Act?
And the china stuff i don't recall getting our country embroiled into a
foreign conflict that is starting to stretch on with the looks of
stretching on indefinately.
We might not have had to fight china because of our Last presidents
charisma and his ability to get deals done and work things out. Unlike
our current president who within weeks of taking office ripped apart all
the good work done by previous presidents in helping to make alliances
and bond the united states with europe and other parts of the world. The
current president has been anti-un for the most part, anti rest of the
world. After 9/11 he became even more so becoming more belligerant and
becoming if you aren't with us you're aganist us. You are talking about
going back onto active duty do you really want to be embroiled in Iraq
for the forseeable future with a much more real threat of dieing on any
given day as opposed to standard non-war footing? Dieing for your
country is all fine and dandy but remember pattons wonderful quote. "The
object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other
bastard die for his."
--
Bill Wheatley
Senior Database Developer
eDiets.com, Inc.
(OTCBB: EDET)
3801 W. Hillsboro Blvd.
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
V: (954) 360-9022 ext. 159
F: (954) 360-9095
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: <http://www.ediets.com/> www.ediets.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:48 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: 2004 Candidate matcher
Well they are probably even closer than that. Both have helped their
corporate sponsors out. Both lied about foreign affairs (china for
Clinton,
other stuff for bush). Both have had shady financial dealings,
whitewater,
and some Texas oil baron stuff.
And realistically they have both made us less free.
Time for a change.
Timothy Heald
Information Systems Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:05 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: 2004 Candidate matcher
It would be interesting to say the least, lines of coke against lining
up
the interns.
lying about Iraq vs lying about interns.
go figure. What Clinton was doing to an intern, shrub is trying to do to
the country.
larry
At 10:26 AM 10/30/2003, you wrote:
>Orrin Hatch (and a couple of others) put forth an amendment to the
>Constitution a few months ago that addresses just that situation -
>letting a president serve as long as (s)he can be re-elected.
>Obviously, Hatch brought that up as the side-product of some fantasy of
>having Dubya in office indefinitely. He apparently didn't think that
if
>the amendment were to pass, the Shrub would have to run against
Clinton,
>which would be... fun.
>
>- Jim
>
>Matthew Small wrote:
>
> >That's my postition as well... I like Clark, a lot, although I do
know
> that we don't agree on all of the issues. I'm mostly concerned that
we
> elect an administration that looks to benefit the people rather than
itself.
> >
> ><sigh> We really should just amend the Constitution to let Bill run
> again... maybe if we offered to also amend it to let Arnold run for
Pres
> we could have the most amazing race in history - Clinton vs. the
Prezinator.
> >
> >- Matt Small
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Larry C. Lyons
> > To: CF-Community
> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: 2004 Candidate matcher
> >
> >
> > I think in this case the Democrats are going to have to be very
pragmatic
> > and go for whomever is most likely to beat Shrub. As much as I
agree
with
> > certain policy positions, I think that Clark has a better chance
than
> > Kucinich. Perhaps a Clark Dean combination would work.
> >
> > larry
> >
> > At 10:08 AM 10/30/2003, you wrote:
> > >Those are also my first two choices, Larry. But on the thrid I go
for
> > >John Edwards. I'm a democrat all the way up til 9, then it's a
> > >Libertarian Candidate.
> > >
> > >- Matt Small
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Larry C. Lyons
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:01 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 2004 Candidate matcher
> > >
> > > At 05:51 PM 10/29/2003, you wrote:
> > > >I'm sure this came up either in 2002 or 2000 as well, but it's
> > > >SelectSmart's candidate matcher. You choose your position, it
> gives you
> > > >a candidate.
> > > >
> > >
><http://selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/>http://selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/
> > > >
> > > >I'm a 100% match to an undeclared Green Party candidate, 93%
match
to
> > > >Dean. :-/
> > >
> > > Not sure I agree with all the questions and how they were set
up
for
> > > priorities, but here's my scores:
> > >
> > > 1. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH -
> > > Democrat (100%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Kucinich.html>Click
> > > here for info
> > > 2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT -
> > > Democrat (92%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Dean.html>Click here
> > > for info
> > > 3. Kerry, Senator John, MA -
> > > Democrat (85%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Kerry.html>Click here
> > > for info
> > > 4. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL -
> > > Democrat (83%)
> > > <http://selectsmart.com/president/Moseley-Braun.html>Click here
> for info
> > > 5. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO -
> > > Democrat (80%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Gephardt.html>Click
> > > here for info
> > > 6. Edwards, Senator John, NC -
> > > Democrat (79%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Edwards.html>Click
> > > here
> > > for info
> > > 7. Lieberman Senator Joe CT -
> > > Democrat (77%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Lieberman.html>Click
> > > here for info
> > > 8. Sharpton, Reverend Al -
> > > Democrat (73%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/Sharpton.html>Click
> > > here for info
> > > 9. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. -
> > > Democrat (54%)
> <http://selectsmart.com/president/LaRouche.html>Click
> > > here for info
> > > 10. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas -
> > > Democrat (53%)
<http://selectsmart.com/president/Clark.html>Click
> > > here for
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree with Lyndon LaRouche's policies, and more
strongly
> > > agree with Clarke's.
> > >
> > > larry
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >[
> >
> >
>
>----------
>[
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
