PDA

View Full Version : Then and Now (politicians change their mind)



eg8r
09-24-2003, 02:50 PM
Alright, I was reading Boortz a couple of days ago and he had something there that jogged my memory a little.

A few months back I made a post mentioning that politicians will say anything to help themselves during an election year. We had a poster on the board tell me that that does not happen. He knows who he is, and I remember also...but that is besides the point. I am going to paste a copy of some quotes I found off of Boortz' site. What I would like you to take a look at is the person quoted, what political party they belong to right now, the date the quote was made, and if you can remember who the president was at the time.

Now, once you have done that, take a look at what these people are saying now, and tell me if they have changed their minds. Was this for political reasons?

Here it is. It is a little long, but that just shows the exhaustive effort to prove a point... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote From Boortz, but not Boortz' work:</font><hr> Last week Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay nails it when he says "It's disturbing that Democrats have spewed more hateful rhetoric at President Bush than they ever did at Saddam Hussein." Overstated? Perhaps not. But it is interesting to compare the leftist rhetoric of today with the statements made by various Democrats over the past years ... before, that is, Bush became president. This list is circulating the Internet. I've taken the time to verify that most of the quotations are accurately represented:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

No doubt you've notice that many of the people who were making these strong statements about Saddam are the very same politicians who are now saying things about George Bush that make their statements about Hussein sound positively laudatory.

<hr /></blockquote> Wow, those are some pretty high Dems that were positive about their feelings of Saddam. WHAT HAPPENED!!!! I will tell you (lucky you), GWB became the President. So, tell me, why do they change their positions on some issues that they were so positive and adamant about????

eg8r

nAz
09-24-2003, 03:13 PM
hmm most of these quotes about came after 2002 and i think only one mention going there and getting Saddam out,but i see your point Most of these quotes come from Dumb asses. still Bush did have the latest intel telling him that there was no proff of WMDs that came from CIA chief Tenets report.

Dude let me ask you do you think we should invade Iran or NK, which to me and most people i know think its a bigger treat to us then Irag was. I ask because if we follow W's reasons for the war with Iraq we should be invading them next. both countries are actively seeking or already have WMD and both have actual proven ties to terrorist and most important both of these countries oppress their people.

eg8r
09-24-2003, 04:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Dude let me ask you do you think we should invade Iran or NK, which to me and most people i know think its a bigger treat to us then Irag was. I ask because if we follow W's reasons for the war with Iraq we should be invading them next. <font color="red"> Yes, I think we should, but after we have things situated military-wise so we can get the military built up and ready to go again. A lot of people (average citizen, and obviously the news agencies)were expecting something different when the references were made to Shock and Awe. Other countries know what this is, and I think it turned a lot of heads when we dropped the first bombs. We definitely could do some damage, I would hope though, things are in place to make sure any initial retaliatory launches on their part were taken care of before they hit land (or detonated). </font color> both countries are actively seeking or already have WMD and both have actual proven ties to terrorist and most important both of these countries oppress their people. <font color="red"> Everything you state here, were present with Iraq. Even the WMD's. Saddam himself even admitted to having them back in 95. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Qtec
09-25-2003, 12:50 AM
All these quotes refer to 'intelligence'reports. These reports were more assumption than fact, as we know know.

Can I shoot the guy next door , who doesnt like me, because I heard he was possibly thinking about maybe buying a gun?

The Pentagon is good at spying on ordinary citizens.They are not much good at finding Saddam, Bin Laden or WMD.

Personally I think that Bin Laden is in Saudi Arabia.A deal has been done.



Is a cluster bomb a WMD?

Q

Qtec
09-25-2003, 12:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Annan criticized states that argued for "the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively" to head off perceived threats, but he urged the Security Council to figure out how to deal with similar questions in the future.

"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," Annan told the U.N. General Assembly. "My concern is that, if it were adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification."

<hr /></blockquote>

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-25-2003, 06:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>

.....Dude let me ask you do you think we should invade Iran or NK, which to me and most people i know think its a bigger treat to us then Irag was. .....
<hr /></blockquote>

After the world saw what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq I don't think we will need to invade Iran or NK. They don't want a smart bomb flown up their asses.

Ward
09-25-2003, 06:17 AM
Eg8r

If we invade these countries are you going to do your duty and sign up or are you just going to fight the war here on the CCB (LOL)...

You are young, educated, you would make a fine young 2nd Lt. on some tank or personnel carrier... Hey the Army needs you, are you not a Patriot? You seem to be so willing for other people to fight the war, why not you?

Later

Wally_in_Cincy
09-25-2003, 06:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ward:</font><hr> Eg8r

If we invade these countries are you going to do your duty and sign up or are you just going to fight the war here on the CCB (LOL)...

You are young, educated, you would make a fine young 2nd Lt. on some tank or personnel carrier... Hey the Army needs you, are you not a Patriot? You seem to be so willing for other people to fight the war, why not you?

Later <hr /></blockquote>

I can't speak for eg8r but I know if the enemy comes marching down the streets of Hamiltucky they're going to have hell to pay.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
09-25-2003, 06:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If we invade these countries are you going to do your duty and sign up or are you just going to fight the war here on the CCB (LOL)...
<hr /></blockquote> If I was drafted I would go.

eg8r

Qtec
09-25-2003, 07:09 AM
If you were DRAFTED , you would have to go.


Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ward
09-25-2003, 07:10 AM
Eg8r

That's all I need to know about you. You want the war but you want someone else to pay the price. I know you will have your flag out, waving it around, but the bottom line is you want no part of the actual war. Geez, some Patriot...

Later

eg8r
09-25-2003, 07:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
All these quotes refer to 'intelligence'reports. These reports were more assumption than fact, as we know know. <hr /></blockquote> Q, you have everything to say about nothing. If you do not want to read, comprehend and respond accordingly then that is fine. I am going to guess, you do this to whatever you read and have been running around in circles your whole life.

Here is the question to respond to after reading the quotes
[ QUOTE ]
Now, once you have done that, take a look at what these people are saying now, and tell me if they have changed their minds. Was this for political reasons?
<hr /></blockquote> I am going to try and spell it out for you, because you have once again proven your inability to understand the subject matter....

Read what the person said, notice their political allegiance, and the time it was said. Now, fast forward to today, and listen to what they are saying now. Have they changed their minds for political reasons? Have they changed their mind because of the current administration and his actions.

The reason I brought this up, first of all is because the Dems have always supported what Clinton did. However, in the areas in which Clinton failed to complete and Bush has completed, these people have taken giant steps back.

All those people believed Saddam in 95, when Saddam said he had weapons of mass destruction. SADDAM ADMITTED HE HAD WMDs. Now however since GWB is getting the praise for completing the job that his father and Clinton could not do, these Dems are not happy. The reason they are not happy, election time. It is not that tough to figure out. The Dems lost the majority in congress back in the 90's (during Clinton's presidency) and then they lost the Presidency. Don't you think they political agenda is being altered in order to get back some of those seats?????

As far as your quote.... [ QUOTE ]
All these quotes refer to 'intelligence'reports. These reports were more assumption than fact, as we know know.
<hr /></blockquote> Isn't this a like of crap. For all these Dems, you give them the "Get out of jail free" card and admit it might be assumption. However, when referring to the current administration you call them liars. What a joke. Even you are not consistent.

The fact is...Clinton did his best to remove funding and all from the our Intelligence Agencies. He and his liberal followers in Congress did their best to limit the scope of these agencies. Now, when we are using these reports from these depleted agencies, you are blasting quality.

I hope you don't change your mind this often when teaching those poor souls snooker. They will never have anything straight.

Here is a great quote... [ QUOTE ]
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the <font color="red"> greatest security threat </font color>we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. <hr /></blockquote> This flies right in the face of everything you have ever said here on the board. Now, who said it???? Fast forward to 2002, while GWB is the President. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Albright in the NY Times backstepping on her strong stance against Iraq:</font><hr> Her main problem with attacking Iraq now is the timing:

"We should pick this fight at a moment that best suits our interests. And right now, our primary interest remains the thorough destruction and disruption of Al Qaeda and related terrorist networks. "

<font color="red"> "Although the president's speech yesterday was persuasive in many respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam Hussein to other, more urgent threats. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Now tell me, is Saddam leader of the Rogue state she referred to, our GREATEST threat, or are there more urgent threats? She stated this after we had already removed the Taliban and crushed the Al-Qaeda infrastucture (I am not saying they are completely gone). Bush is President and she cannot accept the fact that he is about to move on to his next victory.

eg8r

eg8r
09-25-2003, 07:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That's all I need to know about you. <hr /></blockquote> That is all you are willing to read. What you are not including is the fact that I work everyday of my life to make sure these men have the most state of art equipment, and that the equipment is being produced at world-class levels, around 98%. I work everyday of my life, knowing that I have helped equip these men with a great product that will save their lives. Is that good enough for you, I guess not.

Maybe you should stop by the plant in Fort Worth the next time an F-16, Harrier, or Stealth fly in, and talk a little with the pilots (I have). On my last day at that plant, we had 4 harriers fly in. Their last mission was in Iraq. What did they have to say to us...Nothing but praise, complementing our work and ability to put out quality planes. We were told that if not for us, the military is at a disadvantage. Now, if everyone was to head out and fight, who is back working on the equipment? I did not say I would not fight for the country, what I said was, I would fight if I were called to duty.

eg8r

eg8r
09-25-2003, 07:32 AM
Are you sure about that???? You don't think there are other options available???? Do you know what you are talking about????

eg8r

Fran Crimi
09-25-2003, 07:35 AM
I believe it was either Nairobe or Uganda that had Bin Laden and offered to turn him over to Clinton during his administration and Clinton said "No thanks, we don't want him." He said no thanks because although he had intelligence on Bin Laden at that time it wasn't "specific" enough for him.

How specific does the intelligence need to get in order for us to prevent attacks on our country by people who hate us so much that they're willing to kill innocent civilians and die in the process?

All of the governing reps in this country know that you're taking a chance when you take aggressive action against a country or group when you have less than perfect intelligence. Also, not one of them knows what the future would bring us with Sadam Hussain in power and in control of his angry country for years to come. What they do know is that he is a threat. The question is when do you address the threat?

GW decided not to wait like Clinton did. Both parties fundamentally agreed, but some are now using the opportunity to present their versions of "what if".

Well, my version of "what if" is that if we didn't wipe this angry idiot off the face of the earth, he would eventually cause much grief and destruction to innocent people of this country.

Whatever happened to the phrase "Better safe than sorry." ?

We were sorry once. How many times do we have to let history repeat itself before we learn?

We need to clean this world up and that's just what we're doing because nobody else is going to do it.

Do you think terrorists understand peace talks? Yeah, sure they do.

Fran

eg8r
09-25-2003, 07:45 AM
Hello Fran, thanks for posting. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think terrorists understand peace talks? Yeah, sure they do. <hr /></blockquote> I am going to go out on a limb, and state....The majority of Terrorists are Muslims. Now if that is true, why should they even think about peace talks. They do not believe there will ever be peace until they control everything. So, they walk around with bombs strapped to their stomachs and blow innocent people up. I never see Israeli homicide bombers on the news, so who is committing the terror?

Clinton ran America by polls. He would cast a poll and see what his people thought. He never made a decision on his own.

eg8r

Ward
09-25-2003, 07:56 AM
Fran

Why lay it all on Clinton? Bush Sr. was there in 91 and if he would have finished the job we would not have this mess today...

Later

eg8r
09-25-2003, 08:02 AM
I am sorry, are you suggesting that if Saddam was removed from power in 91 that we would not have had to live through 9-11???

eg8r

Ward
09-25-2003, 08:14 AM
Eg8r

I think your administration stated that there is no link to Iraq and 9/11...Just to help you out the scorecard from 9/11 is Saudi Arabi=15 Iraq=0. This has been documented, Bin Laden is Saudi, I don't know about you but that's a red flag to me.

BTW, You defense contractor guys should spend some billions and develop a WMD Sniffer, now that would really be useful for this administration.

Later

Fran Crimi
09-25-2003, 08:49 AM
But our administration did state that there is a link between Iraq and Al Quaida. There was specific proof presented on that by Colin Powel to the U.N. General Assembly. The other nations may have verbally disagreed with us, but they didn't try to stop us. Could that be because they really did agree with us, but politically had to say they didn't?

To answer your earlier question, I don't know why GB Sr. didn't finish the job in 91. I can only speculate because I don't have enough facts to form an informed opinon, but you don't really believe that the destruction of the Iraqi gov't at that time would have assured the destruction of Al Quaida and Bin Laden, do you?

Fran

Wally_in_Cincy
09-25-2003, 09:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I believe it was either Nairobe or Uganda that had Bin Laden and offered to turn him over to Clinton during his administration and Clinton said "No thanks, we don't want him." He said no thanks because although he had intelligence on Bin Laden at that time it wasn't "specific" enough for him.

<font color="blue">It was Sudan. They were trying to get back in the good graces of the USA. They offered Bin Laden up twice. Both times Clinton said "No thanks". He was afraid of being accused of "violating international law" LOL

There was another time (after the Cole and the African embassy bombings) when the CIA had Bin Laden in their sights and tried to get approval from Clinton to take him out. Well Bill did not want to be bothered because he was playing golf. He would not take the call. By the time his golf round was over Bin Laden had slipped away.</font color>

We need to clean this world up and that's just what we're doing because nobody else is going to do it.

<font color="blue">Yeeeeaaaahhh !!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
09-25-2003, 09:03 AM
The beauty [ IMO ] of pool or snooker is the fact that everything is equal. We play on the same table, shoot into the same pockets and play with the same balls.
You might have a $5,000 cue and have had the best lessons that money can buy, but if you cant play for $hit, I am going to kick your ass.

You can tell me about how good you used to be , but I can tell in a minute if thats true or not.You might say you are an sl7, but the table will show if thats true or not. Balls go where you send them, not where you would like them to go. No amount of words of encouragement ie get in the hole, will change the ball from its designated course.
Pool and snooker are truth. If you hit the Qb through the exact middle and go straight through the Qb , it WILL travel in a straight line.Play a stun shot and you WILL get 90 degrees.




Politics isnt like that.Life isnt like that.

For the record.
I have never said that getting rid of Saddam wasnt a good idea. Never.

What I do object to is the way it was done.

It is my contention that this Admin deliberately misled everybody.They said there was no time to waste, it was urgent. We now know thats not the case and I think GW knew it too. Or at least they choose to present their susspicions as positive proof.

The UN, for all its faults is a framework for peace and the rule of law. By attacking Iraq without UN backing, whatever the merits, now gives other countries to do the same thing. According to GW, its now legal to invade a country because you think that maybe in the future it might be a threat.Even if that country is on the other side of the world.

In Iraq, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to make sure the population does not support them. Once you do that, they will be much easier to deal with.

I am against the use of violence. I m against the use of terror to achieve a political objective. I am against all fanatics who do not believe that each must find his own way to God.

I believe in security. I just dont think this is the right way to achieve it.

Q

Qtec
09-25-2003, 09:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry, are you suggesting that if Saddam was removed from power in 91 that we would not have had to live through 9-11???
<hr /></blockquote>


Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Your Govt has recently said so. Moreover, they deny ever suggesting that Saddam had anything to do with it.

They do contend tho that an Al Qaeda member did make frequent visits to Iraq.

Saddam was willing to share power with nobody. Religious fanatacisim was just as much suppresed as freedom.


Q

eg8r
09-25-2003, 10:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Just to help you out the scorecard from 9/11 is Saudi Arabi=15 Iraq=0. This has been documented, Bin Laden is Saudi, I don't know about you but that's a red flag to me. <hr /></blockquote> That doesn't help. The war is on terrorism not citizenship. Surely that should be pretty clear by now. If we were to follow your logic, then why did we go after Afghanistan first? Should we have not went after Saudi Arabia?? I can answer the question, we are not fighting people based on birth place/citizenship which is what you are implying. We are fighting countries and those that harbour or support these terrorists. Good job Ward. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, You defense contractor guys should spend some billions and develop a WMD Sniffer, now that would really be useful for this administration. <hr /></blockquote> Is this not the most hypocritical thing you have said in a while. Where do you think defense contractors get paid???? You always jump on the bandwagon to reduce defense spending and here you are trying to initiate increased spending!!! Pick a side Ward and stick with it.

eg8r

eg8r
09-25-2003, 10:33 AM
More wasted typing, without replying to the question. Instead of spending all that time typing, why not just say you are not going to be replying to the subject matter.

Go back to my first post and respond to the question. This thread is not about how you would deem the proper way of disposing of Saddam.

eg8r

Ward
09-25-2003, 10:35 AM
Eg8r

The reference to the "WMD Sniffer" was an attempt at a little humor but you got to admit this administration could use some help.....

GW has a year to fix Iraq, get the jobs flowing, and he will be fine, if he doesn't you might get a lot more of Hillary than you want.

I am off this topic...

Later

Later

eg8r
09-25-2003, 12:19 PM
Well, I am sure there is no quick way to fix Iraq. How many years were we in Germany and Japan. As far as jobs, that will happen as long as the economy continues getting better. We have had two very good quarters lately and it is expected to continue. The jobs are always last to come around.

As far as Hillary, I hope all you New Yorkers take note that this woman will have lied to you again. She has no intention of fulfilling her 6 years even though she promised ALL New Yorkers she would be their Senator for the full 6 year term. The woman is a chronic liar.

eg8r

cheesemouse
09-25-2003, 01:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The woman is a chronic liar.

<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r,
They are all chronic liars, even your folks...I thought you knew that....geezzzesssss.....

ras314
09-25-2003, 10:43 PM
Clinton didn't. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif Show up to be inducted, that is. The jerk was a fugitive from justice untill he got a presidental pardon.

eg8r
09-26-2003, 09:51 AM
I guess to some degree you are right. I do not see anyone in politics near as blatant as the Clintons.

It is funny, when Clark "decided" (I say decided because it was the Clintons that told him to enter) to enter Bill immeadiately told the press in New York that the New Yorkers would not mind if Hillary broke her promise to them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif He even has the audacity to tell the people of New York how they will feel about it, when she does prove herself to be a liar. Hopefully they are not all suckers and buy into it.

eg8r

Aboo
09-30-2003, 04:20 PM
You think intelligence reporting is bad now... LOLOL

Hillary's own husband was getting a head-job in the office up the hall from their bedroom. There is no way in HELL the American people will elect that Woman to the White House. I can't BELIEVE the people of New York (NEW YORK! Isn't she from Arkansas??) elected her to the Senate for crying out loud.

If she gets elected, despite my vote... QTec, where do you live? I might have to move there. Or run for office here...

Qtec
09-30-2003, 05:41 PM
Well, you know one thing for sure, Hillary doesnt give [ good ] head! LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Q