This is really simple. I supported going to war with Iraq. I believed the WMD stuff. Even after that proved false, I thought it was a good idea, because this old world is better off with one less tinpot dictator who liked to kill his own people.
Time and expense have changed my mind. Our country has spent far too much precious blood in a failed state created from the ashes of World War I. (Quick quiz: of these "nations" created after World War I, how many are still in existence? Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Iraq?) There is no question that we've spent far too much money. It is plainly obvious to anyone that the Muslim world doesn't want us in Iraq, or there would be help from the Muslim community. Instead, they give money and lives to kill American soldiers. If they wanted this to work, it would. They don't, so let Iraq rot.
As circumstances change, strategies change as well. That's business. That's life. If a company makes a decision to introduce a product that does not sell, would that company continue to produce the product, driving itself into bankruptcy? Some do. Does anybody think that's a smart thing to do with our country?
Too many dead and maimed, military struggling with recruitment and maintenance, no exit strategy to begin with or now, years later. Too much good money thrown after bad. Students of history know: this isn't how America wins wars.
I don't know of any of the guys that might be considering going into the military. I don't like the idea of any of them going "over there" as they approach 18 years old. Before anybody enters a counter-argument, and I strongly encourage debate, answer the question: would you or a family member enlist to go to Iraq? I don't believe anybody who claims to support the war should be able to answer no. If this war is so vital for our security, then it must be vital enough for a citizen who supports it to put themselves on the line. I don't believe this war reaches that level of importance, so I can no longer support it.
Here's the endgame: we will declare "victory" after some elections and leave. The United States will divide itself, searching for blame for who lost the war. Supporters will blame people like me, who "stabbed our troops in the back and wouldn't let them finish the job." Detractors will blame the politicians and leaders, claiming their plans were not realistic, the reasons were false and their policies on the world stage forced us to go it alone. Meanwhile, Iraq will splinter into its constituent parts, with the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle and Shiites in the south each forming their own mini-state, which will immediately begin fighting the others.
There isn't going to be a good end to this war. Too many American heroes have come home in boxes for this to ever be called a success. Does anybody believe that if Iraq becomes a model democracy, a beacon to the Muslim world, that they will ever in some way show their appreciation for the sacrifices of our 1850 war dead and counting? Does anybody really believe Iraq will become that model of democracy? A small Kurdish state in the north has and might. Perhaps that's who we should be fighting for.
Time to call this what it is: a mistake. Time to stop the American bleeding and dying. If the Iraqis want to kill each other, let them. It's time to bring the troops home and spend all this money on making our country safer, not fixing some Iraqi pipeline for the tenth time.
Categories: Politics
49 comments:
I know there are some people who believe I should not be posting my political views on this blog. Various reasons include fears I'm trying to indoctrinate the guys, who read this constantly, or that politics doesn't have a place on this blog, it should be about rowing and nothing else.
I've thought a long time about these and have a question to ask: If somebody asked you to change or edit your own website, would you? I don't force the guys to read this site. Yes, information is disseminated here, but that information is usually available elsewhere also.
The guys know my political beliefs, and I don't try to force them to think in any particular way, nor do my beliefs affect my coaching or boat selection in any way. They know that. If that ever happened, I would lose their trust in an instant, and the results and attandance at practices would reveal the situation.
I want them to think. I want them to respond. I encourage logical, reasoned, polite thought and debate, because that is not what they are getting in school. Thinking and expressing your position in writing is the most important aspect of learning, and I hope to encourage that.
Finally, it's my site and I can put what I want on it. Just like the radio, if you don't like what's on, change the channel.
Jay, I think it is fine to post politics (obviously I'm apposed if it gets ridiculous, but we will stop you before that happens) As an aspiring teacher (and spending most of my summer learning about education) I too believe that "Launch Exhaust" is pure brilliance, a chance for teenage boys, under the guidance of three higher educated role models, to exchange information, have a few laughs, learn more about our sport, and most importantly: learn to communicate with each other. Political posts may cause conflict, but when someone apposes your views or talks about a touchy issue, that is where growth occurs, when you are challenged to support your opinion in a civilized discussion while still listening to the others point of view.
Finally, here is my response to the post. The WMD bull also fooled me, but my opinion is that we are in there now; we started something, now we need to clean up the mess. We cannot “let Iraq rot”. I say that for personal reasons and the logic that if you have a fire in one room of your house, even if it is not your favorite room, it can still eventually burn down the whole house.
So we need to clean up our mess, have a plan for rebuilding the room (hey, some blue prints might be nice!), because if we don’t, we will have sufficiently diminished the value of our home for when we sell it to the future owners (hint: that’s us guys). Maybe we create a few new rooms but what ever the case, we can’t just runway. We messed up and played with the gasoline and matches, even when our roommates told us not to, now we need to fix the problem and “learn from our mistake.”
(Sorry about the length and randomness)
P.S. I am fine with a little politics on the blog, but can we still keep the guideline of no politics at practice or races? Those are places where we don’t want conflict.
Agree, happily, to keep politics away from practice and races. I know you guys agreed among yourselves not to discuss things like this at all, and I hope this post doesn't unleash a firestorm.
Also, I believe this isn't that political. This problem is something that affects the whole country, and is the whole country's problem. Insurgents in Iraq don't care who you voted for in the last election; if they get their hands on you and if you're an American, your throat is cut.
Finally, I just don't see a reason to remain. Yes, there is a moral responsibility that should be addressed (you broke it, you fix it), but I don't see a fix possible. All I see are American troops dying for Iraqi democracy, and I don't see a justification beyond that. Americans have encouraged democracy over the years, and have fought to protect allies, but have never fought to install democracy anywhere. I don't believe Iraqi democracy is worth what our country is spending in blood and treasure.
I agree with Jay's first comment. I think that it is important for people to be able to hear other's arguments and interpret those arguments within their own beliefs. It's part of critical thinking skills. Of course, there are certain hot topics that I would argue do no belong on this blog...
However, I'm more in like with Joe here... Jay, I don't support the half-hearted effort that is going on here, but it seems immoral to destroy the foundation and infrastructure of a country and then bail. Rather, I would argue, let's go, do it right, and then leave. We collasped a country, is it right to abandon it in its ruin?
Well in a comment on the actual post and not on the yay or neigh to have it on the blog, I agree with you Jay. I think its interesting that in communist or socialist countries that we have invaded since World War II, we haven't exactly accolmplished a lot. We went to Korea. Well, it's now a divided state, but communism still lives there quite strong. We went to Vietnam, that sure as hell didn't work out. We tried to invade Cuba and they are still around to tell the tale. We went to Iraq and we all know what's going on there.
The interesting part however, is that we never invaded China. Nor did we ever actually invade the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union fell through diplomacy more or less without any real loss of life connected to actual military struggles. China is one of the most successful, forward moving countries in the world. Instead of sending troops over to "bring down their regime," during Mao's period of rule, Nixon opened relations with him. The countries that we opened relations with and didn't attack seem to be those that have come along to be a successful modern nation. Cuba would also be a successful, thriving country if it wasn't for the trade embargo. Perhaps there should be a new way to look at how we deal with these countries.
Sorry that was me. But if you agree with that post there is a Fareed Zakaria article that really complies with it in one issue of Newsweek. I can't remember which but its a more recent one.
Drew--
The only issue I take with your post is characterizing China as forward moving. While the Chinese economy is moving forward and mult-national corporations are falling all over each other to "get into the China market," we are only 14 years removed from the massacre of students in 1989. China is still a country that restricts freedom of speech and other basic human rights. I do not trust China, nor will I until it is truly democratic.
Emily-- Yes, we bombed Iraq back to the stone age. However, our tax dollars since have gone to re-building the infrastructure. The problem is, the Iraqis continue to sabatoge that infrastructure. Our country has made a good-faith effort to help the Iraqis. Some, like the Kurds in the north, have welcomed that help and worked with us. Others, like the Shiia in the south and the Sunnis in the middle, have fought us. They take out power lines that bring electricity to their own people, rather than let us get credit for restoring power. And the population continues to hide and help these insurgents, with money and explosives coming from the greater Muslim world. Why help them? Yes, there is a moral responsibility to help, but it seems they have made their feelings known; Iraq doesn't want our help. They want us gone. So, let's withdraw to the North, where we are welcomed and wanted and let the rest do whatever they want.
Drew--
Other than what I said, I agree with you.
I completely agree. I wasn't terribly pleased with the war and considerably more pissed off at the advent that i'd been lied to/misled. I disagree that we can completely cut our loses and run because i think that is both unethical and destructive to the future.
The problem is that the people in charge seem utterly incapable of creating a coherent military strategy. I'm not saying i'm an expert military strategist just cause i've played Age of Empires, but i can recognize an unfocused and ineffective occupation when i see it.
Joe told me last night that "He still wouldn't have voted for Kerry" and while i respect his opinion and don't want to just bring up the past the fact remains our current administration is not equiped to handle the situation they've gotten themselves into. I still believe that while by no means perfect John Kerry would not have pulled out of Iraq but instead he would have initiated a more sensible strategy for waging this war. I could be wrong and it doesn't really matter anyway cause we're stuck with W.
I think the saddest thing is that this president was elected with a 60% approval rating (not election margin) within monthes it has plummeted to 42% and if an election were held today he wouldn't defeat Nader. It feels as if once he knew he didn't have to worry about running again he just let go of all pretensions and said F*** you America it doesn't matter what you think anymore. Even though i didn't support him i think his supporters from the election should be offended by this complete disregard for the wishes of the people who got him elected.
Now i know i could go on all day so i'll cut it short and just say i think it is a good thing to perhaps use this blog not just for relaying rowing information to the team but also for giving us a place to engage in an intellectual discussion. Thank you jay i think this was a great idea.
Gorin I agree with the fact that the job in Iraq is not being done well, but I think you may be showing a bit too much bias. The truth of the matter is, George Bush is our president and John Kerry is not. We can't dwell on what Kerry would or would not have done because honestly we have no idea what he would or would not have done. This was an ugly situation that presented itself and any president in the situation would obviously have some with him and some against, however, I feel that the task at hand could have been dealt with more diplomatically in the first place. I feel that Bush was way too impulsive on this issue rushing right in before even attempting diplomacy.
Also to Joe, that was an interesting analogy you used in reference to the house being built. I really like it, however I think I'm going to add on a bit too it. You describe the situation in Iraq like fixing a house. You say that the task is simple and that if we are patient, all will be resolved eventually. The problem with that is, you forgot to leave out that while fixing the house, some of the people you are working with are secretly sabatoging the work you are being done. No other neighbors or individuals skilled in this area are willing to help, leaving you to do this job alone. All the while, while you are trying to rebuild this room, people are shooting at you. When you take that into consideration, perhaps just saying well let's just rebuild the room isn't the greatest idea.
Drew and Joe, I liked how you both approached the subject. I feel that Americans should think about the war like this, Bush looked at his "exit strategy" from vietnam(haha) and used the exact opposite for Iraw. While everyone is well away of my ultra-liberal views, I don't entirely hate Bush. Look what he's doing to push hydrogen power, I think that is finaminal. But this thing with Saddam came about right when people started to say, "It's a wild goose chase for Bin Laden." So why should, presumably, one of the most powerful men in the world use billions of tax payers dollars to cover up his short falling? I'll tell you, because his daddy said to. While you all may think this is a weak arguement, GH failed to kill sadam after sadam failed to kill him. So hell, lets just keep it in the kin and let lil' GW do it. I feel that it is a wonderful accomplishment to have apprehended sadam, he could have evolvoed into the next Hitler. I do, however, feel it was not an ethical decision to try to completly revamp the social structure of Iraq. As much as some Americans would like to think, we aren't the world police, other countries have, some how, gotten along just fine without our help for centuries. So I feel that we need to remove the thousands of troops from Iraq and have a small team to merely direct. Last thing, I also don't think the middle east is only retaliating by violence...2.45 a gallon!!!!!
I know this was an orgasm of my political beliefs, but in summary, we need to slowly remove troops and leave the major healing to the Iraqi people. I'm sure with just a little guidence, they can establish a society that will never nicely suit their needs.
I know he is our president and that is fine it is over now. The point i was trying to make is to use that splendid house analogy We are building a house, being shot at and sabotaged, and the architect who drew the blueprints didn't know what he was doing. The point i'm trying to make is the people in charge at the moment have no clue how to build this "house" and just keep doing the same thing over and over no matter how many times the whole thing falls apart.
Oh and Kahn about gas prices. Gas needs to be expensive or else nobody will bother trying to conserve it. High gas prices stimulate technological development, encourage the sale of fuel efficient vehicles, and help clue the public in on the need for conservation. So i know everyone groans and moans about high gas prices but i think they are a necessary evil to reform the way we abuse petroleum in the country.
Gorin-
While that's a valid point, I doubt the environmentalists would go to these extremes to make their point.
What extremes? What Point? Environmentalists aren't doing anything Kahn i was merely pointing out that there are beneficial aspects to high gas prices.
But there are a lot more negatives than positives. The extremes are the obscene gas prices
I dunno about 'obscene' gas prices. What other nation in the world has coasted around on cheap gas the way we have? We've been suckered in, the way the junkie is by his pusher offering free drugs. Now we're hooked on big cars and dying public transportation systems, and we're crying because suddenly we have to pay market price for our drug of choice.
Guys, the gas prices are based soley on the activity in Iraq. America HAS become dependent on this "drug" from the middle east. But in retaliation to our actions in Iraq, the middle eastern oil tycoons have decided to charge 67.20 per barrel. Someone didn't just decide to hike oil prices, it's almost entirely because of our presence in Iraq.
What ever the reason for the high prices Gorin still has a very valid point.
P.S. I had written a nicely written response but my computer froze I can't remember what I wrote.
why are there only 4 people participating in the discussion. And yeah Kahn gas prices wouldn't seem so extreme if we hadn't lived with such artificially low prices which have killed public transportation and caused inefficient cars. In London it costs like 3.50 a gallon and they don't complain cause they drive tiny smartcars and ride the bus and subway.
Gorin, as much as I agree with the fact that we do need to do something about the enviornment and conservation, not everyone has a hybrid car. I paid $40 to fill up my small car yesterday and that is something I cannot afford to do on a regular basis. That would be like making someone's teeth rot just so you could proove that brushing your teeth is a good thing and not eating too much candy is a good thing. Although it is probably the best way to take care of the problem, I don't think it will make too much of a difference.
Now, back to the house reference. I believe that we should look at it in a new way. Perhaps, instead of trying to rebuild a room of our own house, perhaps instead that it is infact our neighbor's house. It would be nice of us to help them if something on their house was broken but only if they asked. We wouldn't just go over and fix something because that may not be how they want it to be.
This is more of the situation though, still with the neighbor analogy, where the father of our neighbor's house was abusing his children. We had a feeling that this was going on, but we don't run into the house and take the father hostage in our own house. The children would be completely out of luck. They would not have any idea of what to do and everything would fall apart. Instead, we would call the police (the U.N. perhaps) and work with them to come to a solution that would benefit the children, not just our insatiable desire to feel like we are doing something right, even if we know its not actually the right thing.
If this is about the hybrid cars, I've only been hearing negatives about them lately. I think it was the washington post that said that they are more inefficicent b/c the engines turn off every time you stop then restart when you step on the gas. And egnition ususes the most gas. Even though I agree we do need to conserve gas, the reason for the soaring gas prices is not to teach the public a lesson, it's the effects of what is going on in the middle east. I sincerely doubt that all of the gas companies had some sort of summit and agreed that Americans are unaware of their excessive waste of gas. "We need to give those immature Americans a slap on the wrist so they'll realize that driving a car that gets 12 miles to the gallon is a bad idea. LET'S RAIZE GAS PRICES!!!"-gas exec. We need to think logically about this
very well stated drew
Gas prices aren't being manipulated Aaron they just went up. 2nd i haven't heard anything bad about hybrid cars and public transportation is a more sensible solution than hybrid cars anyway. Prices aren't up because they are trying to teach the US a lesson they are up and we should be smart enough to learn the lesson ourselves. The solution is public transportation. If anyone has been to DC and ridden the Metro it was less than 2 dollars for a ride from my hotel far away into the heart of The Mall right next to the washington monument. The metro is clean, fast, safe, and cheap. There are no busses to fox chapel but there should be. The reason there aren't busses is because there is nobody to ride them. I know that public transportation is initially very expensive but in the long run if a city creates an effective and inexpensive mass transportation system it would be able to make the money back. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION is what we need to combat high gas prices.
Oh and PS if the demand for hybrid cars increases the incentive for car companies to devote research and development to improving them also increases. In the 1970's during the great gas shortage of the time volvo created a lightweight car that got 50-100 miles to the gallon and could run on vegtable oil along with gas. Then gas prices went back down and the project was abandoned. The point is that people need to want fuel efficent cars now to make the car companies invest more money in improving them.
Kahn, shut up about gas prices. They are high. We know. And hybrid cars still get better gas mileage than your car, even if they "are more inefficicent b/c the engines turn off every time you stop then restart when you step on the gas. And egnition ususes the most gas."
Now, about this "great crusade against terrorism."
Grades I give:
A: being a sissy
F: restructuring Iraq to be a Democratic State
Unacceptable: kicking ass/being American
Yeah the WMD crap was...well, crap. But I don't see what's is wrong with confronting a dictator that uses his military against his own people? I mean, it couldn't have been that bad of an idea to take Saddam out, he only killed a few Iraqis in his time...right?
Checkpoint 1: achieved.
Restructuring Government. HA. Hooray. Elections. For some reason, I don't remember ever hearing about someone that George Washing ran against. Did he even run against someone for the Presidency? You know why the elections in Iraq didn't mean anything? Because no one cared about the people who were in them. They weren't war heroes. They were fat rich a**holes that have a major in political science from an American University like Harvard or Yale(gasp!). No one listens to you if you haven't gone through all the crap they have. That's why it is best to lead by example. That's why GW isn't doing a good job. He is FOLLOWING is father's example, while weakly attempting to pick out the flaws (Saddam).
Checkpoint 2: not even close.
The moral of the story is: if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. YOU CAN'T START A REVOLUTION IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!! THEY HAVE TO DO IT THEMSELVES!!!! (don't you dare mention Simon Bolivar in a response to this post) If Iraq was/is going to work, they are going to have to fight against themselves. Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites need to kick the shi'ite out of each other until one can rule the others. We should have left our mission with Saddam. We shouldn't have tried to play the kindergarten teacher that says "play nice kids, here is your new democratic government to share." KIDS DON'T SHARE. THEY WANT ONE FOR THEMSELVES. Why not give each group their own government? And by give, I mean let them form it. They can handle that, and then duke it out for the land.
Ha. I talk a lot. I assume no one will respond to this for another 8 hours, since it is 1:30. I'll get my rest and see what everyone thinks of my pile of poop when I get back.
Steve, I started out reading your post and thinking that this was another stubborn right wing rant. But by the end I totally agreed with most of it. My only qualm is that the first paragraph sort of differentiated with the rest of the post. Towards the end, you mention how it is important to have a revolution started by the people and for the people. However, in the beginning you said that it was necessary for us to go in and take Saddam out because he was using military against his own people. If the people were all being so terribly mistreated, which I know they really were, why did they not rebel themselves? There was successful rebellion in Cuba, in Russia, in China, dare we say it, in the United States of America! Yet the reason all of these worked, in my belief, was that they had leadership. In Cuba we had the Castro brothers and Che Guevara, in Russia there was Lenin and Trotsky, in China, Mao led the way, and in the U.S. countless leaders could be found.
In this instance, I can't find any evidence of an Iraqi leader not influenced by the United States. Perhaps this is a sign, nobody was that intent on starting a revolution at this time. Perhaps nobody was ready. Whatever the reason, it was certainly not a revolution by the people, nor was it for the people entirely.
Gorin-
This is a sample of the article from the new york times.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0917FE355B0C728FDDAE0894DD404482&incamp=archive:search
Also, Gorin I'm not arguing against the fact that public transportation is necessary. What I'm saying is that the CAUSE of the higher gas prices is the war in Iraq. I completly agree, any major city has a developed public transportation system, except pgh that is.
Steve-
In the first paragraph, I know that my car doesn't get as many miles per gallon, but the hybrid cars arent all theyre cracked up to be. If you read that entried article, you'll see that in certain situations, they can get well below 20 miles per gallon. For example, when the car is in traffic and they are stopping and starting frequently.
In your second paragraph, I think we were saying pretty much the same thing. I completly agree that we need to just let 'boys be boys' and leave the social development up to the citizens. While my parents gave me direction, I have made my own social decisions and, with some dispute, I think I have ended up pretty well. So, I feel once we allow the Iraqis to development their own government with some help from us, we will see the greatest results.
By removing Saddam we created a safer Iraq in relation to the United States, but not in relation to the people themselves. But, I am perfectly O.K. with the idea of removing the dictator and leaving the leaderless country to the people. They can fight amongst themselves until one group decides to rule over the others. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the government of the United States of America that we have today. It may take a while, but I'm sure they will come to terms and create their own government for all of Iraq. Or, for all parties of Iraq.
Shock, shock, shock. I agree with Steve. Perhaps he ins't the right-winger we all think he is?
Just a joke.
Hybrids are effecient because the engine shuts off when the car isn't moving, rather than idling in traffic. That is the most ineffecient moment of the internal combustion engine. This is also why hybrids get better milage in the city than over the road.
Gas is 2.60/ gal for regular down here in GA. I saw 2.69 in WVA.
I'm not sure the Iraq debate has much to do with W or Democrat vs. Republican anymore. We're there as a country and we need to get out. It's Somalia writ large again. They don't want us there anymore, so let them figure it out themselves. If the Kurds in the North want our help, then we'll help them.
Jay-
I think we need a new political subject each week! I never been to the cnn website more I have in the past couple of days.
CNN sucks.
BBC is where it's at.
BBC? Have you ever watched the BBC News? They can be farther left than CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC. (did I forget any?). Fox News is where it's at.
Now it's time to sit back and wait for the firestorm that one will start, as soon as anyone reads it.
Fox News is where it's at-- just as much as the Trib-Review is!
Kirk a news station isn't far left simply because you don't like the news. WOW Karl Rove may have leaked Valerie Wilson's name to the press those dirty liberal stations keep attacking our beloved leaders. Hey here is a new idea someone did something wrong and it is NEWS and CNN reports it. Your gauge of left to right so skewed because of your watching fox news. If you see Fox as center of course CNN and BBC will look like they are on the left because the center is on the left of Fox News.
I've watched CNN and i've read the BBC online and they are fairly balanced and i'm not just saying that because i'm a democrat i'm saying that cause it is true. I'm sick of people who support someone and then the news reports that they did something wrong they confuse it with bias.
OH MY GOD CNN IS REPORTING ON THE DIEING SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. Those dirty left wing Communists!!!! Come on they report what is happening and just cause you don't like what is happening and would rather watch a dolled up, spun, and distorted news channel to spoon feed you your own views you shouldn't attack the reputable news sources for reporting the truth.
I know you disagree with me but i had to say this despite the fact you are just gonna say i'm wrong.
Actually i got a great idea. I'm willing to listen to you Kirk.
Here you go
http://www.cnn.com/
Show me examples of liberal bias NOT INCLUDING the Op/ed Section. IF you can provide decent evidence i will retract my previous statement.
Either way, BBC World News has the best coverage that I've ever seen.
By the way, I'm not so far right as everyone thinks...
Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.44
http://www.politicalcompass.org
Is there anyone that owns a damn computer that realizes that "cause" is not a real word when used in place of the word because?
There is absolutely no way to get un-biased news these days Gorin and Kirk. The reason being, people are in charge of the news. People always will have personal views and as long as they have ink and paper or a microphone, be it radio or T.V., or any other form of media, they will find a way to lean one way or the other. Sure you can label a station as more right-wing or more left-wing, but either way, they are both biased. You will never find any sort of news that is un-slanted as long as the person distributing it has a functioning brain.
So Steve, political compass speaking, you are close in views to Paul Martin, whereas I fall near the Dalai Lama. Ironically enough, Gorin falls closest on their chart to Pope Benedict XVI, and Kahn falls between Jacques Chirac and Ariel Sharon. Prooooovacative.
I'm so damn pissed off at Ariel Sharon! Yes, his move is going to help the situation on the gaza strip. But he apeased to the emeny. There weren't any major negotiations that feel to his side, he just said alright I'm going to forget that I have balls and set aside. I'm sure I will be refuted and this will start another firestorm of comments, but I think it's absurd.
actually i fall nowhere near pope benedict. i'm on the same vertical line as him economically but i'm on the opposite end of the spectrum socially.
Fox News is as pink as the rest of them. The 700 Club is the only program that's even close to being fair and balanced.
You guys need to listen to more Rush. It's great, Rush will explain things to you and them you can explain things to everyone else, preferably at the top of your lungs while holding your ears.
LET'S ROLL!!!
Sorry, I meant Yasir Arafat
Arafat! Isn't he dead?
You meant Sharon.
Yeah, nevermind again, I need to get myself into ap gov asap
I'd say watch the news but apparently everyone would flip out.
Here is why i was right about Oil prices needing to be high.
http://tinyurl.com/99alp
Post a Comment