Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

    From everything I’ve seen, read and watched I am not sure anymore about who is the best man to lead our country.

    Both main options have their flaws and qualities (yes guys, admit and agree with me on that much). Besides the hard times that we are now living in, I think this year’s election could become a turning point for our nation, for better or worse. If we take a look at Kerry, we can honestly say that we do agree with him that our economy is not in the greatest shape ever. But it isn’t Bush or this Administration’s fault. It has been scientifically proven that after long periods of prosperity, deficits come in, whether we like it or not, it is part of the economy’s cycle or so they say. So we can’t blame Bush for our present economy/recession but we can thank him neither. Because going to war in simple terms and to middle class citizens means more taxes. The following are some of the reasons why Democrats believe Bush should not be reelected:

    • Health: Health Care is now worst than 4 years ago, no improvement what so ever. There is no investment or support from this Administration for research in stem cells and other medicine and health solving breakthroughs.
    • Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;
    • Economics: Tax cut for the top 1% and everyone else in the middle and lower classes pay for it.
    • Money invested on Iraq should have been invested in the United States. ( 200 mill)- In order to strengthen our Home Front.
    • Security: We are basically forgetting about our own country, no homeland security measures have been strengthened. No organization and we are as vulnerable to terrorism as we were 3 years ago.
    • Clean Energy is one of the most important issues that should have been addressed by the current administration. Clean Energy is the only option to break dependency from foreign oil and a good measure to prevent wars in chaotic regions such as the Middle East in future situations- but guess what it’ll take 50 years to achieve such goal, even if we begin working on it from as early as today.

    However the criticism continues from Bush’s campaign people, their biggest point is that Senator Kerry keeps flip flopping on issues such as going to Iraq, sending our troops, gay marriage and abortion. Democrats believe that Kerry is our best choice as Commander in Chief because he is a war veteran himself (even though it happened 30 years ago and the scenario was completely different); he has more knowledge on international affairs. On the other hand Republicans have a pile of Kerry’s voting record- and that speaks for itself, no need to go into it deeper. Democrats insist that Kerry understands the challenges that our troops face in the 9/11 post era.

    Our President and candidate from the Republican Party for this year’s election accepts that there is a lot of anger and that we are living in very serious and dangerous times. Most of the time our President is giving constant explanations for every decision we make in regards to our foreign policies.

    He also admits that most people in the States care about their families and the economy. But that we are also concerned about what our government is doing to secure our country. The debate should be, for this year’s election, about who is the best to lead war. It’s imperative to trial terrorists overseas before they hit us at home.

    George W. Bush believes that the United States has the obligation to lead, through coalition ( but we went to war alone). He maintains that not only the U.S. government believed that there were weapons of mass destruction but so did other nations. And so our mission from finding weapons of mass destruction has switched to free Iraq, to complete our mission in order to make sure that our military men and women don’t die in vain. Mr. Bush stated in Larry King’s exclusive that right now there are 30 nations in Iraq, to support the actions of our military and to help rebuild that country.

    Comments: Is it worth it? By freeing Iraq, are we free from terrorism? The truth is that Iraq is in the heartland of the Middle East, therefore Sadan Hussein could have become a good asset for Al Qaida’s network if he would have remained in power. Some may argue that bin Laden actually despised Hussein and such alliance would never have happened. However, Al Qaida’s network is wider than just the ideas of bin Laden…so we will never know the answer to that remote possibility. Additionally we are just beginning; Iraq is one of our first steps but not the entire formula. On the other hand, we should have finished our work and mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan before undertaking other targets.

    Bottom line, this election is probably one of the most difficult I’ve ever seen. This is not about partisan; I just want to know who can lead our country in the best possible way. This is not about black or white, good and evil. They are two men, with interesting backgrounds but have made mistakes too. One last question and statement: Are we going to vote this year with the principle of: “Who is the best man” or “which one is a lesser evil?” (I am not saying that one of them is evil- it is just a term that is commonly used.) . This is also not about turning it into a philosophical problem. My question is simply: Who can lead best our country in this first decade of this millennium; no anarchist answers are welcomed.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Christine
    no anarchist answers are welcomed.
    Guess I'm not allowed to comment. :(
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      George W Bush no doubt about it. John Kerry is a serial lier, a socialist, and a serial tax raiser.

      Comment


      • #4
        • Health: Health Care is now worst than 4 years ago, no improvement what so ever. There is no investment or support from this Administration for research in stem cells and other medicine and health solving breakthroughs.
        The Government shouldn't be funding any of these.

        The fact that you would even suggest such a thing shows an enourmous cognative failure on your part.

        • Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;
        It shouldn't, public education should be destroyed as it has nothing to do with the moral purposes of Government.

        • Economics: Tax cut for the top 1% and everyone else in the middle and lower classes pay for it.
        The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes. All taxes should be annihalated as coercion is immorall. The Government should be payed for though contract fees and criminal penalties.

        • Money invested on Iraq should have been invested in the United States. ( 200 mill)- In order to strengthen our Home Front.
        Why?

        • Security: We are basically forgetting about our own country, no homeland security measures have been strengthened. No organization and we are as vulnerable to terrorism as we were 3 years ago.
        I guess this explains why there hasn't been a terrorist attack in 3 years. They were so intimidating by our massivly open borders they just gave up.

        • Clean Energy is one of the most important issues that should have been addressed by the current administration. Clean Energy is the only option to break dependency from foreign oil and a good measure to prevent wars in chaotic regions such as the Middle East in future situations- but guess what it’ll take 50 years to achieve such goal, even if we begin working on it from as early as today.
        How about letting the market do it instead of looting in the name of "clean air".

        Bottom line, this election is probably one of the most difficult I’ve ever seen. This is not about partisan; I just want to know who can lead our country in the best possible way. This is not about black or white, good and evil.
        What you fail to realize is that it is about good and evil. Both canadites are evil on an unprecedented level for American presidents. Bush just happens to be less evil and thus the practicle canadite.
        Last edited by Praxus; 13 Aug 04,, 15:57.

        Comment


        • #5
          The concept of national healthcare is socailist on it's very face.

          Are you a socailist christine?

          Kerry has been hailed by Gen. Giap, commander of the communist N. Vietnamese Army, as being instrumental in the Communists victory in Vietnam. He is considered a war hero to them. A picture of him hangs in a place of honor in the vietnam victory museum in hanoi. On top of that, he is an admitted war criminal, and wrongly accused his fellow sailors of commiting attrocities in Vietnam. Accusations that he has never backed up with a single ounce of proof.

          Kerry is the last man we need running this war. He is the very worst of what an American can be. A liar, cheat, and fraud.

          His is also the ultimate flip-flop man.

          Comment


          • #6
            Oh come on......there are U.S. soldiers on trial right now for war crimes they committed in Iraq. The U.S. military training instructors pump these guys up to go somewhere and kick some ass, and when they get carried away, the U.S. Government says, uh, "you shouldn't have done that," and treat them like criminals. wtf?

            SO, how many US soldiers in the past 200 years haven't committed war crimes? I would very much like to see that statistic buddy. Hell, I personally think it is a crime just to kill someone unless it is in self-defense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam never sent anyone to the US to kill us, did they?

            No human being can predict their mistakes until they make them, they can only speculate. Kerry, I'm sure, is guilty of mistakes while fighting in the Vietnam War.....maybe that's why he wants to bring our soldiers home, to spare them anymore psychiatric trauma, which they will endure for the rest of their lives.

            No one can convince me that if you are in Iraq fighting, and you see your friend get blown to pieces by mortar fire, that the one US soldier left standing is not going to commit some sort of atrocity upon the enemy to ease his pain of what he just seen happen to his fellow marine. Human emotions aren't programmable to avoid that.

            These atrocities have happened in every war, everywhere, by everyone.....yes, even Kerry. It's human nature. Bush can't be bashed for it because he never put himself in that situation, he only put others in that situation.

            Comment


            • #7
              SO, how many US soldiers in the past 200 years haven't committed war crimes? I would very much like to see that statistic buddy. Hell, I personally think it is a crime just to kill someone unless it is in self-defense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam never sent anyone to the US to kill us, did they?
              I guess the confiscation of private oil wells(yes I know it was done before his leadership but it was still his Government to be), and the attempted murder of the president of the United States don't count?

              What about funding for terrorism against the United States and exspecially Israel?

              No human being can predict their mistakes until they make them, they can only speculate. Kerry, I'm sure, is guilty of mistakes while fighting in the Vietnam War.....maybe that's why he wants to bring our soldiers home, to spare them anymore psychiatric trauma, which they will endure for the rest of their lives.
              See M21Sniper has been in combat and has been shot at. He knows all about being in Combat. Believe me Kerry's motives has nothing to do with sparing the soldiers from psychiatric trauma.

              No one can convince me that if you are in Iraq fighting, and you see your friend get blown to pieces by mortar fire, that the one US soldier left standing is not going to commit some sort of atrocity upon the enemy to ease his pain of what he just seen happen to his fellow marine. Human emotions aren't programmable to avoid that.
              The enemy has initiated force against us and we have the moral right to kill them all.

              These atrocities have happened in every war, everywhere, by everyone.....yes, even Kerry. It's human nature. Bush can't be bashed for it because he never put himself in that situation, he only put others in that situation.
              What a complete non-seqituor.

              Comment


              • #8
                Forget it Praxus, just another leftist socailist fool.

                Miss, you can speak about what drill instructors 'put in your head' once you've actually been in the military. Until then, allow me to inform you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

                Kerry is a disgrace to the uniform of the united states military. He is a liar, an opportunist, and a socailist.

                And he is a national war hero for the OTHER side in the war he fought in.

                Miss, you can jam John F'ing Kerry where the sun don't shine.

                Comment


                • #9
                  now back to your regularly scheduled programming..... ;)

                  Christine, honestly, nice post. I would have to differ with you on the fact that this election is difficult though. If you were to subtract the war on terrorism or if 9/11 had never happened you might have a case. In my mind it is very simple.

                  Right now nothing else matter except the war on terrorism. Everyting else can wait. If we lose our way of life, none of the other things make a difference. This I believe is the fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry at the moment. Bush knows and understand that we are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy our very way of life. Kerry, whom I consider part of the extreme left of his party, does not view this as a war. I'm not sure he even takes this seriously. It's almost as if he believes this all started when Bush became President and would all go away if Bush went away. No matter how loud they protest, the Clinton administration did not take terrorism or al Qaeda seriously. There is this scary, head in the sand, maybe it will all go away if we don't look at it, attitude on the far left. Don't get me wrong, I'm not indicting all Democrats. A significant number get it(Lieberman, Zell Miller, etc). It's that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the far left so much that I've begun to look at Joseph Biden as a moderate Democrat.

                  As far as some of the other things in your post.

                  Health Care - Stem cell research. This is one the main stream press has jumped on and manipulated w/o any fact or research. For starters, Pres Bush does not support EMBRYONIC stem cell research. The Dem's and the press have lumped it all together and have jumped on this "magic pill" bandwagon that stem cells may the cure all. For starters, there is no research that shows stem cells can cure or may be able to cure Alzheimers or anything else. It's merely a hypothesis that everyone has jumped on as fact. Early research so far in mice on stem cells have shown serious problems down stream(ie. future generations) including birth defects and high rates of cancers. The research that may actually be beneficial is in T-cells, which are showing some of the benefits people are touting about stem cells.

                  Education - Hasn't this administration increased funding for education by 40%? Haven't test scores dramatically increased under this adminstration. Letter from the education secretary. http://www.ed.gov/news/opeds/edit/2003/10242003.html

                  Taxes - misnomer, misrepresentation and flat out wrong that the tax cuts went to the top 1% and no one else. Facts not in evidence. If you want the number on this and the last 20 years and how the tax burden has actually increased on the top 1% and the top 10% ask me and I will post.

                  Security - of course we are safer. This idea that we have done nothing and there are no changes is ridiculous. There hasn't been an attack since 9/11. Do people think that is because they haven't wanted to do something else? How many arrests have there been in the US in just the last 2 weeks alone. The gal in Texas on a S. Africa passport that they said was a big fish, the guy in N Carolina and the group in upstate NY that were trying to buy a rocket launcher spring to mind.
                  Who can lead best our country in this first decade of this millennium
                  So, to answer your last question, it's clearly Bush. The economy is on track, he has shown to be a tremendous leader through adversity. He and his adminstration haven't done everything perfect, nor do I agree with everything they have done, but Kerry's track record doesn't speak very well and he hasn't shown us any reason to think that he would be any different in the White House.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Government should be payed for though contract fees and criminal penalties.
                    How much money do you think that would raise? Enough for the military, the police, the prisons, roads, and administration (yes, under your ideal government there would be much less to administrate, but there would still be some)? I really doubt that.

                    It shouldn't, public education should be destroyed as it has nothing to do with the moral purposes of Government.
                    I thought we delt with this issue when you withdrew your proposal for indentured service.

                    How about letting the market do it instead of looting in the name of "clean air".
                    Here is an excerpt from a site that explains why that won't work, there could be flaws in it, but I am not an expert on electricity production or the chemical composition of oil, but it seems to make some sense. It begins by proposing a reason why we shouldn't worry and then refuting it.

                    I don't think there is really anything to worry about. According to classical economics, when one resource becomes scarce, people get motivated to invest in a replacement resource. When the price of oil gets too high, renewable energy will become profitable and companies will begin investing in it.

                    Classical economic theory works great for goods within an economy. Relying on it to address a severe and prolonged energy shortage, however, is going to prove disastrous. Classical economics works well so long as the market indicators arrive early enough for people to adapt. In regards to oil, market indicators will likely come too late for us to implement even the modest solutions we have available. Once the price of oil gets high enough that people begin to seriously consider alternatives, those alternatives will become too expensive to implement on a wide scale. Reason: oil is required to develop, manufacture, transport and implement oil alternatives such as solar panels, biomass, and windmills.

                    There are many examples in history where a resource shortage prompted the development of alternative resources. Oil, however, is not just any resource. In our current world, it is the precondition for all other resources, including alternative ones. To illustrate: as of the winter of 2004, a barrel of oil costs $38. It would cost in the range of $100-$250 to get the amount of energy in that barrel of oil from renewable sources. This means that an energy company won't be motivated to aggressively pursue renewable energy until the cost of oil doubles, triples, or quadruples. At that point, our economy will be close to devastated. Our ability to implement whatever alternatives we can think of will be permanently eliminated. In effect, we will be a lifeless barge of a nation floating on some very rough seas.

                    In pragmatic terms, this means that if you want your home powered by solar panels or windmills, you had better do it soon. If you don't have these alternatives in place when the lights go out, they're going to stay out.

                    The “invisible hand of the market” is about to bitch-slap us back to the stone age.

                    The oil companies are so greedy, they will come up with a solution to keep making money, right?

                    Expecting the oil companies to save you from the oil crash is about as wise as expecting the tobacco companies to save you from lung cancer. Corporate officers are bound by law to do what is in the best interests of the corporation, so long as their actions are legal. Their legal obligation is to make money for the company, not to save the world, not to serve their country, not to clean up the environment, not to bring glory to God, not to anybody but the corporation. For all intents and purposes, this means it is illegal for an oil executive to aggressively pursue renewable energy. Occasionally, a company will stroll out a "renewable energy" initiative, but this is almost always more for publicity and public relations purposes than it is for profit.

                    The truth is that you probably don’t want the oil companies to aggressively pursue renewable energy. The profit margin of renewable energy is so poor that if oil companies attempted to pursue it, they would quickly go bankrupt. This would cause a collapse of the stock market, which would result in an economic meltdown.

                    Furthermore, the oil companies are likely to profit from the initial stages of the crash. How? Simple — say, for example, that in February 2004, it takes $10 to extract and refine a barrel of oil. If a company sells that same barrel in March 2004, they will likely fetch about $38 for it. However, if they wait until the oil crash hits hard, they may be able to sell that same barrel for considerably more.

                    Expecting the oil companies, the government, or anybody else to solve this problem for us is simply suicidal. You, me, and every other "regular person" needs to be actively engaged in addressing this issue if there is to be any hope for humanity.
                    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageThree.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This speak is unrealistic at best. The largest percentage of oil we could of used is around 35%. This is the maximum ammount of oil companies have been able to pump out and still remain profitable. New technologies being designed by these companies are going to move it up to around 50%. So there is at least 75% of the world's oil supply still left in the ground.

                      There is no evidence to suggest that the market could not adjust to the lack of oil. If the oil wells start getting real low, the market will force them to invest in other technologies. Many of these technologies are now available but not in wide use.

                      The current "oil crises" is artificially created by left wing politicians who refuse to drill for oil in a peice of Alaska the size of Dulles Airport that contains several billion barrels of oil if not more. This kind of thing is not limited to Alaska, it happens all over the country.

                      How much money do you think that would raise? Enough for the military, the police, the prisons, roads, and administration (yes, under your ideal government there would be much less to administrate, but there would still be some)? I really doubt that.
                      Before the dawn of the 20th century the income of the Government was less then 10% of the GDP in peace time and this payed for the moral purposes of Government and then some. A 5-8% contract fee could raise enough money for all legal purposes of Government.

                      The building of roads beyond matters of defense is not part of the Governments job.

                      I thought we delt with this issue when you withdrew your proposal for indentured service.
                      No we didn't. I presented one idea without doing proper research witch you debunked. That in no way delt with my view that public schools should be gotten away with.

                      There are several means of going to school in a Capitalist system...
                      1.) Private Schools (Either Religious or non-religious)
                      2.) Home-Schooling
                      3.) For Poorer Families: A "Union" of poorer families that put their money together to pay for their childrens education.

                      Expecting the oil companies to save you from the oil crash is about as wise as expecting the tobacco companies to save you from lung cancer. Corporate officers are bound by law to do what is in the best interests of the corporation, so long as their actions are legal. Their legal obligation is to make money for the company, not to save the world, not to serve their country, not to clean up the environment, not to bring glory to God, not to anybody but the corporation. For all intents and purposes, this means it is illegal for an oil executive to aggressively pursue renewable energy. Occasionally, a company will stroll out a "renewable energy" initiative, but this is almost always more for publicity and public relations purposes than it is for profit.
                      Only in a non-capitalist country would other non-oil companies not be able to invest in "renewable" resources. If the price of oil gets to high and gas prices get really high. Then tell me why would other companies not invest in renewable resoruces when they could make a crap load of money by taking away buisness from the oil companies.

                      This being said you have not adress the moral issue. The only alternitive to letting the market handle the situation is to loot and pillage. Do you support this alternitive?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There is no evidence to suggest that the market could not adjust to the lack of oil. If the oil wells start getting real low, the market will force them to invest in other technologies. Many of these technologies are now available but not in wide use.
                        I did not include this in the excerpt cause I thought the one I put in was more appropriate, but they also argue that when easily available oil runs low, companies will scour the Earth for all the harder-to-pump oil, which will mean that things will keep running smoothly, if milidly more expensive. However, because of this prolonging of the production plateau, when we reach the end of the plateau, it won't be the steady decline which would result in market forces taking action, it will be like falling off a cliff instead, because we won't have the energy sources available to mass build the alternative energy infrastructure.

                        The current "oil crises" is artificially created by left wing politicians who refuse to drill for oil in a peice of Alaska the size of Dulles Airport that contains several billion barrels of oil if not more. This kind of thing is not limited to Alaska, it happens all over the country.
                        Yes, the CURRENT "oil crisis" is created by the left. But thats got nothing to do with the major crisis that may or may not be looming.

                        The building of roads beyond matters of defense is not part of the Governments job.
                        Huh? Who's job is it? Maybe you mean its not the federal governments job. But some government's got to pay for it. Or do you believe every single road, from highways to little side streets, should be built and tolled by companies?

                        Before the dawn of the 20th century the income of the Government was less then 10% of the GDP in peace time and this payed for the moral purposes of Government and then some.
                        There were still taxes, they were much lower, but they still existed.

                        3.) For Poorer Families: A "Union" of poorer families that put their money together to pay for their childrens education.
                        That works if you have 1 teacher for like 50 kids, textbooks from 1862, remove several subjects from the curriculum, and operate out of a cardboard box...okay so I'm exagerating a little, but the gap between the private education and the "union" education would be so vast as to make class mobility exceedingly difficult.

                        Only in a non-capitalist country would other non-oil companies not be able to invest in "renewable" resources. If the price of oil gets to high and gas prices get really high. Then tell me why would other companies not invest in renewable resoruces when they could make a crap load of money by taking away buisness from the oil companies.
                        That will eventually happen. The argument that the site makes is that by the time it becomes worthwhile to do so, the energy required to construct the alternatives will be so expensive as to make it nearly impossible. Right now though, oil is a hell of a lot cheaper than anything else. Wind and solar are extremely inefficient. Fusion as of now, requires more energy to sustain the reaction than it produces. If fusion could be made to actually produce energy rather than consume it, and if this breakthrough comes relativly soon, then hurrah, our problems our solved. If it takes too long though, its no longer viable because of the cost in oil-energy to mass produce it.

                        This being said you have not adress the moral issue. The only alternitive to letting the market handle the situation is to loot and pillage. Do you support this alternitive?
                        You know, somehow I would not lose sleep over taxing our way out of an oil based economy set to collapse and kill millions due to both the lack of energy and the societal break down that would ensue, which would definitly result in a lot more looting and pillaging. I am morally opposed to most taxation, but I am even more opposed to the end of civilization. I know you don't think that would happen, but keep in mind I am adressing the moral issue. If I didn't genuinly believe in an impending crisis I would fully support a market solution. Assume for a minute that this crisis will happen, would you be willing to have it happen so long as the government doesn't find a solution by taking taxes?
                        Last edited by ZFBoxcar; 13 Aug 04,, 23:37.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, I was a Canadian soldier who had served alongside with the USArmy and if I might be allowed, I would like to answer your questions.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          SO, how many US soldiers in the past 200 years haven't committed war crimes? I would very much like to see that statistic buddy.
                          Simple, how many were charged even by their enemies on any GC violation? If you reach over a 1000, I would be extremely surprised.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          Hell, I personally think it is a crime just to kill someone unless it is in self-defense,
                          You are not a presiding authority on the GC. I, however, am.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam never sent anyone to the US to kill us, did they?
                          He tried to assassinate George Bush Sr in Kuwait.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          No human being can predict their mistakes until they make them, they can only speculate. Kerry, I'm sure, is guilty of mistakes while fighting in the Vietnam War.....
                          But we can and do set moral, ethical, and honourable standards to which all soldiers and especially their leaders are expected and demanded to live up to.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          maybe that's why he wants to bring our soldiers home, to spare them anymore psychiatric trauma, which they will endure for the rest of their lives.
                          Ray, M21, and myself will have terrible memories and dreams for the rest of our lives. However, we did the job our countries asked and we did the job so that no one else would have to, and no one else will have to endure our memories and dreams, especially you.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          No one can convince me that if you are in Iraq fighting, and you see your friend get blown to pieces by mortar fire, that the one US soldier left standing is not going to commit some sort of atrocity upon the enemy to ease his pain of what he just seen happen to his fellow marine. Human emotions aren't programmable to avoid that.
                          But military discipline is. I've lost people under my command. I didn't go crazy and neither did my people.

                          Originally posted by Julie
                          These atrocities have happened in every war, everywhere, by everyone.....yes, even Kerry. It's human nature. Bush can't be bashed for it because he never put himself in that situation, he only put others in that situation.
                          It did not happen to me nor my people nor the people in my battle group.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I never commited anything remotely resembling an attrocity, and it is highly offensive to have someone who doesn't even know me try to tell me that 'you all do that'.

                            No, only dishonorable swine like Kerry do that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Huh? Who's job is it? Maybe you mean its not the federal governments job. But some government's got to pay for it. Or do you believe every single road, from highways to little side streets, should be built and tolled by companies?
                              I belive its up to the towns/villages, counties, states, etc who use a private contracter to do the actual building.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X