Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owes Income Taxes?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 25 of 80 (184601)
02-11-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 12:53 PM


Hmm. I think I want to try jumping in on a political topic.
We didn't know a vote for Bush was a vote for torture
I think I'd be willing to bet the farm that I'm not going to experience any torture over the next four years. I think you're being a little hysterical.
George Bush thinks that you've released him from any sort of accountability for anything he's done, ever. He's said so. What do you think the next four years have in store?
More of the same as the last four years without quite as large an increase in spending. (I think when I looked it was about 33% over those first four years.) Obviously, there were a lot of people who were okay with the first four years.
to gut our government's solvency and hand the proceeds to Wall Street.
If we're going to gut our government's solvency, it might be a good idea to hand it to Wall Street. That's where the proceeds get increased the most, and that's where the most taxes are paid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 2:20 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 80 (184879)
02-13-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 2:20 PM


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that torture was only bad if it happened to people we knew.
My apologies. I read, " handing Bush a mandate to torture, to pillage, and to gut our government's solvency and hand the proceeds to Wall Street," and I understood it as "torture...our government's solvency," and I thought it was rather extreme wording for budget problems. That's why I said hysterical. I see now I read the sentence completely wrong.
You do realize that, under tacit approval from the top levels of government, our military tortured at least 8 people to death?
The reason you or I know about any of that is because there are people, even in top levels of government, who care to put a stop to it.
So, you haven't read the new budget, then? The one that counts on billions in revenue from ANWAR drilling?
We'll see how it turns out. I would be surprised if he repeats the 33% increase the 2nd term. Unfortunately, my internet connection is real unreliable at this moment, and I can't seem to get the stats on the budget at the moment.
I’ll bet he even pulls off reducing the budget deficit by , like he says he’s going to. (Let me add, I’m not impressed by that. Clinton did finally balance the budget, and it seems quite unwise to have unbalanced it again.)
There were, on the other hand, an enormous amount of people whom the GOP lie machine scared into voting against Kerry.
I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that Kerry's stiffness and lack of charisma had at least as much to do with his loss as any swift boat issues, and lie machines are owned and used by both political parties.
Actually, when you look at the President's approval ratings, they've rarely been over 50%. So, obviously, you're wrong.
I'm not wrong. 50% of the United States is a lot of people.
I was pointing to his election win, anyway, meaning only that enough people were okay with the first four years to elect him to a second four years.
P.S. I wrote this a couple days ago, but my internet connection wasn't working right, and I haven't been available to put this up till today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 2:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 1:45 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 37 of 80 (184885)
02-13-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheLiteralist
02-11-2005 11:40 PM


Also, this amendment is actually saying that a policeman cannot MAKE you present your driver's license or any other documents to him unless he first presents you with a proper warrant
This is true, except...
Everything changes when it comes to driving. You have the right not to present a driver's license, as long as you don't drive.
That may be right or wrong, but it's a totally separate issue from the fourth amendment.
What? Police can't hold you for questioning about crimes unless they first obtain an indictment against you from a Grand Jury
That amendment says capital crime, or similar infamous crime.
Also "held to answer" does not, to me, appear to mean "hold you for questioning," despite the similarity of the wording. I think "held to answer," in the context, means "forced to answer," and while police may make efforts to get around that, the US is really pretty good about making sure criminals know they don't have to answer in any criminal case, not just capital ones.
If it means that a person cannot be arrested and held for questioning, then I want to throw the amendment out as a stupid and dangerous restriction on police activity. I want murder suspects (remember, we're talking about capital crimes here) to be detained and not let go to escape. I think the huge majority of the rest of us do, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-11-2005 11:40 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-13-2005 1:14 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 40 of 80 (185056)
02-14-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
02-13-2005 1:45 PM


the Bush Administration clearly considers that "the accountability moment" for torture, a moment which has passed.
This doesn't seem true to me. Of course, all I really have to go on is interviews and news items. It's not like I'm an insider or something. What I hear off the radio tends more towards conservative than liberal (I hear both), yet even the more conservative side I hear cares about what we're doing.
You say those things like they're fact, but I found Kerry neither stiff nor uncharismatic.
This struck me as odd, since what I said was, "I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that..." I'm not sure why you said I say those things like they're fact.
I did not see Bush even once during the campaign, so I can't comment on how he conducted it. I saw Kerry on TV a couple times. I have close friends who watched one of the debates. Bush didn't win them over as much as Kerry turned them off.
So why did the American people appear to elect a president that they didn't like much in the first go-around?
The answer looks obvious to me. They weren't confident Kerry would be better.
Of course, that has to be tempered with the fact that some percentage, maybe 35-40%(?), are going to vote Republican no matter what, and some similar percentage will vote Democrat no matter what, so we're only talking about those votes in the middle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 1:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 1:49 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 10:20 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 41 of 80 (185057)
02-14-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
02-13-2005 1:14 PM


Actually, in the context of usage at the time it was written "Held to answer" refers to the act of charging someone with a crime.
Thank you. Do you mind me asking how you know this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-13-2005 1:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 02-14-2005 12:27 PM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 49 of 80 (186333)
02-17-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 1:49 PM


Hi, Crash. Internet problems at home, so it's been difficult to get back to you.
Now, he was speaking of his Iraq policy (which a majority of Americans don't support), but its pretty obvious that he and his staff are applying that rationale to literally every issue. The "accountability moment" has passed for this administration; a 3% victory in the election is taken as a mandate to do whatever they like.
Even the article you sent me to begins with Bush saying that he doesn't approve of torture, nor that he would send someone to another country to be tortured. The article goes on to say it happened anyway, despite what Bush said.
That story may be (and is) awful, but the article is saying the opposite of "there's no accountability anymore." Bush is saying he's against torture, because he knows the people of America are against torture. Maybe Bush knows about these goings on and about torture happening. Maybe (but only maybe) he approves of these things happening, but he's certainly not saying accountability is past for torture. He's saying he's against it, because he knows people care.
When torture is made public, Bush has to deal with it, and heads have to roll, because there is accountability. If the government sneaks and does things, it means they're sneaking, not that they don't feel accountable.
You asserted that he was stiff and uncharismatic as though it were fact; what you qualified was that those attributes were responsible for his loss.
True enough.
He really seemed like someone's butler to me, but I'm totally open to the idea that he didn't seem like that to someone else. Either way, at some point he didn't win people over. He was unable to beat a president with popularity problems. Maybe stiff is debatable, but charismatic people win other people over, and Kerry didn't.
And why do you suppose that would be, given that his record in the Senate in regards to defense and the military represents a superior qualification to anything the Bush administration had to offer?
I'm not sure what this means. There's a lot of people who want the "war on terror" to continue and who think Bush will do that, and they were not sure Kerry would do that; maybe just because he's a Democrat.
A whole lot of people voted against their own better judgement, against the facts...
I don't believe this. I think people were looking for someone better than Bush, and Kerry did not convince them he was it. That's not voting against better judgment; that's choosing the lesser of two evils.
Not unusual, though. The constant choice between two rich white men is only so much of a choice, anyway.
Why do you suppose it was that Bush couldn't run on his own record? I mean, the only Bush campaign ad I ever saw that was about Bush's record as president was the one where he hugged the girl.
I don't have a TV, and talk radio, left or right, doesn't seem to run campaign ads (not sure why), so I heard very little. I saw a number news reports on Kerry while going to the gym (CNN), but they didn't ever seem to be covering Bush, so I only heard Kerry during the campaign.
After four years, though, Bush is a known quantity. As you said, people should have known what they were getting.
If Kerry tried to run on his record in his record in his campaign ads, good for him. I haven't seen a politician do that in a long time. I hear the local and state campaigns a lot, and there is very little campaigning based on record. It's 90% or more mudslinging, at least down here in Tennessee.
It sounds crazy, but the fact that a majority of the American people elected a president that only a minority actually approved of is crazy.
The difference between his approval rating and his vote percentage isn't much, really. If you go to http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/BushMeter/, you can see his approval rating was close to 50% around election time, and if you use the Gallup polls, he spent much time over 50% then. He got 51% of the popular vote. There's not a real difference there.
We're going to have to figure out why millions of people voted against their own interests while they knew they were doing so.
I don't think they did that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 1:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 9:42 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 10:45 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 51 of 80 (186773)
02-19-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
02-17-2005 9:42 PM


I don't see how you can say that, when its clear from your own statements that he feels he doesn't have to deal with it, and that heads don't have to roll.
Help me with this one. I've had a cold the last couple days, so maybe my head isn't clear. Obviously, I don't see this.
That's why I used the phrase "accountability moment." That's Bush's own words. What did you think he meant by that?
I don't think he meant that on torture. I think he meant that on other things.
Brief post. I commend you. Mine was way too long. If I'd have had more time, I'd have shortened it. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 9:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 02-19-2005 4:25 PM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 58 of 80 (190610)
03-08-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
02-27-2005 10:20 AM


Sorry, Schraf...been on a trip.
You actually have liberal radio?
? Is that a surprise?
Or, would it be more accurate to say there are both exteremely conservative and moderate conservative voices on the radio, and really no liberals at all?
I don't think that's true. I sometimes really enjoy Bill O'Reilly, who calls himself middle of the road. He is a moderate conservative, in my opinion, not middle. On the other hand, there's a guy--whose name slips me at the moment, because it has been a while since I've caught him--on CBS radio who is very liberal. He's on in the evening, so I don't hear him as much (and when I do, he irritates me a lot), but he says his program is nationwide and popular.
I guess I better hunt that name down for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 10:20 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bob_gray, posted 03-08-2005 4:07 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 59 of 80 (190619)
03-08-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
02-27-2005 10:45 AM


crashfrog writes:
We're going to have to figure out why millions of people voted against their own interests while they knew they were doing so.
truthlover writes:
I don't think they did that
schrafinator writes:
I'm afraid that this is exactly what they did
Thanks for the article link, but it doesn't address what Crash claimed. Crash said "while they knew they were doing so." He basically asserted that people voted for Bush knowing it was a bad idea. That would be bizarre, and I don't believe it happened.
Your article doesn't really address voting for Bush, but I will agree there is a large overlap between those who support the war with Iraq and those who voted for Bush. However, it agrees with me, not Crash, because it says those who support the war do so based on bad information.
A couple notes:
I hold to one of those "misperceptions," thinking that Bush made several clear claims that there were pre-war links between Iraq & Al-Qaeda. So now the question is who's telling the truth. I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe informationclearinghouse.com that there was no pre-war links, either.
(Looked this up...According to CNNn, Bush admits there was no collaboration between Iraq & Al-Qaeda about 9/11, but still claims long standing relationship between Iraq & Zarqawi. There are those who deny this entirely and others who accuse Bush of "inflating" the relationship.)
As for believing that world opinion supported a US war with Iraq, it seems stunning that anyone would believe that. I believe the conservative message was "who cares what Europe thinks, and definitely no one cares what the other Muslim nations think, we need to go do this."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 10:45 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2005 3:34 PM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 60 of 80 (190620)
03-08-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
02-27-2005 10:53 AM


Re: Sad, Sad, Sad about the US
Anyway, can you flesh out what you mean by your figure of a rate of "45% on average".
I've heard people give figures like this. There's two ways to get it. One is to include sales tax and any other tax you can think of. They get pretty high numbers that way, but since I've never heard someone give their method, I don't know how they're doing it.
The second way is just to include SS & Medicare. Then you just have to be in the 28% tax bracket to get to 43%. I never make it to that bracket, so I can't remember where it is, or even if it's still 28%.
Compared to many european countries, we have similar or lower taxes.
I don't know all the European countries, just decade-old rates in Germany and England. They pay much higher taxes, and I've been told repeatedly that Sweden is highest of all, where you take home just half of your paycheck at best.
There's not really any doubt that we pay lower taxes than Europeans by a long shot. I don't really get what "gathering_INFO" is thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 10:53 AM nator has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 63 of 80 (190753)
03-09-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by bob_gray
03-08-2005 4:07 PM


Re: Off Topic
That is interesting because I would not have placed O'Reilly in the "moderate" camp. Can you indicate one position that he holds which is moderate? And by contrast can you explain what would be required for that position to be extremely conservative?
I look forward to answering this question, even though I can't say I fully know what the prevailing wisdom is on what's conservative and what's liberal.
To me, the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals are the ones who don't think. An extreme conservative will agree with the Swift Boat veterans' accusations against Kerry because they're conservative and Kerry's liberal, not because of any evidence. An extreme liberal will agree with the accusations about Bush's National Guard experience because they're liberal and Bush is conservative, not because of any evidence. Extreme conservatives know that Anita Hill was lying, because they wanted Clarence Thomas on the supreme court. Extreme liberals know Thomas harrassed her, because they didn't want him on the supreme court. Etc., etc., etc.
I only hear O'Reilly if he's on while I'm driving home, so I don't know a lot of his views. I know he may be the staunchest supporter of the war on terror on the planet, which would be extremely conservative. On the other hand, he blew off the Swift Boat Veterans, is uninterested in a political candidate's morals, and thinks Clinton's fiscal policies were pretty good. I'm pretty sure those last two would be considered at least moderate.
I call him moderate, because he thinks. Whatever you think of his opinions, he has real reasons for every one of them, and he's the only radio personality I've heard that I'd be willing to say that about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bob_gray, posted 03-08-2005 4:07 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by contracycle, posted 03-09-2005 10:43 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 65 by bob_gray, posted 03-09-2005 2:59 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2005 7:55 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 66 of 80 (190810)
03-09-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by bob_gray
03-09-2005 2:59 PM


Re: Off Topic
I think that Contra may have a point about what is "extreme" and what is "partisan". I expect that much of what I think about him is probably partisan and not necessarily extreme.
I appreciate Contra defining terms. More later, when I have time. I'll try to stick to his terms.
I disagree wholeheartedly, however, about O'Reilly being partisan, not extreme. I would say extreme, not partisan. It would not surprise me at all to hear him come just short of advocating shooting anyone who uses illegal drugs in the street. I would be surprised to hear he advocated Republican over Democrat or Conservative over Liberal just because of designation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by bob_gray, posted 03-09-2005 2:59 PM bob_gray has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2005 7:59 PM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 75 of 80 (190917)
03-10-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rrhain
03-09-2005 7:55 PM


And since O'Reilly had the ringleader of the SBVs on his program and proceeded to kiss his ass for the entire time, what would that make O'Reilly?
I don't know anything about that. I don't study O'Reilly; I hear him occasionally. I heard him say twice that Bush said Kerry had a better record than Bush, and I heard him say at least three times that he wasn't interested in the Swift Boat Veterans' accusations. I heard him twice say that there's at least one person who says Kerry saved his life, and O'Reilly's reaction was "so that's that"...as in, "I don't want to hear anything more about Kerry having a negative Vietnam record from my callers."
I never heard him say anything contrary to that, even once. I didn't see his SBV interview, so you'll have to ask him about it if you didn't like the way he acted.
And since O'Reilly has repeatedly come out in favor of Thomas and claimed that Hill was lying, what would that make O'Reilly?
A person who believes Hill was lying?
He sucked up to them [Swift Boat Veterans] in every way possible!
You can take that up with him.
But did you see the ad run by the SBVs?
No, not any.
How the hell does O'Reilly know?
This is in reference to O'Reilly saying Kerry "wasn't there."
I have heard O'Reilly say that Kerry wasn't somewhere that Kerry said he was. I don't know where that is, Cambodia or something. O'Reilly is definitely convinced that Kerry wasn't there.
I commented only on the fact that I think O'Reilly is more conservative than he claims to be. I also said that I think he gives reasons for what he thinks and doesn't just choose those opinions based on whether they are conservative or liberal opinions. I think that's true.
He makes them crystal clear every single time he opens his yap.
Interesting, considering you're claiming he believes things completely to the contrary than he has stated repeatedly on his radio show. I already think you interpret wildly, so even with quotes, I don't attach a lot of stock to your interpretation of the SBV interview, especially since his clearly stated viewpoint on the issue contrasts completely with the view you attribute to him.
For example, I said that I think an extreme conservative would believe that Anita Hill was lying just because they want Thomas on the Supreme court. You then tried to twist this to suggest that since O'Reilly believes Anita Hill was lying (if he really believes this, as you say), then we should conclude he's an extreme conservative. This is not accurate logic, but my entire history with you has been having to take time to fix all the subtle or not so subtle twisting you do. It doesn't make me want to pay much attention to your cranking on words you heard that I wasn't there to hear.
Who do you think was at the forefront of the lynch mob to impeach Clinton?
Don't know anything about that. He said he didn't care about Clinton's morals or about Monica Lewinsky in the white house.
Of course, assuming he was at the head of the lynch mob to impeach Clinton, maybe he thought Clinton's perjury or some other legal issue was significant enough for Clinton to be impeached. That's not the same as caring about a candidate's morals.
Who do you think is one the loudest voices in the echo chamber regarding Bush's destruction of the economy?
Whatever. I'm just reporting what he said, which is that Clinton's economic record was positive.
The man LIED about being a Republican so he could claim to be "impartial." What is that if not both partisan and extreme?
He says he's not a Republican. If you think he's lying, goodie for you.
When he calls Senator Boxer a nut, what is that if not partisan politics?
It's insight. Senator Boxer is a kook.
Are you truly that naive? I only see a couple of possibilities. Either the definition of "center" in American politics has moved so far to the right that somebody as extremist as O'Reilly can be considered "moderate"...
I don't believe O'Reilly selects positions based on whether they are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2005 7:55 PM Rrhain has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 76 of 80 (190920)
03-10-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rrhain
03-09-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Even if he might be lying?
It really is one of only two possibilities. O'Reilly lies when he says he isn't partisan. He clearly is. Anybody who has ever listened to his broadcasts for more than a minute can see that he is clearly partisan.
I hear O'Reilly once or twice a week for up to 15 minutes at a time. I don't believe he is partisan. I do believe he leans right; extreme right on war and crime; less so on economy; and leftward on morality. I'm not as sure about his opinions on the economy, as I don't really know what's right or left there, nor does he talk about the economy enough for me to claim to be able to pin him down. He is definitely extreme right on war and crime, and he is definitely leftward leaning on morality, at least politically.
Even on the war and crime issues, just because he is very right on the topic does not mean that he chose that stance because it is a right-wing stance.
You obviously have a bone to pick with O'Reilly. I am not advocating O'Reilly, I was simply using him as an example in a different discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2005 11:43 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2005 10:28 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 78 of 80 (190964)
03-10-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
03-10-2005 10:28 AM


I have yet to see the slightest indication that he leans "leftward" on morality.
Hmm. I'm a little worried now I'm wrong on this item...
I realize you're quite right about him being against the secularists. I'm also under the impression he's against passing the kind of laws moral majority folks want, like against homosexuality and stuff. Admittedly, I think I remember him being for a ban on homosexual marriage, using arguments that completely ignore the tax issues involved, but outside of that I'm thinking he's across the board against legislation on morality. I heard him say myself that he doesn't care about a candidate's morality, using Clinton's problem with women as an example.
Gosh, how did I end up feeling like I'm defending this guy? I've never seen him on TV, but on radio he's terrible to those two ladies he has on, which I guess he thinks is funny. I turn him off about every third time he's on, because I find something he's talking about either boring or unbearable. I just thought he's very careful to give reasons for the things he says, which I like. I also knew he was careful (noticeably careful and making an effort) not to bash Kerry during the campaign, at least while I was listening to him, so I used him as an example earlier in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2005 10:28 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2005 3:39 PM truthlover has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024