now there’s peace?
I think we were better off then instead of now fighting the surrogates we armed, trained, and then abandoned.
[/quote]
Okay, so could someone please continue the modernization?
My city doesn’t have municipal WIFI access available for everyone yet… and I’m reduced to wearing furs and hunting for dinner with my bow.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
…
Started by a Dem. Ended by a Rep. FDR did a great job keeping America out of WW2.
With who? The only nations that oppose us are our traditional rivals and enemies.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
…
Try comparing the current economy to where it was when Bush stepped into office - …[/quote]
We were headed into recession when Bush took over. Do you remember the economic delcine the last years of Clinton’s term?
harris447 wrote:
The Vietnam War ended after Nixon was elected because…we lost.
Are you claiming the man who secretly and illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia for no good reason whatsoever was a peacemaker? The rehabiliation of Nixon really shouldn’t be starting on our watch.
Iran? You’re referring to the hostage crisis, right? The hostage crisis that, while Carter did screw the pooch on it, Reagan “solved” by making a secret deal with the Islamofascists instead of wiping the off the map like he should have done?
And the Cold War? We won that, so now there’s peace?
I think we were better off then instead of now fighting the surrogates we armed, trained, and then abandoned.
We lost Vietnam when the war protesting started. We withdrew not lost. When it wasn’t supported by the people we had no choice…and the country suffered for 20 years after it ended.
A lot went on behind behind the scenes regarding Iran. Carter shoudl have taken effective action 18 mos. before, not leave it for Reagan to clean up. By the way none of the hostages were killed. Let’s compare apples to apples though. Do you really think it would happen again under Bush’s presidency? No fucking way.
I disagree. The surrogates are being dealt with and we no longer live under the threat of nuclear war with an opponent that had rough parity. At this point the enemy can sting us but they can’t kill us. That’s an important difference. Do you really think someone like Carter or Dukakis, Clinton would have had the same impact?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Civil rights.
Ended the war in Vietnam, and peace in general.
After an 83-day filibuster by DEMOCRATS.
Started by Democrats.
You’re wrong on number two. Eisenhower was the first president to put American troops (he euphamistically called them ‘advisors’) in Vietnam after the French lost control at Dien Bien Phu.
Nice try, though.
[/quote]
Ike put ion a handful of advisors.
JFK increased the number. LBJ went all the way and turned it into a full fledged American war.
Ike made a mistake by letting the French have their way but after that Vietnam was the Democrats responsibility.
[quote]Ren wrote:
well, I am not gonna get into the utter stupidity of a 2 party system and the inherent stupidity, anger, and hate that it creates. Or the fact that most people are so borderline retarded they’d vote for a chimpanzee if it had the republican parties backing or a flamingo if the democrats nominated it. No offence, but step outside of your little 2-party political world, its fucking up your view on reality.[/quote]
People just need to learn the correct term: “Presidential Pageant”
Most people are so shallow they only know to vote for a smile or charisma. Substance does not matter.
If you voted for Bush because you’d rather have a beer with Bush than the other guy, you deserve a hard kick in the nuts.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Anyway, it’s telling that little irish approved of your post. Maybe you, little irish, and howard “The South is full of guy with trucks and confederate flags, ahhhhhhharrrggg” dean should wander on down to Tupelo, Mississippi and run your mouths.
Aw, you hurt Jerffy’s feelings! Look, he had to sink down to Internet tough guy tactics.
What an asswad.
That’s OK. I’m sure he just came from a hard workout and deserves some rest…
Man i can’t even say that with a straight face.[/quote]
Mississippi gave us Trent Lott and Thad Cochran. Trent was a cheerleader @
Ole Miss…not sure about Thad.
These are rugged guys…I’d mess with Texas before I messed with Mississippi.
[quote]hedo wrote:
hedo wrote:
I answered your question asshole.
[/quote]
…where? I read our entire argument again, and didn’t see your answer. Do me a favor and re-post it, if YOU can find it.
…and if you think talking about how great Bush I and Reagan were, you can stop before you begin - my question is directed at the neo-conservative power that is CURRENTLY gripping the nation (aka, the last oh, 6 years.)
yeah, because THAT’s an unbiased news source… give me a friggin’ break. I might as well counter your arguments with an article from the “China People’s Daily”.
ahem. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm
do some more poking around on their site, there’s an excel file that lists adjusted GDP since 1929. here’s some of it.
1964 2,998.6 LBJ
1965 3,191.1 LBJ
1966 3,399.1 LBJ
1967 3,484.6 LBJ
1968 3,652.7 LBJ
1969 3,765.4 NIX
1970 3,771.9 NIX
1971 3,898.6 NIX
1972 4,105.0 NIX
1973 4,341.5 NIX
1974 4,319.6 FORD
1975 4,311.2 FORD
1976 4,540.9 FORD
1977 4,750.5 CARTER
1978 5,015.0 CARTER
1979 5,173.4 CARTER
1980 5,161.7 CARTER
1981 5,291.7 REAG
1982 5,189.3 REAG
1983 5,423.8 REAG
1984 5,813.6 REAG
1985 6,053.7 REAG
1986 6,263.6 REAG
1987 6,475.1 REAG
1988 6,742.7 REAG
1989 6,981.4 BUSH I
1990 7,112.5 BUSH I
1991 7,100.5 BUSH I
1992 7,336.6 BUSH I
1993 7,532.7 CLINTON
1994 7,835.5 CLINTON
1995 8,031.7 CLINTON
1996 8,328.9 CLINTON
1997 8,703.5 CLINTON
1998 9,066.9 CLINTON
1999 9,470.3 CLINTON
2000 9,817.0 CLINTON
2001 9,890.7 GEORGE II
2002 10,048.8 GEORGE II
2003 10,320.6 GEORGE II
2004 10,755.7 GEORGE II
2005 11,134.6 GEORGE II
Conclusions:
Well, the GDP actually DECREASED under Reagan and Bush I, CONSISTENTLY grew under Clinton, STALLED HORRIBLY when Bush II got elected, and then gradually recovered.
To be fair, the economy fluxuated a bit under Carter as well, but so did it also under Ford. Also of note, when LBJ was pres, it was consistant growth.
The Cold War WAS peace (for the most part), albeit an uneasy one. Peace was maintained by the seemingly equal military forces of the two world superpowers.
If the republicans gave so much overall support for the Civil Rights movement, then why is the GOP still the party of choice for the KKK?
The military is a government agency. By your definition, Social Security isn’t the government either, neither is Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
The commitment of troops to Europe did also have a weakening effect on our ability to respond - I never said it didn’t. HOWEVER, those troops can easily be redeployed, while troops tied up in a combat situation simply cannot.
Yes, of course a tax cut can stimulate economic growth! I’m FINE with a tax cut to give the economy a good kick in the pants. HOWEVER, when the economy has recovered, and the defecit continues to grow, the responsible thing to do would be to GRADUALLY increase them once more.
I DID read my first post. What gramatical errors do you speak of? It’s hard to believe that someone who doesn’t understand the proper usage of the apostrophe has found gramatical errors in my posts.
No, fixing elections and making BS promises to the public win elections. Don’t insult my inteligence. My opinions are formed by more than an in-depth knowledge of history. If Republicans are so great and so Christian, why do they always oppose social welfare programs that cost very little when compared to the miltary, whose aims are to maintain a decent quality of life for every citizen of the country? Why do cons always think with their pocketbook first and their hearts second?
Are you implying that I’m miserable or something? I’m actually a very happy person - ask anyone that knows me. My happiness is not based on how much money I earn, or any worldly factors - my happiness comes from within, and I am happy despite the sad state of affairs in the world.
…I suspect (from what I’ve gathered from the cons I know) that the average Republican is also a person who lives in fear. I do not live in fear, and I never will. …can you say the same?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
If you voted for Bush because you’d rather have a beer with Bush than the other guy, you deserve a hard kick in the nuts.[/quote]
I second that one.
Knewsom,
Yes you sound miserable and angry with your position in life. Read your posts. Why do you think being mean and foul mouthed is a quality to be admired?
You also sound extremely fearful. You seem to live in fear of George Bush. I would guess, like many libs, you live most days in fear. Your Anti position on just about everything is merely a form of cowardice masquerading as virtue.
Interesting stastistics, completely out of context, but that wasn’t the point you were trying to make was it. Tangents again. Try and toss aside the brainwashing you’ve recieved and look at the facts. Have you heard we are essentially at full employment? It was in all the papers? How about the stock market? Want to skew those statistics too?
You continually try and rephrase your question, narrowing it each time, so that you think you will get the only possible answer…you do realize that is what you are attempting to do don’t you? I’ve answered it broadly. Why don’t you pull out what you want and then you’ll get the satisfaction you need to move on.
The Right Wing News article referenced a university poll…try again. Do you have something to refute the assertation or are you satisifed just attacking a source you haven’t read?
By the way both parties reject the KKK as I’m sure you know. However the only member of congress that was a clan memebr was Robert Byrd, a former grand wizard. Have you heard of him…been around awhile.
You sound frustrated. This is the point where the liberal usually resorts to personal attacks…
Glad your satisfied with your life and are happy.
The argument is getting boring and tedious. Good for you, dull for me.
Add something new if you want to continue.
Because it works so well for Cheney?