in light of Obama's claims to the contrary, this should matter. It won't matter to most liberals. Sad.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/what-obama-knew-benghazi

You mean you weren't told it was a video Mr. President?

Bwild: With those big sumo wrestling suits?

Iamon lyme: No.. it's just an observation, and a question. I'd thought you might have dumped the dissing seeing as you hated it.

"Suggesting I could be that shallow is just another example of your desire to hurl insults and demean the people you hate. There really seems to be no limit to the extent you will go to diss anyone who disagrees with you"

I hate!!! another straw man argument from you... a presumption I've corrected several times yet you want to believe I do.

"If your antagonism towards Christianity is allowed here, then show me in the rules where I may not respond to it? For someone who is not shy about calling others hypocrites you have done a fair job of exemplifying that "quality"."

If it is antagonism. It might just be my dark sense of humour.

Bwild: Totally agree :D LOL

shaken hands and makin promises in the wake of Sandy...thousands still without power.
dropped the ball that cost American lives...Bengazi
wants to promote the spokesperson that touted it was due to the film..lol
the guy who made the film..still in jail I believe..
and now the head cia official is caught with his pants down!
what drama!! lol

you two should get a room

(V): [ btw.. ain't all you done Lamon is switched from dissing Christians to dissing anyone who isn't one? ]

Seriously, do you really believe I arbitrarily decided to "switch sides", and for no other reason than to diss a different group of people? Suggesting I could be that shallow is just another example of your desire to hurl insults and demean the people you hate. There really seems to be no limit to the extent you will go to diss anyone who disagrees with you.

Your views on Christians have been tolerated whether the topic calls for it or not, but apparently you have a problem with my addressing your complaints. If I choose to diss the dissers, then so what? If your antagonism towards Christianity is allowed here, then show me in the rules where I may not respond to it? For someone who is not shy about calling others hypocrites you have done a fair job of exemplifying that "quality".

btw.. ain't all you done Lamon is switched from dissing Christians to dissing anyone who isn't one?

You wanted authority?

Iamon lyme: No.

"Shouldn't the question be why am I comfortable with what I see in the Bible and who I believe God is? Or are you the consummate authority on all spiritual matters for yourself and everyone else?"

No.

Iamon lyme: Well that seems to be your stawman argument in a nutshell. .. to use your phrase.

"Neville Chamberlain?"

No... he invented the wheel didn't he... or was it he was a Conservative PM who died in 1940? .. of whom Churchill said...

"Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.[204]"

>>>>> Hitler lied, Chamberlain's only real mistake was believing Hitler would live upto his word. The Versailles Treaty was a big mistake.

.... Did you hear that Ford applied for and was paid damages by the US government for damage done to it's German plants by allied bombing.


"So what is your point? Are you saying it's okay to deal with violent organizations if they are internal, but not okay to deal with them if they are not internal? If both will attack you where you live then why make a distinction?"

no... I don't make a distinction.. another strawman.

(V): [ ... it's a matter of the image thing and maintaining the central law of Jesus.. what he said. .. ... Love all that is God. The OT says God is in everything.. how do you get comfortable with that? ]

Don't you mean to say YOU are not comfortable with that? btw, that too was a question... whether a question is rhetorical or not, asking is not the same as putting words into someones mouth.

You appear to be asking "how do I get comfortable" with what you believe the Bible says and who you think God is. Shouldn't the question be why am I comfortable with what I see in the Bible and who I believe God is? Or are you the consummate authority on all spiritual matters for yourself and everyone else?

(V): (V): "Do you believe backing down to bullies and apologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them?" [ Did I say back down.. putting words in my mouth again. ]


Did I say that's what you said? No, I don't think so... do you see anywhere where I might have said you said that?

Sending out a straw man to fight an imaginary straw man is inventive, but not very smart. It was a question, and from my point of view a rhetorical one. Other than a few new age thinkers or perhaps someone who has never had to deal with bullying, I think the answer is obvious. Ever hear of a fellow by the name of Neville Chamberlain?

[ Maybe you should study how the NI war ended. As one who lived through that era before you Americans got to experience terrorism at home .. ... !!! .. .. ok, that is wrong... better to say.. before you got to experience terrorism from an organisation based outside the US. As you did have many internal groups willing to resort to violence. ]

So what is your point? Are you saying it's okay to deal with violent organizations if they are internal, but not okay to deal with them if they are not internal? If both will attack you where you live then why make a distinction?

Iamon lyme: Everyone suffers from that to some degree.. ie a lack of self discipline... that's why God invented meditation.

"and don't want to see the US become just another rat hole for despots to play around with."

Same here.. but you already are.. I could quote a line out of the matrix, but, you might already know it.

"I used to be one those people who would laugh at and demean christians, until I became one."

Rebelliousness...from you've said.. expected.

"I ended up becoming the object of my own scorn. Why do you suppose anyone would do that? Or am I asking you to "think too much"?"

nope... a point in life can trigger things to change.. like who am I.... I got stuck on the surrendering to God for years.. till I realised that God 'is'.

... it's a matter of the image thing and maintaining the central law of Jesus.. what he said. .. ... Love all that is God. The OT says God is in everything.. how do you get comfortable with that?

(V): [ You think too much. ]

It's partly attributable to a mild case of aspergers, a condition I was born with. It can a be a weakness or a strength, depending on how much self discipline I'm willing to exercise.

[ Maybe if I posted videos of me burning bibles and the US flag on a bonfire you will... or make a video of some guy dressed up as Jesus committing various lewd acts. ]

Burning the flag doesn't bother me, because a flag is an inanimate object. I'm only a nationalist in the sense that I live here, and don't want to see the US become just another rat hole for despots to play around with.

In regard to videos or "artwork" or vile comments designed to insult and denigrate my religion, where have you been? I've seen examples of that for most of my life. In fact, I used to be one those people who would laugh at and demean christians, until I became one.

Ironic, huh? I ended up becoming the object of my own scorn. Why do you suppose anyone would do that? Or am I asking you to "think too much"?

btw....

"Do you think someone could charge you with a crime, and have you tossed into jail for saying anything here? I doubt it. But who knows? Fencer might show up with an armed detail of soldiers and capture you in the middle of the night."

If found to be organising or committing a crime through a certain 'fellowship', etc .. yes. But it won't be Fencer. It'd be your local police.

eg .. if someone kept putting details of another person anywhere on this site, as in their name, address, phone numbers, etc. Part of the globals job is to save Fencer from possible law suits by making sure it doesn't happen.

thankfully, most of that lunacy tends to stay on facebook. People killing others over tiffs on that abomination.

Iamon lyme: You think too much.

Don't worry about it. Our respective military commanders understand. Maybe if I posted videos of me burning bibles and the US flag on a bonfire you will... or make a video of some guy dressed up as Jesus committing various lewd acts.

"You make reference to Christians and comparing them with Islamists (?) as though it is somehow relevant.. are we getting ready to delve yet again into the past, to find some historical perspective you believe may shore up your point?"

The now I prefer.

"Do you believe backing down to bullies and appologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them?"

Did I say back down.. putting words in my mouth again.

"Making excuses for them doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and wanting to become our friends... it encourages them to ramp up their efforts."

Maybe you should study how the NI war ended. As one who lived through that era before you Americans got to experience terrorism at home .. ... !!! .. .. ok, that is wrong... better to say.. before you got to experience terrorism from an organisation based outside the US. As you did have many internal groups willing to resort to violence.

.. as did many countries before 9/11

Iamon lyme:

EXACTLY

(V): [ ... You do accept that this is true regardless of other events? ]

I might (or might not) if I could understand half of what you say. Unless or until you are able to make yourself clear I'll be responding only to what I think you might be saying.

~ Islamic clerics in UK have been charged (in custody?) with inciting violence. Okay...

~ One was extradited to my country. I don't doubt that.

~ You make reference to Christians and comparing them with Islamists (?) as though it is somehow relevant... are we getting ready to delve yet again into the past, to find some historical perspective you believe may shore up your point?

Here you said: "Such videos as that guy made are not winning hearts and minds."

It isn't his job to "win hearts and minds". Is it YOUR job at this board to "win hearts and minds"? Do you think someone could charge you with a crime, and have you tossed into jail for saying anything here? I doubt it. But who knows? Fencer might show up with an armed detail of soldiers and capture you in the middle of the night.

The youtube video guy is a private citizen, who was spouting off on youtube. That is all he is, and all he did... if anyone (not just the president) wanted to find an offensive video he could use to claim is the cause of a violent attack, how difficult could that be? The president didn't just tell a lie, he told a stupid lie. He wasn't the only one sitting in the situation room. He was surrounded by people who may have been advising him, but everyone was waiting for him to make some kind of decision... because it was HIS decision to make.

~ "They put our troops and civilians at risk. They help recruit more psychos to the terrorist cause."

A youtube video can do all that? Wow... so, the president serves you up a glass of koolaid and you don't hesitate to drink from it. It's remarkable what some people are willing to believe.

Do you believe backing down to bullies and appologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them? Making excuses for them doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and wanting to become our friends... it encourages them to ramp up their efforts.

Iamon lyme: I think it's lame that we still sack people over what is a domestic matter. In normal life it don't matter.

eg.. if the Aliens landed and we had just one person capable of interpreting what they were saying.... would he be sacked if he's messing about with his assistant?

Iamon lyme: The terrorists? Or the others that were there??

"On top of everthing else, allowing people to die unnecessarily, and then lie about it, the president may have to account for being responsible for causing a US citizen to be falsely charged and thrown into jail."

.... You've got Islamic (I mean that in a loose sense, as if they followed their book by the letter regarding certain passages as some so called Christians have not followed their book by the letter) clerics inciting violence being charged here in the UK... we've just extradited one to your country.

Such videos as that guy made are not winning hearts and minds. They put our troops and civilians at risk. They help recruit more psychos to the terrorist cause.

I wouldn't exactly shake his hand because of that.. in fact, I'd give him a good clout round the back of the head... as for those who sponsored him.. Stocks at an State side army base.

... maybe then the soldiers throwing rotten fruit and veg at them will finally get the message across, that they don't need American citizens helping the terrorist leaders get more volunteers.

... You do accept that this is true regardless of other events?

Iamon lyme: Correction: Obama falsely accused him, not charged him. But he WAS charged and arrested as a result of that accusation. A false accusation leading to a criminal charge and arrest is itself a crime.

But as we saw with Bill Clinton, it's not always easy to go after the top dog... Clinton got away with doing and saying things anyone else would have gone to jail for doing (or saying). Lying before a grand jury, insider trading (cattle futures payed off handsomely for those in the know)... too many misdeeds for me to get into, but I guess the point here is as Mel Brooks once said... "It's good to be the king."

(V): No one is saying much about Fast and Furious either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, having trouble finding what you don't want to see? That's odd, I had no trouble finding lodes of information about it. Have you tried using a search engine like, oh say, maybe "Google"? Or how about "Bing"? I hear that's a good one too.

It seems the only thing Obama can't hide from (with or without the help from his buddies in the press) will be the Benghazi story. He won't be about to lie his way around that one. Too much information has already gotten out contradicting the video excuse, resulting in his apology to the terrorists for offending them... the same terrorists who killed four of our people on embassy property. BTW, any US embassy is considered to be US domain... so in effect it's same as if the attack took place on US soil.

I don't know if the American citizen who ended up in jail because of Obama lying is out yet or not, but I'll bet his lawyers are waiting to see what Congress will do about this. On top of everthing else, allowing people to die unnecessarily, and then lie about it, the president may have to account for being responsible for causing a US citizen to be falsely charged and thrown into jail.

Remember the cartoonist who is still in hiding because he drew an "offensive" cartoon? He wasn't thrown in jail or turned over to Islamic terrorists, was he? No, he was and still is being hidden and protected from them.

But what does Obama do? He falsely charges a guy who made an "offensive" youtube video with being responsible for an expected and planned attack on 9/11, and as a result the guy gets taken from his home in the middle of the night and tossed into jail.

(V): an 18th century drinking song is very much American as long as the drink is dark beer.

Artful Dodger: The only one to have large enough petitioners to get the question asked!!

..... I gotta ask though, since the original tune behind the Star Spangled Banner was the tune of an 18th century drinking song made by the Anacreontic Society, an English club of amateur musicians....


.... Is The US right gonna say "it ain't American?"

(V): Texas is not alone lol

What the ..... The Whitehouse has to reply to a petition from Texas to succeed from the Union because said petition has reached a 25,000-signature threshold.

... Because the GOP lost.

Artful Dodger: Nahhhhhh, the GOP has a lot of supporters, if it were Bush and the accusations turned out to be false... They would be false.

eg McCain and the question whether he was a natural born... .. No question.. he was. Even 'if' he wasn't born on 'US' territory he was born to US parents.

(V): If it were Bush, you'd see plenty.

... I'm not seeing any person with real authority on the matter, to such a point that the world's press is going nuts in printing "OBAMA NOT AMERICAN WE HAVE PROOF"..

.. Not even Fox news or news international.

I'm not seeing comparisons of other long form birth certs from Hawaii being done.

All I'm seeing is a few people making noise and money.

Like those here.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2WvDHxjkw

Now, think.. why would someone say "I believe it's real and have for months" on TV.. but at the same time say it's possible it's a fake?

Three more states rejected Obamacare last week. Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming rejected the President’s health care law at the polls.

By an overwhelming majority, Montanans rejected Obamacare via the Montana Health Care Amendment. It reads:

The trio join Missouri, Ohio, Arizona, and Oklahoma as states whose citizens have voted to protect themselves from Obamacare implementation. Other states such as Texas and Louisiana have governors who refuse to implement Obamacare in their states. So far 14 governors have refused to compromise their state’s sovereignties by implementing the ever-unpopular law. The fight against Obamacare is still very much alive.

Iamon lyme: Everybody who worked on Carter's farm worked for peanuts. Sort of.

Artful Dodger: Elephant? I'd have more luck passing myself off as the Bearded Lady. Add a little padding here and there, let my hair grow out... use the ladies room instead of the other one. If I forget and start walking into the mens room someone might get suspicious and... and, uh... wait a sec... Peanuts!! That's right... I forgot about the peanuts!
Okay then, forget the circus... I'll get a job as peanut inspector at a dry roasted peanut factory.

http://youtu.be/RcjuJpf3Rwc

Iamon lyme: ???? You gonna join the circus and be an elephant?

ketchuplover: [ Subject: All hands...
abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

I decided to wait until after the election before designating myself as either "retired" or "unemployed". It's official now... I'm calling meself retired. So I'll be nothin' but a bow-leggedly corn cob pipe chewin' land-lubber from here on out.

Maybe I can do some occasional day labor... or maybe work from home? Posting messages at this board seems to be the only real job I have at the moment, and I'm working for less than peanuts....

.... ( ? )

.... ( ! )

Eureka, that's it! I know what to do now! I'll get a job working for peanuts... dry roasted peanuts.

(V): [ Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind... .... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ... ]


Seriously, START thinking (for more than a second) and ask yourself this question... if it ISN'T a fraud, then why did the president show FRAUDULENT papers in an attempt to settle the question? He could have settled the question once and for all by simply showing true documentation.

I am older than Obama, and record keeping has improved since I was born... I can get replacement papers at any time, so no one can convince me that anyone born in the US is somehow unable to get his hands on true documentation.

Showing faked documentation to prove legitimacy is worse than showing nothing at all... so why would he do that?

You don't need phony ID to buy beer if you are old enough to buy beer. Does it make sense for someone who is old enough to buy liquor to get phony ID to prove they are old enough?

No, it makes no sense at all. You could be turned away for using phony ID, when all you had to do was to show your true ID.



Okay, I've made my point now so you can turn your brain off... sorry for the inconvenience.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ Modern democracy is a game of perception. It is popularity contest. It is not about chosing the most capable man for the job, but the most popular man for the job. ]

It has been moving in that direction for a long time. When I think about how Reagan talked to people, one thing that stands out (for me it did) is that he didn't play the popularity game. Which is kind of ironic... by NOT playing that game, he ended up being more popular than if he had tried juggling various (and conflicting) positions in an attempt to please the most number of people. But it's not the politicians who started this weird move toward winning popularity contests. They are simply responding to what they've learned will convince the most number of people to vote for them.

Politics today looks like a day time "reality" gotcha type of show. I can't stomach watching Jerry Springer or Maury, but that type of format is being imitated and appears to be permanently incorporated into modern American politics. And to make matters worse, we are being instructed in politics and foreign policy by movie stars and tv personalities. These folks have become experts by virtue of their images appearing on television and in movies. Isn't it comforting to know the most qualified people are in a position to shape public perceptions and influence policy?

Eons ago a social studies teacher in my high school told us that in a democracy anything can happen... and he said it's possible to vote freedoms away to the point where you can never get them back again.

Iamon lyme:

Oh, I agree with you. The reason why I wrote "I saw a claim" is because seeing a claim and proving it are entirely different matters.

What I am getting at is perception in the public. In our present era a candidate's true record is not reflected in how the media spins that record. Current campaigns are huge advertising campaigns rather than campaigns aimed at discussing real issues or portraying the truth. A candidate made a stupid comment 20 years ago, and his opponent will exploit that as much as he can. Let alone problems in a candidates personal life. Reagan's initial divorce would probably have been used against him, as might have been comments he might have made when he disagreed with left-wing views or some government policies.

We can compare this to Romney's "shipping jobs overseas". That became a weakness in his campaign, regardless of how true or how accurate the situation was, or the fact that Democrat businessmen do the same thing.

Modern democracy is a game of perception. It is popularity contest. It is not about chosing the most capable man for the job, but the most popular man for the job.

With regards to feminism, one must remember that "feminism" as movement was something that never quite captured the public's imagination. Otherwise every woman would be a feminist, and that is not true. Feminism has an important place in history as a reflection of women struggling to gain acceptance and respect as men's equals. We remember that feminists are human beings too and as such they are bound to have biases and prejudices like we all do. If claims of gender discrimination raised during the Reagan administration, it was because more women felt the courage to come forward and lodge complaints. I doubt the Reagan era was any worse for women than any era in the past, or sadly, our modern era. However, these days candidates are judged based on their record with women's issues. In that sense candidates can spin their opponents record to court women voters.

abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iamon lyme: Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind...

.... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ...

"prove it?"

You don't think it's a fake 100% then!!

"And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake."

Not that it was a mistake, but I can see obviously that different areas will have learnt things differently. The old timers you grew up with, would by nature of the own thinking re-invented certain terms to fit their needs.

"but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words"

.... Yeah well... remember this is a PG site.

"If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?"

I agree, it is crazy.. and it's being abused. A simplification and recognition that multi-nationals can hide money thanks to that complexity needs to be worked on.

"why?" I think basically to keep the stock markets buoyant. Much of the money in there is 'imaginary'.

(V): [ If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich. ]

If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?

Investment means growth of business (that means more jobs) and fewer people out of work, and that means more taxable income is being generated for the government!!! So why does government invariably try to discourage the goose that lays the golden eggs from laying the golden eggs? The government doesn't benefit from a distressed economy, so what are they trying to do?

If potentional investors are discouraged from investing it doesn't mean they are shoving their money into off shore accounts. It means they are shy about investing their money. So it's really not my business or yours what they do with that money, because it belongs to them. And if they decide NOT to invest, because of governmental rules and restrictions and charging fees for doing this than and the other (taxable) thing, what can the government do about that? Make it illegal to NOT make investments? Okay, maybe (I wouldn't put it passed them) but until that happens there's nothing to stop potential investors from pulling out of doing any future business and simply retire on what they have.

Because of how poorly the economy is doing and because of what Obamacare will do to business starting in 2014, we will continue to see more and more people retire before they had planned to... that's already happening, people are already starting to jump ship, and why not? The damn thing is sinking fast, and Obama is up there on the deck drilling more holes in it so the water will (hopefully) drain out. Well, good luck with that Mr President... you insufferable moron!!

(V): [ "I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does. I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country." ] ~ [ "No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are." ]

And you know he was born on US soil because he showed faked documents to prove it? Come on V, you can do better than that.


By the way, I WAS careless and did use the wrong word when talking about older subtexts to an original saying... I didn't mean to give the impression those subtexts started with the original saying, but apparently I did. And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake.

One of the things I like about this site is people will point out mistakes in meaning, but I've never been jumped on for making a spelling mistake. A few years ago I was at different site and it was like talking to third graders... it was more important to the people there to catch spelling mistakes than to make any attempt at dealing with issues. As crazy as it can get here I have say it's a step up from some of the crazier craziness I've seen. And the moderation here isn't bad either, but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words...



(((aww crap, I did it again... why do I always tell on myself like that?)))

Übergeek 바둑이: Reagans first election was definitely a response to Carters failed policies. It was said of Carter that he couldn't say no to anyone, and as a result the poor fool was besieged by lobbyists on all sides... they were all over him like flies on [fecal matter]. But you failed to mention that Reagan had already proven he was able to turn the nations economy around. And he did, which accounts for why he won by an even bigger margin for his second term. During his tenure as governor of California, he not only turned the economy around by encouraging (instead of discouraging) business, but the resulting increase in tax revenue (more jobs, more tax money) allowed more money (not less) to be funneled into social services... Big Bird wasn't a bit worried about job security at that time. If he cut any social services it's because they didn't really function as a safety net. Many so called "social services" do nothing to help people with real needs, but rather exist as incentives (give aways) to encourage voter loyalty.

Übergeek 바둑이: I can agree with much of what you say about Reagan except for the parts you rightly describe as "perceptions". You don't say who had these perceptions, but I think it's clear who they were. There were supporters and detractors (as there always are) on both sides would likely try shoring up their own perceptions with some obvious misperceptions. And one of those obvious misperceptions is when you imply cases of sexual discrimination had risen as a result of Reagans presidency.

"I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s."

This is probably true, but had nothing to do with Reagan. It's the same as if you implied feminist influence didn't begin until 1980 and then quickly peaked during the Reagan administration. If (reported) discrimination cases rose to that level during that time, it would be incidental to Reagans tenure. Feminist influence had been steadily growing for at least two decades prior to the 80's.

I personally got a taste of that influence during the 80's when I applied for a job, and was immediately grilled about my personal life. It was obvious I was not going to get the job and why. But even if I did get the job, I could see what lay in store for me working for those people. The problem with the interview began when it came out that I was a married man who had three children... when that little secret(?) came out I could see a definite shift in attitude in the woman who was doing the interview. After a few more minutes of listening to insulting questions and comments I decided not to sit through any more of it, and excused myself from the meeting. It was funny in a way, because when I got up to leave her attitude shifted to one of surprise, and she told me the interview was not over yet. So I said "It is for me. You can continue with the next guy who walks in, but as far as I'm concerned we are done here."

By the way, the feminist movement took a big hit, one I believe they've never recovered from, when after Reagan they stood by and supported the next (Democrat) president. And they were suspiciously quiet over his adulteries and misogynist behavior... I don't need to comment on that. It speaks for itself.

The Col: It's interesting when you learn things after the fact. But so called liberals in the US need to learn from Jon Stewart...

.. In the recent mock debate between him and Bill, he did bring up the matter of contraception... and that Viagra is coverable. N' many have commentated that democrats need to rediscover their cojones.

(V): I think the liberal Americans are probably smart enough not to bother cuz I have had a number of pm's from some who have never posted here