 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA) now?
Yes, it's a dumb question, but the Bush hatred was so prevalent that if
there were any other reasons to hate the US, they were overshadowed if not
completely forgotten.
Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime. Nixon screwed up,
was paranoid, etc. Carter just didn't seem to know what to do. But Bush
seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why
to anyone, least of all the American people. World opinion could have been
swayed to some extent if he had given it a reasonable attempt, but he never
did. In the end, I'm left to believe that he really didn't care what anyone
else thought. If he was ever "right" about any of his major decisions, it
will be up to historians several decades from now.
Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon. Dates will lapse. New
reasons for staying will be given. Left-wing activists will begin to
realize that, "OMG! He's a politician!" The economy isn't going to pick up
any time soon. Lucky for him, at least, it has probably bottomed out now.
But in the meantime, he gets the benefit of being a very new fresh face that
appears to be 180 degrees from Bush.
I'm quite interested to see how things will pan out over the next few years.
New doors will open, but tough decisions will need to be made, and they may
not always be popular with the American people or the rest of the world.
But, in my opinion, he's a good enough speaker to make his decisions become
popular.
I wish him well. :-)
(Just my $0.02USD. I realize this is an international forum, and that's why
I posted it here. I hope to hear several viewpoints.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftware cmo> wrote in message
news:4976090d$1@news.povray.org...
I was going to post a subject: "Who will run the US, Barak or Hillary?"
I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.
I hope I'm wrong, and it works.
Good luck to Barak though, let's see a much better world, it's about
time.
(Btw, to me, Bush was all about money because of his own (apparent)
failings in his early oil businesses).
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.
You might have been able to make the same comment even if you were 250 years
old. I think he may very well be the worst *ever*.
--
H²
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm optimistic. He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new
vibe around him. I hope he knows where his towel is. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49761c06@news.povray.org...
> I'm optimistic. He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new vibe
> around him. I hope he knows where his towel is. :)
Hopefully, this isn't all just a ploy on his part to steal the infinate
improbability drive. ;-)
--
H²
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49761c06@news.povray.org...
> I'm optimistic. He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new vibe
> around him.
well said .... ditto
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert escreveu:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:49761c06@news.povray.org...
>> I'm optimistic. He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new vibe
>> around him. I hope he knows where his towel is. :)
>
> Hopefully, this isn't all just a ploy on his part to steal the infinate
> improbability drive. ;-)
haha, good catch! ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> I was going to post a subject: "Who will run the US, Barak or Hillary?"
>
> I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.
Too early to say, but I expect that Hillary has plans for the White
House in 2016. She'll do whatever it takes to make Obama's
administration look good - otherwise it'll hurt her chances. Likely, I
think that means doing whatever Obama tells her to.
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I'm optimistic. He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new
> vibe around him. I hope he knows where his towel is. :)
You're not suggesting that he's an alien, and the Earth is about to be
destroyed by Vogons, and he plans to just abandon us, do you?
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> was paranoid, etc. Carter just didn't seem to know what to do. But Bush
> seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why
> to anyone, least of all the American people. World opinion could have been
Sure he did. Very frequently. They were all dumbed down and very
unconvincing to intelligent people, but for quite a while they succeeded
in convincing many. They didn't re-elect him for no reason, you know.
Besides, who listens to the president any more? Pundits break it down
and are the ones to go to. How many people do you know who are more
likely to watch the president give a press conference than they are to
listen to a summary with commentary on some TV station?
> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon. Dates will lapse. New
> reasons for staying will be given. Left-wing activists will begin to
> realize that, "OMG! He's a politician!" The economy isn't going to pick up
> any time soon. Lucky for him, at least, it has probably bottomed out now.
> But in the meantime, he gets the benefit of being a very new fresh face that
> appears to be 180 degrees from Bush.
I dunno. Never could get a good grip on the economy, but I strongly
suspect that it has a long way to go before it bottoms out. And that may
finally be the reason to leave Iraq. Things are pretty scary. Krugman
claimed that the job loss rate is now at half a million per month (I
didn't bother verifying). If it continues, 2009 will be far worse than
2008. Of course, if you actually listen to Krugman, his predictions are
far more dire. I hope he didn't earn that Nobel Prize.<G>
But yes, I think that they're so happy Bush is gone that he'll have
some leeway for at least a year or so to do whatever he wants.
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I'm optimistic. He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new
>> vibe around him. I hope he knows where his towel is. :)
>
> You're not suggesting that he's an alien, and the Earth is about to be
> destroyed by Vogons, and he plans to just abandon us, do you?
I liken that expression to mean he knows what he's doing. But being
prepared for the worst can't be bad, anyway... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime. Nixon screwed up,
> was paranoid, etc. Carter just didn't seem to know what to do. But Bush
> seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why
> to anyone, least of all the American people.
If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
Sounds to me like at least half of the voters didn't agree with you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:497637ca@news.povray.org...
> If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
>
> Sounds to me like at least half of the voters didn't agree with you.
I voted for him. Twice. The first time, I thought he was a better choice.
The second time, I felt that we had a choice between two idiots. I voted
for the one we already knew (the known quantity). Yes, I use the term
"idiot" loosely. But certainly, John Kerry was about as good of a candidate
as Michael Dukakis. Obama, on the other hand, was the ideal candidate. The
only problem there is that no one really knows anything about him. In
politics, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but once the election's over,
it leaves some of us quite uncomfortable.
I supported Bush for at least 3 years. By the second election, I had strong
doubts, but believing that Republicans were more in-touch with my beliefs, I
went and voted for him again. Republicans later proved that no one in
government shares my beliefs, save a small few, like Ron Paul. They seemed
to think that they could pass some worthless legislation to impress the
Religious Right, instead of passing legislation that really speaks to the
core values of those of us who are more Libertarian than Republican (limited
government/taxation, and basically a "just stay out of my way" attitude).
The Republicans, largely under Bush's guidance, completely lost touch with
that segment of the American Public, and it was largely those people that
voted them into office in 1994. So, we made sure to vote them out in 2006.
At this point in my life, I no longer feel a strong party affiliation. I
find myself agreeing with Barney Frank (a far left gay congressman from
Massachusettes), than I do with just about any of the Republicans currently
in office.
I consider myself a religious person to some extent, and I've certainly made
posts here which coincide with that. But the "Religious Right" has
completely ruined the Republican party that I used to believe in.
Certainly, some issues (abortion) can have moral overtones, but it's almost
as if the entire party chose that single issue, and any time they needed
votes, they just beat the religious drums. That sickens me. Religion
should have no place in politics. In fact, I wrote to my Congressman
concerning legislation that was passed in 2006 which attemped to (and
partially succeeded) ban Internet poker. As someone who plays frequently,
and enjoys the game, I wrote a well-thought out letter. His response said
things like Internet poker funnels money to terrorists, causes gambling
addiction, and more to the point, was already illegal. (Yet no one was ever
convicted. Why is that?) The terrorist argument infuriated me. That's
like claiming that drinking beer supports Al Qaeda. The other arguments had
some merit, but gee, smoking and drinking and a whole host of other
activities are also bad for a few.
Poor John McCain got associated with Bush, and yet he was the one Republican
to actually stand up against the President and the rest of his party when he
felt it was necessary. No, he wasn't 180 degrees different, but perhaps 30.
LOL.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-Jan-09 18:25, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA) now?
Not immediately. In most allied countries (like mine) the great majority
is happy and anticipating a less short term selfish style of US
government. But we didn't hate the US to begin with.
The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they
would not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack. My estimate is
that Obama would not have approved of this attempt to increase the
violence in the region for the years to come. OTOH they could use the
change of power in the US as a sign that things are changing.
In Palestine you may partly expect more positive voices, but in the
great majority of arab countries I expect a more cautious reaction. They
first will want to see if he is really different. If the number of
suicide attacks increases over the next few months it'll look good.*
What the asian countries think about him I wouldn't know. The people
will be just as happy as everybody else, but what do the governments of
Japan or China think?
Putin will not be happy, because it will complicated his strategies to
stay in power.
Obama (or actually we) is lucky to be elected during this crisis,
because it will greatly hamper the irresponsible among the rich to
frustrate the government.
I particularly like the fact that he said that there is no mismatch
between moral and safety (or some like that). Before GW Bush the world
seemed to be heading towards a view that universal human right should
take precedence over the interest of the happy few. Both within
countries and among countries. With Bush that changed. American interest
seemed to be the only thing he was thinking about. With American
interest defined by the people and companies with money and an attention
span of less than a presidential term. With Obama everybody hopes that
there will be someone in the whitehouse again that understands that
short term gain may have to be paid back several times over later.
*) Because that would mean that some 'religious' leaders see their
influence diminishing and will want to correct that by introducing some
instability
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> I voted for him. Twice. The first time, I thought he was a better choice.
> The second time, I felt that we had a choice between two idiots. I voted
> for the one we already knew (the known quantity). Yes, I use the term
> "idiot" loosely. But certainly, John Kerry was about as good of a candidate
> as Michael Dukakis. Obama, on the other hand, was the ideal candidate. The
> only problem there is that no one really knows anything about him. In
> politics, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but once the election's over,
> it leaves some of us quite uncomfortable.
> I supported Bush for at least 3 years. By the second election, I had strong
> doubts, but believing that Republicans were more in-touch with my beliefs, I
> went and voted for him again. Republicans later proved that no one in
> government shares my beliefs, save a small few, like Ron Paul. They seemed
> to think that they could pass some worthless legislation to impress the
> Religious Right, instead of passing legislation that really speaks to the
> core values of those of us who are more Libertarian than Republican (limited
> government/taxation, and basically a "just stay out of my way" attitude).
> The Republicans, largely under Bush's guidance, completely lost touch with
> that segment of the American Public, and it was largely those people that
> voted them into office in 1994. So, we made sure to vote them out in 2006.
> At this point in my life, I no longer feel a strong party affiliation. I
> find myself agreeing with Barney Frank (a far left gay congressman from
> Massachusettes), than I do with just about any of the Republicans currently
> in office.
> I consider myself a religious person to some extent, and I've certainly made
> posts here which coincide with that. But the "Religious Right" has
> completely ruined the Republican party that I used to believe in.
> Certainly, some issues (abortion) can have moral overtones, but it's almost
> as if the entire party chose that single issue, and any time they needed
> votes, they just beat the religious drums. That sickens me. Religion
> should have no place in politics. In fact, I wrote to my Congressman
> concerning legislation that was passed in 2006 which attemped to (and
> partially succeeded) ban Internet poker. As someone who plays frequently,
> and enjoys the game, I wrote a well-thought out letter. His response said
> things like Internet poker funnels money to terrorists, causes gambling
> addiction, and more to the point, was already illegal. (Yet no one was ever
> convicted. Why is that?) The terrorist argument infuriated me. That's
> like claiming that drinking beer supports Al Qaeda. The other arguments had
> some merit, but gee, smoking and drinking and a whole host of other
> activities are also bad for a few.
> Poor John McCain got associated with Bush, and yet he was the one Republican
> to actually stand up against the President and the rest of his party when he
> felt it was necessary. No, he wasn't 180 degrees different, but perhaps 30.
> LOL.
I must admit this is the best argumented post I have read in a long
time about politics. I can't object to anything (especially because I'm
not American).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
> I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.
One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be
traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are
unwelcome. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
> If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
Both times Bush was elected it was controversial. I'm still angry with
Gore for not fighting harder for the Florida recount the first time
around.
But as for why he was elected either time: Karl Rove. He's a bastard,
but a smart bastard, and he knows how to say what people want to hear.
> Sounds to me like at least half of the voters didn't agree with you.
The presidential election isn't a popular vote, it's a representative
vote. That means you can lose the popular vote and still win.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
> The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they would
> not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did when
they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was going
to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
Isreal continue?
Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his sleeve
in some way).
~Steve~ (Who hates politics).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA)
> now?
Right now I hate it because I'm already tired of EVERYONE IN THE PLANET
TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DAMN THING. If my country's presidential house was
on fire, it would be in the news tomorrow, because today everyone is too
busy with Obama.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
>
> Both times Bush was elected it was controversial. I'm still angry with
That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>
> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46% for
McCain.
From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and
I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound
like that. I'm going to wait to see how he tackles environmental issues,
although judging by the size of his car he's not setting a very good example
:-) (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but still...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>
> > The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they would
> > not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
>
> Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did when
> they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was going
> to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
> Isreal continue?
>
> Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
> said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his sleeve
> in some way).
>
I'm quite cynical when it comes to US/Israel relations, and I live in the US. My
own feeling is that Israel had this invasion planned in detail for some time,
had tacit US approval, and was simply waiting for a 'window of
opportunity'--either through their own machinations of 'forcing the issue'
through their military behavior, i.e., 'tweaking' the Palestinians one too many
times in hopes of a response--or by using some transgression/aggression by the
Palestinians as an excuse. In any case, a foregone conclusion. The timing of
their invasion, its ferocity, and the pullout on the very eve of the change in
US administrations, all point to this, in an oh-so-obvious way. And the latest
Gaza destruction could never have happened without US consent (or at the very
least, its lack of a restraining voice.) My only surprise, a real one, is that
the US media has not put forward or discussed this scenario in any meaningful
way. Perhaps over here it is just too much of a hot-button topic. I can only
HOPE that Obama and his team will take a different tack in dealing with the
Middle East. It can only be better than what's come before.
I'm definitely glad to see Bush go. It's a solemn but happy day: A dark veil has
been lifted off of my country.
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:web.4976ff4bfd4289c3f50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>>
>> > The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they
>> > would
>> > not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
>>
>> Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did
>> when
>> they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was
>> going
>> to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
>> Isreal continue?
>>
>> Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
>> said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his
>> sleeve
>> in some way).
>>
>
> I'm quite cynical when it comes to US/Israel relations, and I live in the
> US. My
> own feeling is that Israel had this invasion planned in detail for some
> time,
> had tacit US approval, and was simply waiting for a 'window of
> opportunity'--either through their own machinations of 'forcing the issue'
> through their military behavior, i.e., 'tweaking' the Palestinians one too
> many
> times in hopes of a response--or by using some transgression/aggression by
> the
> Palestinians as an excuse. In any case, a foregone conclusion. The timing
> of
> their invasion, its ferocity, and the pullout on the very eve of the
> change in
> US administrations, all point to this, in an oh-so-obvious way. And the
> latest
> Gaza destruction could never have happened without US consent (or at the
> very
> least, its lack of a restraining voice.) My only surprise, a real one, is
> that
> the US media has not put forward or discussed this scenario in any
> meaningful
> way. Perhaps over here it is just too much of a hot-button topic. I can
> only
> HOPE that Obama and his team will take a different tack in dealing with
> the
> Middle East. It can only be better than what's come before.
>
> I'm definitely glad to see Bush go. It's a solemn but happy day: A dark
> veil has
> been lifted off of my country.
I can only imagine. It wouldn't surprise me if this Israeli action was
sanctioned by 'someone'.
~Steve~
>
> Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>> I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
>> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.
>
> One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be
> traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are
> unwelcome. :-)
>
> Jim
Obama is smarter than we think. The perfect plan!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:25:32 -0000, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> did spake thusly:
> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA)
> now?
Barack - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us
Barack - a-ah - he's a miracle
Barack - a-ah - king of the impossible
:-P
> Yes, it's a dumb question, but the Bush hatred was so prevalent that if
> there were any other reasons to hate the US, they were overshadowed if
> not completely forgotten.
>
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.
May have been?
> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon. Dates will lapse.
> New reasons for staying will be given. Left-wing activists will begin to
> realize that, "OMG! He's a politician!"
No, left-wing activists will be "OMG leave him alone look at what he's
inherited" meh as an excuse it's worked well for our government here in
the UK for the last ten years. Heh bet that'll be the first bit of
'advice' Brown tries to give him.
> The economy isn't going to pick up any time soon.
But that'll be Bush's fault - boo, hiss!
> (Just my $0.02USD. I realize this is an international forum, and that's
> why I posted it here. I hope to hear several viewpoints.)
As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young
(comparatively) and seems to recognise that other countries actually exist
will certainly help even if he does produce insular reforms.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-Jan-09 9:06, scott wrote:
>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
>
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.
>
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions,
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician
> would sound like that. I'm going to wait to see how he tackles
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not
> setting a very good example :-) (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but
> still...)
>
>
armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime. Nixon screwed up,
> was paranoid, etc. Carter just didn't seem to know what to do. But Bush
> seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why
> to anyone, least of all the American people. World opinion could have been
> swayed to some extent if he had given it a reasonable attempt, but he never
> did.
Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently
alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of
time. Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic
habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything
he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of action.
> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon. Dates will lapse. New
> reasons for staying will be given. Left-wing activists will begin to
> realize that, "OMG! He's a politician!" The economy isn't going to pick up
> any time soon. Lucky for him, at least, it has probably bottomed out now.
> But in the meantime, he gets the benefit of being a very new fresh face that
> appears to be 180 degrees from Bush.
I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:40:41 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
>>
>>> I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will
>>> see
>>> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too'
>>> much.
>>
>> One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be
>> traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are
>> unwelcome. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Obama is smarter than we think. The perfect plan!
Well, here, we think he's pretty smart. :-)
Of course, the proof will be over the next 4 years, but we're pretty
hopeful.
I'm so glad my hangover^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hheadache is gone now. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:47:23 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>> If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
>>
>> Both times Bush was elected it was controversial. I'm still angry with
>
> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>
> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
...or voted against the other guy. In US elections, many people aren't
voting for someone so much as voting against the other candidate likely
to win.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:06:40 +0100, scott wrote:
>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
>
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.
>
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions,
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician
> would sound like that. I'm going to wait to see how he tackles
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not
> setting a very good example :-) (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but
> still...)
The President doesn't get a choice on things like that - the Secret
Service takes care of things like transportation details because it
becomes a safety issue.
That said, I read something recently about them retiring the existing
fleet of 747s that are "Air Force One" and that the USAF is looking to
contract for some new planes for that purpose. They actually are
considering Airbus.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle escreveu:
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
>
>> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime. Nixon screwed
>> up,
>> was paranoid, etc. Carter just didn't seem to know what to do. But
>> Bush seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to
>> explain why to anyone, least of all the American people. World
>> opinion could have been swayed to some extent if he had given it a
>> reasonable attempt, but he never did.
>
> Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently
> alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of
> time. Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic
> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
> Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything
> he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of action.
are you from Texas? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.
Yes, but your point is...?
I was merely pointing out that the notion that not that many were
supporting Bush because the elections may have been rigged is pretty
weak ground to stand on.
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
> to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young
For a year or so. People here are notoriously amnesiac when it comes to
political issues.
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
> to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young
For a year or so. People here are notoriously amnesiac when it comes to
political issues.
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:57:51 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>> for McCain.
>
> Yes, but your point is...?
>
> I was merely pointing out that the notion that not that many were
> supporting Bush because the elections may have been rigged is pretty
> weak ground to stand on.
It's a starting point. Then you have the bad decisions, bad presentation
to the world as a leader, and so on and so forth.
The fact that he had the lowest approval rating of nearly any President
since that's been tracked speaks volumes to his effectiveness as a leader
as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions,
>> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would
>> sound like that. I'm going to wait to see how he tackles environmental
>> issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not setting a very
>> good example :-) (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but still...)
>>
>>
> armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.
No, but it provides a reasonable explanation of why it has to be so big and
heavy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>> for McCain.
>
> Yes, but your point is...?
It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even though
the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one side.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.
I'm some how reminded of this:
http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=203
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and
> I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound
> like that.
"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2009 05:37:49 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and
>> I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound
>> like that.
>
> "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
His lips move.
Boom, boom!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:40:14 -0500, John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>
>Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently
>alive was born,
I think that you're wrong about that, John. After WWII most of the world loved
America.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:00:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:
>>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>>> for McCain.
>>
>> Yes, but your point is...?
>
> It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even
> though the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one
> side.
It can be if you only look at the votes that count and that'd be the
Electoral ones - 52.9% vs. 45.7% equaled 365 against 173 thus Obama
received over twice as many 'votes' as McCain - a landslide ;-)
Just for fun (if that's the right word) I've got a spreadsheet that sets
out the electorial votes by proportion rather than as a block going back
to 1980 so
Year (Candidates) - Actual Result - Proportional Result
1980 (Reagan, Carter, Anderson) - 489, 49 - 276, 223, 37
1984 (Reagan, Mondale) - 525, 13 - 320, 217, (1 Other)
1988 (Bush, Dukakis) - 426, 11 - 289, 247, (1 Other)
1992 (Cinton, Bush, Perot) - 370, 168 - 236, 197, 105
1996 (Clinton, Dole, Perot) - 379, 159 - 266, 223, 47, (2 Other)
2000 (Bush, Gore, Nader) - 271, 266 - 262, 261, 13, (1 Other)
2004 (Bush, Kerry) - 274, 264 - 278, 259, (1 Other)
2008 (Obama, McCain) - 365, 173 - 289, 248
To put it concisely the candidates who won would still have won just with
a much smaller majority, except in the case of 2004 where Bush would have
won by more!
For those interested Bush's gains would have been in California and New
York; instead of a combined 86 votes for Kerry he would only have got 48
with the remaining 37 going to Bush more than compensating any small
losses from Republican States.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:40:14 -0000, John VanSickle
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake thusly:
> Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently
> alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of
> time.
In one's own humble opinion the UK viewpoint is this:
Reagan - To busy worrying about Thatcher, IRA, and not being run-over by
loud men in red braces coked out of their heads (or to be busy being a
load man in red braces trying to find more coke)
Bush Snr - Who? Oh yeah Desert Storm; who was he again?
Clinton - "Love is in the Air"
Bush Jr. "Imperial March"
> Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic habit
> of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been
something in it for America? Not a negative mind, that's what they're
elected for. The only difference between Clinton and Bush was that Clinton
made a pretence of caring and asking.
> Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything
> he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of
> action.
Did the press need to distort anything he said, heck the White House's own
transcripts could barely make sense of the man.
> I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.
Oh yes on that we can agree, though admittedly he's already made a start
with the scheduled closure of Gitmo.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> It can be if you only look at the votes that count
I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the first
election where more than half the eligible general population actually cast
a vote for the winner. So that's something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
subject: re: president obama
to:
cc:
bcc:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=# don't remove this line #=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jeremy "unclehoot" praay wrote:
> does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the
> usa) now?
>
> yes, it's a dumb question, but the bush hatred was so prevalent
> that if there were any other reasons to hate the us, they were
> overshadowed if not completely forgotten.
>
> bush may have been the worst president in my lifetime.
When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were
considered "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that
one and fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of
attraction, I very much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would
make it as a sex symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.
My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe,
changed something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us
saturated with what they want us to accept or believe.
I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't
the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do
catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)
And the message from our government is an easy sell:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear American voter:
You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but
everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending
retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is
making it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear,
voter. We'll take money from people who make more than you AND people
who haven't been born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above
your means.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted
for. Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at
all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited
until they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college
and find that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it
would have been without the emergency loan.
Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED
a bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows.
Always a new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of
it. That explains the mania. That explains why we believe other
countries MUST love our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry
peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./
Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as
receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-Jan-09 8:55, scott wrote:
>>> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good
>>> intentions, and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every
>>> politician would sound like that. I'm going to wait to see how he
>>> tackles environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car
>>> he's not setting a very good example :-) (yes I know it's armour
>>> plated etc, but still...)
>>>
>>>
>> armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.
>
> No, but it provides a reasonable explanation of why it has to be so big
> and heavy.
>
Ah, ok, perhaps I misinterpreted your statement ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:4978c26b@news.povray.org...
>
> When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were considered
> "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that one and
> fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of attraction, I very
> much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would make it as a sex
> symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.
>
> My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe, changed
> something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us saturated
> with what they want us to accept or believe.
>
> I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't
> the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do
> catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)
It's a valid point, and I honestly can't say to what extent I have been
influenced. I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few
occasions, I remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting
the trap. In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks like he
doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys! He's just setting
things up for the big showdown! After thinking that 3 or 4 times, and then
realizing that there was not going to be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some
faith in him and his abilities.
Iraq and the failure to find any true WMD's (they did find some old useless
chemical weapons) didn't help, even though pretty much the entire world
thought Saddam had WMD's. Saddam deserved what he got. But are we better
off? Not at the moment. Will we be in the futre? I don't think we will
have any idea for decades. At the moment, it certainly appears to be a
failure and a waste of human life. I hope that view changes some day, but
that's probably unlikely in the next 20 years. Having discussed the issue
with some Vietnam veterans, they generally seem to think we've made the same
mistake twice. The real difference is that those fighting in Iraq are not
doing it with the hope of having a better future, but that's a whole-nuther
issue...
The "tough on terror" seemed to become an excuse for practically anything
Congress/Bush wanted to do, which really made me sick. Killing the bad guys
is fine, but each time Americans lose more rights/freedom, it's almost
impossible to get those things back. I, for one, would rather have a plane
blow up each year than to have everyone subjected to the type of airport
security that we now have. But I also feel that way about pseudoephedrine
and meth labs. You have to practically file a police report to get access
to the Claritin-D now, and the government actually keeps that info, unlike a
normal prescription, where they are generally prohibited by law from
accessing such information. That should scare the crap out of people. But
it doesn't.
>
> And the message from our government is an easy sell:
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Dear American voter:
> You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but
> everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending
> retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is making
> it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear, voter. We'll
> take money from people who make more than you AND people who haven't been
> born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above your means.
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted
> for. Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at
> all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited until
> they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college and find
> that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it would have
> been without the emergency loan.
>
> Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED a
> bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows. Always a
> new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of it. That
> explains the mania. That explains why we believe other countries MUST love
> our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry
> peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./
Obama is a Socialist. He may even be a Marxist. Is that bad? Well,
Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad, but I don't
personally blame Karl Marx. Certainly there are a lot of friendly Socialist
countries. I hope we don't become one, and I hope that the moderate
Democrats will take a stand against anything too far left. But, under Bush,
we've already begun racing down the road of Socialism, starting with
prescription drug coverage, and ending with what historians may view as the
moment when the US finally embraced Socialism: The Great Bank Bailout of
2008. Now we're bailing out the auto industry, too. When will it stop? It
won't. Every time any failing enterprise is in trouble, and it's large
enough, this same thing will happen. Perhaps the real failure was allowing
them to become so large that states like Michigan will simply not survive if
GM folds. (Actually, I don't believe that. With a hole that big, something
would fill it in, but yeah, it would really suck for awhile). Republicans
and Democrats both love the auto-industry. The Union vote is HUGE for the
Democrats. The money coming from the auto-industry (execs, esp) is HUGE for
the Republicans.
> Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as
> receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.
After the election, I remember CNN showing a young woman visbily crying (for
joy, presumably) in the streets of Paris. That made a big impression on me,
and it really made me wonder just how far things have gotten out of hand.
Bush was not Hitler for crying out loud (no pun intended). The gap between
Bush and Clinton, and even Obama, isn't nearly as wide as has been
portrayed. If Bush was Hitler, then Clinton would be Stalin. If Obama is
Jesus Christ, then Bush must have been John the Baptist. Instead, Obama is
Jesus, and Bush is Satan. Again, I could care less who hates Bush and who
doesn't, but I would hope that everyone would stay somewhat grounded in
reality. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is a lot smaller
than the gap between Democrats and, say, Britain's Conservative Party (and
that doesn't even mention French politics). But each has a couple
diametrically opposed issues that they like to talk/fight about. Hey, at
least they're not blowing each other up over it.
Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I hope Obama has a good Presidency. I think our
country needs that. But I don't think we need to travel farther down the
road to Socialism for that to happen. He can be kept in check and balanced
by other reasonable people in Congress, if we still have any of those, and
there are a lot of things that "middle-of-the-road" issues that members in
both Houses can support. If he sticks to that, he can't fail. That's
largely what Clinton did.
Wow, that's a lot off my chest! :-) I need to think about something else
now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4978b02c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the first
> election where more than half the eligible general population actually
> cast a vote for the winner. So that's something.
>
Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly
low. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
When George Bush (not W) was elected, he won a majority of the popular vote
(meaning more than 50%). I don't think that happened again until Obama's
election, as very close elections and 3rd party candidates got in the way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few occasions, I
> remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting the
> trap. In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks
> like he doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys!
> He's just setting things up for the big showdown! After thinking
> that 3 or 4 times, and then realizing that there was not going to
> be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some faith in him and his
> abilities.
Don't know. Obama's position shifts immediately after getting elected
lead me to believe that there is a lot more that we don't know than I
ever realized/accepted.
> Obama is a Socialist. He may even be a Marxist. Is that bad?
> Well, Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad,
> but I don't personally blame Karl Marx. Certainly there are a lot
> of friendly Socialist countries.
We've improved upon Marxism: From each who can't grant power [felons,
babies, political minorities] according to ability; To each who can
grant power [rich, political majorities] without restriction.
The Socialism isn't as bad as the unrestrained Democracy - the tyrany of
the Majority. We all want to take (by force) from "someone else." Our
vote is an act of force, and when that force is used to take from
someone, no matter how just we may feel that taking to be, we have done
no different than if we had beaten him with a stick and robbed him. Too
few realize that everyone gets a chance to hold the stick and everyone
takes his turn getting beaten. Wealth centralizes around a tiny, tiny
group while the rest of us sit around bloody, toothless, and stupefied
waiting for our turn to wield the rod.
That's exactly the tendency our Constitution is meant to protect us
from. But it has been lost. "Moderates" couldn't protect us even if they
wanted to. The majority WILL make themselves miserable and desperate,
and desperate people WILL act unconscionably and stupidly (lottery
ticket, anyone?) to cure themselves.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
Also, women in France cry when the American Idol winner is announced. I
wouldn't make too much of that.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
