Carter says Gore won 2000 election

[gldstwmn]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter delivered a shocker at an American University panel in Washington Monday: RAW STORY has learned he told the crowd he was certain Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."

RAW STORY reviewed a video clip of the event late Wednesday. The comment came in response to a question from a student who asked Carter how he felt the last two elections were handled.

In the question and answer session of his talk intended to discuss the Baker-Carter commission report on election reform, he also savaged President Bush's handling of FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Carter founded FEMA in 1979.

When I founded FEMA "we put it together with three specific commitments," Carter remarked. "One, that it would be led [by] highly trained professionals in dealing with disasters. Secondly, that it would be completely independent and not under another agency that would submerge it. And third, that it would be adequately funded."

The former president said the key reason for creating the agency was to respond to governors who asked for a consolidation of the 16 bureaucracies previously responsible for emergency relief efforts. Carter said he hoped that the changes he ordered would have remained permanent, allowing for a more effective response to a hurricane now claiming upwards of 1000 lives.

Carter agreed with Bush on one point: "I think that now is the best time not to look back on blaming about Katrina, but to try to correct the defects that have evolved in recent years and make sure it is not repeated."

RAW STORY hopes to get permission to post the video, or at least audio, today or tomorrow.

[DavidMn]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter delivered a shocker at an American University panel in Washington Monday: RAW STORY has learned he told the crowd he was certain Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."

RAW STORY reviewed a video clip of the event late Wednesday. The comment came in response to a question from a student who asked Carter how he felt the last two elections were handled.

In the question and answer session of his talk intended to discuss the Baker-Carter commission report on election reform, he also savaged President Bush's handling of FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Carter founded FEMA in 1979.

When I founded FEMA "we put it together with three specific commitments," Carter remarked. "One, that it would be led [by] highly trained professionals in dealing with disasters. Secondly, that it would be completely independent and not under another agency that would submerge it. And third, that it would be adequately funded."

The former president said the key reason for creating the agency was to respond to governors who asked for a consolidation of the 16 bureaucracies previously responsible for emergency relief efforts. Carter said he hoped that the changes he ordered would have remained permanent, allowing for a more effective response to a hurricane now claiming upwards of 1000 lives.

Carter agreed with Bush on one point: "I think that now is the best time not to look back on blaming about Katrina, but to try to correct the defects that have evolved in recent years and make sure it is not repeated."

RAW STORY hopes to get permission to post the video, or at least audio, today or tomorrow.
Ok, I'm not right wing guy by any means, and I would say the same thing if a Democrat had won in the fashion Bush did, It's time to get over it. :nod:

[ryan8472]

Not much we can do about that now (the election that is)...

[strandinthewind]

Ok, I'm not right wing guy by any means, and I would say the same thing if a Democrat had won in the fashion Bush did, It's time to get over it. :nod:


Well, with all due respect, it was a crime what the R machine did in Florida and they managed to do it again in 2004. So, should everyone just collectively say "oh well, they stole from us twice - but its okay" - that is BS. I mean if someone robbed you house twice and through your own work years later you caught them, would you be so forgiving :shrug: I think you probably would not - I certainly would not be.

[DavidMn]

Well, with all due respect, it was a crime what the R machine did in Florida and they managed to do it again in 2004. So, should everyone just collectively say "oh well, they stole from us twice - but its okay" - that is BS. I mean if someone robbed you house twice and through your own work years later you caught them, would you be so forgiving :shrug: I think you probably would not - I certainly would not be.
Well, you're right on that. I guess I was trying to say that I know what happened, and I've heard about it 1000 times. But that doesnt make it right.

[strandinthewind]

Well, you're right on that. I guess I was trying to say that I know what happened, and I've heard about it 1000 times. But that doesnt make it right.

I know - and ya know I wan't be snappy with ya :angel: :wavey:

[DavidMn]

I know - and ya know I wan't be snappy with ya :angel: :wavey:
Oh, no offense taken. As they say in Australia, NO WORRIES MATE :wavey:

[estranged4life]

(In a William "Suckass" Shatner voice)- We...are...trying...to...find...a....wormhole...to...go...back...to..2000...and...alter...the...past ...5...years....Spock!!!

Man, Time to get over it, Been 5 (Lousy as f**kin hell) years and most of us Americans had to deal with Bush and his final solution, Time for Peanut-Boy (Does he have the most surreal looking teeth this side of John Elway/Julia Roberts & Mr.Ed or what???) and the Democrats to accept this and get the hell on with their lives.

[gldstwmn]

I'll never get over it. I will fight these bastards with everything I have.
Of course those of you who want to "baaah" your way to the gas pumps and pay $5 a gallon and watch from the sidelines while the country goes down the ****ter are certainly free to do so.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

This just in: It's Al Gore in '08


<a href="http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/22/125909.shtml">Al Gore is poised to make a comeback</a> and could pose a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential race.

"That’s the surprising news from "Inside Washington” columnist Deborah Orin of the New York Post, who writes that the former vice president "is suddenly re-emerging as a vocal and visible Bush-basher.”

He's back!

Poor Al wants to be president SO bad!

Well, what else do you do to follow up inventing the internet?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

<img src="http://www.meaus.com/2004-al-gore.JPEG">

AND THEN I'M GOING TO OHIO, AND THEN I'M GOING TO PENNSYLVANIA, AND THEN I'M GOING TO WASHINGTON D.C.!
YEAH! YEEEEAAAAAAAAH!

[strandinthewind]

. . . Poor Al wants to be president SO bad . . . .

Well, by pretty much all recounts he won Florida. Did you know that or didn't that sow mention it when she was telling the "truth" :rolleyes:

Before you fire back with a witless response, please do a little research :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, by pretty much all recounts he won Florida. Did you know that or didn't that sow mention it when she was telling the "truth" :rolleyes:

Before you fire back with a witless response, please do a little research :wavey:

There are no "facts" to indicate that Mr. Gore won Florida, it just didn't happen. I mean really, let's move on...it's time to get ready for 2008 and another defeat for the dem. party!

[strandinthewind]

There are no "facts" to indicate that Mr. Gore won Florida, it just didn't happen. I mean really, let's move on...it's time to get ready for 2008 and another defeat for the dem. party!

Again, do some research - I mean do you purposefully fight intelligence or intelligent responses because you come across as an idiot who posts only to piss people off, which you allegedly swore off when you made your triumphant return :rolleyes:

[dissention]

This just in: It's Al Gore in '08




He's back!

Poor Al wants to be president SO bad!

Well, what else do you do to follow up inventing the internet?

:laugh:

Hehe, a link to Newsmax. A right-wing site with established ties to the KKK.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh:

Hehe, a link to Newsmax. A right-wing site with established ties to the KKK.

What did you expect from our lost and uninformed one.

Hmmmm - four more years of massive deficits, letting terrorists attack our country despite being repeatedly warned, and ruining the environement - sounds like Nirvana to Halliburton :laugh:

[dissention]

What did you expect from our lost and uninformed one.

Hmmmm - four more years of massive deficits, letting terrorists attack our country despite being repeatedly warned, and ruining the environement - sounds like Nirvana to Halliburton :laugh:

He's just got sour grapes because he's turning into a member of the minority party. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

He's just got sour grapes because he's turning into a member of the minority party. :laugh:

Well, he hasd said W is not a pr*ck - oops I mean "conservative" enough for him and the sow.

[estranged4life]

in 2008? Forgettaboutit...To quote George Carlin; "Rather stay home that election day and jerkoff, At least at the end of the day I will have something to show for it."

If the Dems want my vote put Edwards on the ticket as the Presidential candidate, Or otherwise my vote will not be cast whatsoever....sure as hell wont be for the Repubs.

[dissention]

If the Dems want my vote put Edwards on the ticket as the Presidential candidate, Or otherwise my vote will not be cast whatsoever....sure as hell wont be for the Repubs.

I've a feeling that Edwards will run, so get ready to put some pants on and venture out to the polls. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I've a feeling that Edwards will run, so get ready to put some pants on and venture out to the polls. :laugh:

Brian J. -- I think if Edwards runs, you should call the local drag queens, tell them to dress like Lita Ford and go vote with them - if for nothing else than for Debs to get a well deserved laugh my friend :D

[estranged4life]

There are no "facts" to indicate that Mr. Gore won Florida, it just didn't happen. I mean really, let's move on...it's time to get ready for 2008 and another defeat for the dem. party!

book about the 2000 election:

"36 Days-The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis" written by Correspondents of the New York Times (With introduction by David Brinkley) from Time Books/Henry Holt and Company (New York) 380 pages.

Pretty much states clearly who won (The guy who really won that election I did not vote for...And it wasnt Bush.)

[estranged4life]

Brian J. -- I think if Edwards runs, you should call the local drag queens, tell them to dress like Lita Ford and go vote with them - if for nothing else than for Debs to get a well deserved laugh my friend :D

surely ya jest? Besides, I would rather go dressed as Stevie, Lita Ford looks rather awful these days :D

Brian "Hey, My Mom used to dress my Dad in drag for contests...And they won, Go figure :shrug: " j.

[SteveMacD]

I have to say that the Dems should just accept the loss (and, I voted for Gore and Kerry, FWIW). Instead of pissing and moaning about a few thousand votes that may or may not have been counted and all the legal ramblings, the Dems need to focus on getting the millions of voters who stay home on election day out to the voting booths. We know the GOP isn't going to play clean. It's time to change the strategy.

[strandinthewind]

surely ya jest? Besides, I would rather go dressed as Stevie, Lita Ford looks rather awful these days :D

Brian "Hey, My Mom used to dress my Dad in drag for contests...And they won, Go figure :shrug: " j.

Well, I was not suggesting you do drag, but now that you mention it - La Nicks in that head banging avatar you had awhile back would be way cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, its in your blood - if you start in on Somewhere Over the Rainbow - Deb abd I are backslappin' ya :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Well, I was not suggesting you do drag, but now that you mention it - La Nicks in that head banging avatar you had awhile back would be way cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, its in your blood - if you start in on Somewhere Over the Rainbow - Deb abd I are backslappin' ya :laugh:

sig I have, bitchin aint it? If Stevie needs lessons in how to bang I will wholeheartedly volunteer to teach her :D

[Dreammms]

sig I have, bitchin aint it? If Stevie needs lessons in how to bang I will wholeheartedly volunteer to teach her :D


:lol: :lol: :lol: Brian your signature is the BEST.

[irishgrl]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter delivered a shocker at an American University panel in Washington Monday: RAW STORY has learned he told the crowd he was certain Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."

RAW STORY reviewed a video clip of the event late Wednesday. The comment came in response to a question from a student who asked Carter how he felt the last two elections were handled.

In the question and answer session of his talk intended to discuss the Baker-Carter commission report on election reform, he also savaged President Bush's handling of FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Carter founded FEMA in 1979.

When I founded FEMA "we put it together with three specific commitments," Carter remarked. "One, that it would be led [by] highly trained professionals in dealing with disasters. Secondly, that it would be completely independent and not under another agency that would submerge it. And third, that it would be adequately funded."

The former president said the key reason for creating the agency was to respond to governors who asked for a consolidation of the 16 bureaucracies previously responsible for emergency relief efforts. Carter said he hoped that the changes he ordered would have remained permanent, allowing for a more effective response to a hurricane now claiming upwards of 1000 lives.

Carter agreed with Bush on one point: "I think that now is the best time not to look back on blaming about Katrina, but to try to correct the defects that have evolved in recent years and make sure it is not repeated."

RAW STORY hopes to get permission to post the video, or at least audio, today or tomorrow.

I LOVE Carter. that man has more class in his pinky than the entire GOP put together. A true humanitarian and someone who refused to play the "back scratching" games of Washington DC. Bless him, he aint afraid to call a spade a spade.

[irishgrl]

(In a William "Suckass" Shatner voice)- We...are...trying...to...find...a....wormhole...to...go...back...to..2000...and...alter...the...past ...5...years....Spock!!!

Man, Time to get over it, Been 5 (Lousy as f**kin hell) years and most of us Americans had to deal with Bush and his final solution, Time for Peanut-Boy (Does he have the most surreal looking teeth this side of John Elway/Julia Roberts & Mr.Ed or what???) and the Democrats to accept this and get the hell on with their lives.

Well, speaking for myself here, I'll NEVER NEVER NEVER accept what happened.
and I think that anyone who does is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

[DownOnRodeo]

As they say in Australia, NO WORRIES MATE

Well we don't shout it like that, though :thumbsup:

[BombaySapphire3]

The Repubs unfortunately are always coming up with new ways to subvert the Democratic process.Just look at the imbecile we are stuck with out here as Governer of Cali-Four-Ne- Ah because of their tricks.But people always have a tendancy to blame the party in power for recessions even if they are partially caused by natural disasters,(this is not to diminish the villiany of Chimpco in general)I wouldn't have believed it a few months ago. but in spite of the recent ineptitude of the Democratic party the Repubs may yet be on the way out in a way that no amount of election fraud and Roveish spin can stop.

[strandinthewind]

The Repubs unfortunately are always coming up with new ways to subvert the Democratic process.Just look at the imbecile we are stuck with out here as Governer of Cali-Four-Ne- Ah because of their tricks.But people always have a tendancy to blame the party in power for recessions even if they are partially caused by natural disasters,(this is not to diminish the villiany of Chimpco in general)I wouldn't have believed it a few months ago. but in spite of the recent ineptitude of the Democratic party the Repubs may yet be on the way out in a way that no amount of election fraud and Roveish spin can stop.


Well, Davis made it pretty easy for them :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Again, do some research - I mean do you purposefully fight intelligence or intelligent responses because you come across as an idiot who posts only to piss people off, which you allegedly swore off when you made your triumphant return :rolleyes:

Yea hello, I never "swore" off pissing liberals off...that really is the point right? I just said that I would be more "gentle" in my pissing off approach! :wavey:

http://quest.cjonline.com/ http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/012001/gen_0120017484.shtml

[Brwn_eyes0511]

He's just got sour grapes because he's turning into a member of the minority party. :laugh:

Which according to strandinthewind's siggy, is not such a bad thing!

[strandinthewind]

Yea hello, I never "swore" off pissing liberals off...that really is the point right? I just said that I would be more "gentle" in my pissing off approach! :wavey:

http://quest.cjonline.com/ http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/012001/gen_0120017484.shtml


and yet you are still as inept as before - BTW - that link is cr*p, but I know you knew that already - yawn.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

and yet you are still as inept as before - BTW - that link is cr*p, but I know you knew that already - yawn.

crap to you, "winning-goodness" to me! :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

crap to you, "winning-goodness" to me! :wavey:

Poor thing - you can't ever make a fact based argument so you rely on that filth. I mean why even bother to cite to that when you know it is rank BS and biased and people are going to call you on it? No one is buying it and it makes you look like a blithering idiot because it is just so non-factual. But, you like to appear like the village idiot because you never stop. Oh Well - I think I'll let you play with yourself this evening.

[irishgrl]

Well, Davis made it pretty easy for them :laugh:

I dont know why people keep saying that, he WASN'T that bad! I think he got railroaded by the GOP Juggernaut to try and convert CA from a Blue State to a Red State. But the Elephants are seeing that Arnie is a loose cannon with maverick ideas ANNNNNND: he's pro-choice which probably sticks in the craws of the fundies....GAD those eejits irritate me :mad:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Poor thing - you can't ever make a fact based argument so you rely on that filth. I mean why even bother to cite to that when you know it is rank BS and biased and people are going to call you on it? No one is buying it and it makes you look like a blithering idiot because it is just so non-factual. But, you like to appear like the village idiot because you never stop. Oh Well - I think I'll let you play with yourself this evening.

Do you honestly think that I come here, to gain respect from you guys and to appear as a genius? Of course I am going to look like an idiot! Let’s take a look at the people I’m surrounded by here. One "right-winger" amongst many, many "left-wingers" is not going to be well liked! If you think I'm on a desperate mission to seek the approval of those whom I do not even know...you really have no clue.

[irishgrl]

do you purposefully fight intelligence or intelligent responses because you come across as an idiot who posts only to piss people off, which you allegedly swore off when you made your triumphant return

What triumphant return was that? and what caused Brown_eyes' epiphany that gay marriage is now OK with him? That doesnt seem to jive well with the rest of his patchwork quilt of values....Im just saying :shrug:

[irishgrl]

Poor thing - you can't ever make a fact based argument so you rely on that filth. I mean why even bother to cite to that when you know it is rank BS and biased and people are going to call you on it? No one is buying it and it makes you look like a blithering idiot because it is just so non-factual. But, you like to appear like the village idiot because you never stop. Oh Well - I think I'll let you play with yourself this evening.

Dont go yet, somebody's got to answer my questions (see previous post)
Im scratching my head over here~

[Brwn_eyes0511]

What triumphant return was that? and what caused Brown_eyes' epiphany that gay marriage is now OK with him? That doesnt seem to jive well with the rest of his patchwork quilt of values....Im just saying :shrug:

I have just gained my own personal feelings about that subject, through not only people that I know, but much prayer. I can still be a happy conservative and keep my own personal feelings about certain subjects.

[irishgrl]

Do you honestly think that I come here, to gain respect from you guys and to appear as a genius? Of course I am going to look like an idiot! Let’s take a look at the people I’m surrounded by here. One "right-winger" amongst many, many "left-wingers" is not going to be well liked! If you think I'm on a desperate mission to seek the approval of those whom I do not even know...you really have no clue.

Well, we Ledgies dont always agree with each other either, so its not like you're singled out, you make yourself a target by deliberately being provocative. If you were to cite credible sources instead of muckrakers like Coulter and Hannity, it might be easier to believe you might have valid points. My Grandfather was a Republican but he was a very thoughtful deliberate person and he listened to other people and gave sound reasons for his positions. A lot of times he made sense. Same thing with one of my best friends. We talk politics all the time and we are on opposite sides of the spectrum and yes we disagree a lot but we agree sometimes too. Even if we do disagree, we still respect each other.

It is possible to reach across the aisle, but it takes tact and patience and a willingness to compromise in the face of diametrically opposed views.

[irishgrl]

I have just gained my own personal feelings about that subject, through not only people that I know, but much prayer. I can still be a happy conservative and keep my own personal feelings about certain subjects.
you ARE aware that acceptance of gay marriage is anathema to conservatives?
and that if you were to try and explain how you embrace BOTH philosophies, you would be run out on a rail (figuratively speaking)? That particular issue goes even further "left" than the issue of abortion. Interesting.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, we Ledgies dont always agree with each other either, so its not like you're singled out, you make yourself a target by deliberately being provocative. If you were to cite credible sources instead of muckrakers like Coulter and Hannity, it might be easier to believe you might have valid points. My Grandfather was a Republican but he was a very thoughtful deliberate person and he listened to other people and gave sound reasons for his positions. A lot of times he made sense. Same thing with one of my best friends. We talk politics all the time and we are on opposite sides of the spectrum and yes we disagree a lot but we agree sometimes too. Even if we do disagree, we still respect each other.

It is possible to reach across the aisle, but it takes tact and patience and a willingness to compromise in the face of diametrically opposed views.

I get what you’re saying and agree with you. I have tried the “credible sources” thing. But you see that fails to work when every site you link to is considered "idiotic and untrue"...no explanation, nothing to disprove it...it is just labeled "untrue! That is literally all that I get! And I just think to myself...WTF? Why is it that I even try? For example go find the thread about Clinton and his history with our military, I answered every question and supported them with credible sources...yet I was labeled an idiot who wasn't answering the questions. So I ask you, why try?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

you ARE aware that acceptance of gay marriage is anathema to conservatives?
and that if you were to try and explain how you embrace BOTH philosophies, you would be run out on a rail (figuratively speaking)? That particular issue goes even further "left" than the issue of abortion. Interesting.

Okay example...Dick Cheney? Guess he doesn't count though? :shrug:

As Ms. Coulter put it so masterfully...

"I'm not anti-gay. I'm pro not hallucinating when you read the Constitution."

Although I personally see nothing wrong with allowing gay marriage, I'm not going to turn my backs on all of my other strong beliefs...just to compliment that one.

[irishgrl]

I get what you’re saying and agree with you. I have tried the “credible sources” thing. But you see that fails to work when every site you link to is considered "idiotic and untrue"...no explanation, nothing to disprove it...it is just labeled "untrue! That is literally all that I get! And I just think to myself...WTF? Why is it that I even try? For example go find the thread about Clinton and his history with our military, I answered every question and supported them with credible sources...yet I was labeled an idiot who wasn't answering the questions. So I ask you, why try?
I dont remember that particular thread or discussion so I cant say whether or not your sources were credible. I think the best bet for credible news is to go to PBS or NPR, something that isnt mainstream but yet is factual. Often, I find myself reading BBC news leads also. Another good idea is to go to primary sources like the Census, or even US Government research sources like Thomas
I know you've tried to be less abrasive, but you are still going out of your way to needle on issues that you know are sensitive. And you know that this board is primarily Left-leaning but yet you stay. Im a bit perplexed why you would do this if you know that you arent going to be converting anyone to your position and that you are constantly having to defend your views.

You might try a different approach, something along the lines of: here's my opinion on this issue, here's why I hold this opinion, what do you all say (you get the gist) I dont know, Im honestly trying to communicate, not pick on you ok?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I think the best bet for credible news is to go to PBS or NPR

You are kidding right? :shocked:

[irishgrl]

Okay example...Dick Cheney? Guess he doesn't count though? :shrug:

As Ms. Coulter put it so masterfully...

"I'm not anti-gay. I'm pro not hallucinating when you read the Constitution."

Although I personally see nothing wrong with allowing gay marriage, I'm not going to turn my backs on all of my other strong beliefs...just to compliment that one.
Dick Cheney is between a rock and a hard place because of his daughter. The majority of conservatives are against gay marriage because they believe God finds it an abomination. YOU had one position one week and another the next. Did you decide that the Bible thumping was wrong? God likes gays now?
As for Ann's statement, what the hell does THAT mean? Where in the Constitution does it even address the issue of homosexuality? The woman is hateful and uses buzzwords and fast talking to impress people who cant think for themselves. Apparently you like to have your opinions spoon fed to you.

[irishgrl]

You are kidding right? :shocked:
not at all. they arent owned by the one or two media giants and thus dont have a political agenda.

Im beginning to think you are hopeless. Im sorry I started this dialog.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You might try a different approach, something along the lines of: here's my opinion on this issue, here's why I hold this opinion, what do you all say (you get the gist) I dont know, Im honestly trying to communicate, not pick on you ok?

Thanks for actually sounding generally concerned! It's kind of sweet! :xoxo:

But I do have NO idea why it is that I stick around. I guess I'm sort of addicted to this place; I always have to come back for more!


I would love to take that approach, but it seems to me a little too guarded, like I'm a scared pussy cat..."Here's my opinion, don't hurt me." That is just not who I am...I refuse to be afraid of who I am or what I believe. I can't tell you how many private messages I have received while on the ledge from other members applauding me for sticking up for myself and being unafraid to post my views. I always tell them they should join in, but it's like they are all scared of you guys and I can't figure out why? Lol

[Brwn_eyes0511]

not at all. they arent owned by the one or two media giants and thus dont have a political agenda.

Im beginning to think you are hopeless. Im sorry I started this dialog.

If you don't believe NPR has a bias, then I'm afraid it is you who are "hopeless".

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Dick Cheney is between a rock and a hard place because of his daughter. The majority of conservatives are against gay marriage because they believe God finds it an abomination. YOU had one position one week and another the next. Did you decide that the Bible thumping was wrong? God likes gays now?
As for Ann's statement, what the hell does THAT mean? Where in the Constitution does it even address the issue of homosexuality? The woman is hateful and uses buzzwords and fast talking to impress people who cant think for themselves. Apparently you like to have your opinions spoon fed to you.

First of all, I have NEVER been a "bible thumper"! Please, I'm Catholic...not protestant! Even before I never thought that God "didn't like" gay people. God loves EVERYONE...always has...always will! If he can love me despite myself...then he can love anyone! :laugh:

As for Ann's statement...she was referring to the fact that, in her opinion, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees a right to gay marriage.

[irishgrl]

Thanks for actually sounding generally concerned! It's kind of sweet! :xoxo:

But I do have NO idea why it is that I stick around. I guess I'm sort of addicted to this place; I always have to come back for more!


I would love to take that approach, but it seems to me a little too guarded, like I'm a scared pussy cat..."Here's my opinion, don't hurt me." That is just not who I am...I refuse to be afraid of who I am or what I believe. I can't tell you how many private messages I have received while on the ledge from other members applauding me for sticking up for myself and being unafraid to post my views. I always tell them they should join in, but it's like they are all scared of you guys and I can't figure out why? Lol
Well, I'll say this, you certainly DO have the strength of your convictions. And thats a good thing. If you're going to believe something then DONT back down. You've stood your ground (right or wrong) many a time against many people. Of course, you've also provoked people with some of the thngs you say, and that isnt right. Im glad you've gotten positive feedback, everyone needs validation. I guess we each must act according to our own conscience,
and be responsible for the consequences.

Im getting really groggy, that medicine I took is finally starting to work LOL!
Good night :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, I'll say this, you certainly DO have the strength of your convictions. And thats a good thing. If you're going to believe something then DONT back down. You've stood your ground (right or wrong) many a time against many people. Of course, you've also provoked people with some of the thngs you say, and that isnt right. Im glad you've gotten positive feedback, everyone needs validation. I guess we each must act according to our own conscience,
and be responsible for the consequences.

Im getting really groggy, that medicine I took is finally starting to work LOL!
Good night :wavey:

Thanks for everything you said above! Indeed it is nice to get a little validation. I actually have no hard feelings towards anyone here. I applaud any individual who is willing to stand up for their beliefs!

[irishgrl]

If you don't believe NPR has a bias, then I'm afraid it is you who are "hopeless".

Well, I have the strength of my convictions too.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, I have the strength of my convictions too.

LOL. :laugh:

You've got me on that one.

[BombaySapphire3]

originally posted ny brwn eyes-511 I would love to take that approach, but it seems to me a little too guarded, like I'm a scared pussy cat..."Here's my opinion, don't hurt me." That is just not who I am...I refuse to be afraid of who I am or what I believe. I can't tell you how many private messages I have received while on the ledge from other members applauding me for sticking up for myself and being unafraid to post my views. I always tell them they should join in, but it's like they are all scared of you guys and I can't figure out why? Lol[/QUOTE] Wow that is interesting you'd think at least a couple of these lurking neo cons could come out of the woodwork to join in the discussions with the lefties,You'd think we were Ogres that ate small childern for dessert.

[estranged4life]

Well, speaking for myself here, I'll NEVER NEVER NEVER accept what happened.
and I think that anyone who does is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

but I dont see how anyone can change what happened 5 years ago...Just fight for now and the future to right the wrong, If people keep pushing hard now and let go of the past it will turn itself around.

"Cause yesterdays got nothin' for me...Old pictures that I'll always see...I Aint got time to reminisce old novelties"

[irishgrl]

but I dont see how anyone can change what happened 5 years ago...Just fight for now and the future to right the wrong, If people keep pushing hard now and let go of the past it will turn itself around.

"Cause yesterdays got nothin' for me...Old pictures that I'll always see...I Aint got time to reminisce old novelties"
True, we cant (obviously) change what happened, but I think the only way change is going to happen is if we REMEMBER what happened and stay :mad: about it because that will give us the impetus to make change happen.

There's no such thing as "accepting it" or "getting over it" in my book. Change aint gonna happen THAT way.....and if I see a way that I can help, I will. Of course, it seems like all anyone wants is $$$ to make this change, and $$$ I aint got :distress: so I cant "help" that way, but I can (and I DO) write letters and make phone calls and anything else that I can do that is proactive, I'll certainly jump right on it.

[irishgrl]

I would love to take that approach, but it seems to me a little too guarded, like I'm a scared pussy cat..."Here's my opinion, don't hurt me." That is just not who I am...I refuse to be afraid of who I am or what I believe. I can't tell you how many private messages I have received while on the ledge from other members applauding me for sticking up for myself and being unafraid to post my views. I always tell them they should join in, but it's like they are all scared of you guys and I can't figure out why? Lol

Wow that is interesting you'd think at least a couple of these lurking neo cons could come out of the woodwork to join in the discussions with the lefties,You'd think we were Ogres that ate small childern for dessert.
yes, I wondered about that too...

[strandinthewind]

I get what you’re saying and agree with you. I have tried the “credible sources” thing. But you see that fails to work when every site you link to is considered "idiotic and untrue"...no explanation, nothing to disprove it...it is just labeled "untrue! That is literally all that I get! And I just think to myself...WTF? Why is it that I even try? For example go find the thread about Clinton and his history with our military, I answered every question and supported them with credible sources...yet I was labeled an idiot who wasn't answering the questions. So I ask you, why try?

No, you are wrong. I never said Clinton did not refigure the military and that some of it was detrimental in effect and some of it, like giving the soldiers a raise, was good. You keep saying I said that because you cannot answer my point or question, which was:

If Clinton lessened the might of the American military so badly, which you and W assert he did, how did W, who did nothing in his first nine months to strengthen the military despite promising to do so, win in Afgan and Iraq with that same military that Clinton changed so horribly?

You answered that question with some BS about fighting with what you have, etc. - which dodged the question completely.

If you are going to respond again with your schpeel about how Clinton lessened the military, please do not - I agree with that. The question is if Clinton's actions were so detrimental - how did W win with the same military? Answer that question only or quit your pouting.

Also and for grins, if the military was sooooo important to W that he based his campaign on it, why did he do nothing to bolster it in the first nine months of office despite planning to invade Iraq since the day he took office. I mean W was planning an all out invasion with the Clinton military and had no plans to bolster it :shrug: That suggests to me that the Clinton military was not that weakened to despair despite all the hype. Why would W want to go to war with that military if it were not good enough if not great? Again for nine months, W did nothing to strength the military as evidenced here http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID=159&contentID=251793 (the facts in this article are true)

Moreover, why is W not giving adequate benefits to out soldiers returning from war?

Here is an interesting article on Clinton and the military and then W's use of the Clinton military:

Bush's Army—or Bill's?
Should Clinton share the credit for victory in Iraq?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, May 2, 2003, at 2:12 PM PT

At last weekend's White House Correspondents' Dinner, one gossip column reports, liberal comedian Al Franken went up to Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative deputy defense secretary and said, "Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?" Wolfowitz responded by proposing that Franken perform an anatomically impossible act.

The exchange was no doubt conducted in the spirit of good-natured invective that pervades these events (and perhaps under the influence of other spirits as well). But it does raise a serious question: How much of the swift U.S. victory in Gulf War II can be credited to decisions made by George W. Bush—and how much to the legacy left by Bill Clinton?

The short answer is that plenty of credit is due to both presidents—and plenty more to neither.

Weapons systems and war strategies often take years, even decades, to evolve. After the allies won the first war against Iraq, Operation Desert Storm in 1991, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said he called up Caspar Weinberger "to thank him for all those $600 toilet seats he bought." (His reference was to the Pentagon-procurement scandals of the Reagan years, when Weinberger was secretary; the scandals so dominated the defense-budget debates of the era that many people were surprised that the U.S. military could fight, that its weapons worked.) Cheney's point was that he, President Bush, and their generals may have fashioned the war plan—but they executed it with inherited arsenals.

Similarly, the wonder weapons of Gulf War II—the weapons that allowed for "a combination of precision, speed, and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before," as the second President Bush put it in his victory speech last night onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln—were developed and built during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

The most dramatic of these weapons was the Joint Defense Attack Munition, or JDAM (pronounced JAY-dam). JDAM is a kit, attached to a Global Positioning Satellite receiver, that can turn nearly any dumb bomb into a smart bomb. The pilot punches in the geographic coordinates of the target; the bomb receives signals from GPS satellites, which guide it to those coordinates; it explodes within 10 to 30 feet of the target. JDAM is a vast improvement over the earlier generation of laser-guided smart bombs. Lasers couldn't see targets well through rain, smoke, or dust, and a laser bomb cost $100,000 to $200,000 while a JDAM kit costs $18,000. So the military was able to buy a lot of them. In Gulf War II, JDAMs were vital for knocking out Iraqi tanks and artillery on the battlefield, and they made it possible to destroy urban targets without doing much damage to neighboring buildings or civilians.

Yet the first JDAMs—or, as some of them were originally called, GAMs (for GPS-Aided Munitions)—were developed, produced, and used in the Clinton years. Congress accelerated the funding for the program in 1993. The first test, in which a B-2 bomber destroyed all 16 targets from a 40,000-foot altitude at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, took place in October 1996. Boeing delivered its first production model in June 1998. A small number were dropped on Serbian targets during the war for Kosovo in 1999. The Navy started putting them on F/A-18s in the fall of 2000.

Another marvel of Gulf War II was the Predator drone, an unmanned aerial vehicle that loiters in the sky for 20 hours, takes video pictures of the ground below, and streams the imagery back to command headquarters. An advanced version of this drone also carries Hellfire air-to-ground missiles; it not only views the target but destroys it. This feat was most famously accomplished over Yemen on Nov. 4, 2002, when a drone-fired Hellfire destroyed a vehicle carrying six al-Qaida leaders. Drones were also used to dramatic effect in the Afghanistan war of October 2001 and no doubt (but to what degree we don't yet know) in Gulf War II. Certainly the combination of JDAMs and drones made it possible to find and destroy targets, including mobile targets, far more quickly and precisely than in any previous war.

The Predator, too, originated in the Clinton years—its first test flight was in 1994. Predators flew more than 50 sorties over Kosovo (though a fair number of them crashed or were shot down). The Hellfire-armed drone came later—its first test occurred in February 2001—but, a couple of years earlier, by the end of the Kosovo conflict, Predators were carrying a laser, which they used to designate targets on the ground for laser-guided bombs. The longer-range, more-enduring Global Hawk drone, too, had its first flight under Clinton, in March 1998.

Tactical Tomahawk, the GPS-guided version of the Tomahawk cruise missile—which, in Gulf War II, proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier, terrain-contour-matching cruise missiles used in Desert Storm—was first funded in 1999.

In one sense, then, Franken was right. In two other senses, though, he was either beside the point or plain wrong.

First, presidents generally have little to do personally with big changes in military strategy or hardware. There are exceptions. John F. Kennedy ordered a buildup of non-nuclear forces in Europe and inculcated a romanticism for counterguerrilla warfare and the Green Berets. Richard Nixon built up the Safeguard anti-ballistic-missile system (but then negotiated it away by signing the ABM Treaty). The dream of ballistic-missile defenses also enticed Ronald Reagan and, now, George W. Bush, both of whom lavished such programs with unprecedented billions of dollars. Jimmy Carter poured money into the air-launched cruise missile as an alternative to the B-1 bomber, which he'd cancelled. (The Air Force outmaneuvered him, though: The Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft, which Carter wanted built instead, turned out to be the B-1 in disguise; after Carter left office, the Air Force removed the mask and openly resumed the program.)

In other words, the military generally goes about its business, and it is often a mere coincidence which president pays for researching, developing, or deploying a particular weapon. It is doubtful that Clinton knew what a Predator was, nor is it likely that Bush could have passed an exam on the topic before the war in Afghanistan made it famous. Contrary to many Republicans' claims, Bill Clinton did not weaken the U.S. military—far from it. On the other hand, as defense analyst William Arkin put it, "If Jesse Jackson had been president, we would still have JDAM."

However, in another sense, Bush—or at least the Bush administration—does deserve credit for the victory. In the most basic consideration, Clinton probably would not have fought this war, at least not in the way it was fought. When Clinton confronted the Serbs over Kosovo, he firmly resisted using U.S. ground forces—beating back proposals even to threaten putting troops on the ground as a bargaining lever. He also directed that all U.S. pilots fly above 10,000 feet, well beyond the range of Serbian air-defense missiles. He wanted no American combat casualties—and he got none. It is impossible to say whether Clinton would have loosened his standards in a war with Iraq (assuming for a moment that he would have gone to war with Iraq). But it is a fair judgment that Clinton had little appetite for wars that would kill American soldiers. It is doubtful that he would have approved the sort of bold, swift, and unabashedly risky offensive that Bush approved for Gulf War II. It was to a large extent Clinton's arsenal. It was Bush's war.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082499/

[strandinthewind]

Do you honestly think that I come here, to gain respect from you guys

No, you came here to post BS and then rely on it as fact and then act put upon when people call you on it.

. . . and to appear as a genius?

Trust me, no one will ever suggest that :laugh:

. . . Of course I am going to look like an idiot!

Well, at least you have to courage to stand by your convictions :laugh:

Let’s take a look at the people I’m surrounded by here. One "right-winger" amongst many, many "left-wingers" is not going to be well liked!

Well, I always cite to the facts and then conclude. I am neither right nor left wing. I am a true conservative who thinks govt. has as little place in our lives as possible, which is fighting words to both the left and the right now.

. . . If you think I'm on a desperate mission to seek the approval of those whom I do not even know...you really have no clue.

Ah - the angry retort - well, when you have no facts to argue . . . .

Again, you purposefully incite people and then act like a martyr when people call you on your BS. So, please have all that courage you keep bragging about to stand by that conviction.

[SuzeQuze]

For sh*ts and giggles I did a Google search on "Ann Coulter is a" and some interesting stuff came up! :lol:

One of the things was how she plaigarized a column from others' past columns. I guess this is why Stephanie Miller calls her, "noted plaigarist Ann Coulter". :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

For sh*ts and giggles I did a Google search on "Ann Coulter is a" and some interesting stuff came up! :lol:

One of the things was how she plaigarized a column from others' past columns. I guess this is why Stephanie Miller calls her, "noted plaigarist Ann Coulter". :laugh:

Gee what reliable sources must have came from that search! :rolleyes:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Ah - the angry retort - well, when you have no facts to argue . . . .

Again, you purposefully incite people and then act like a martyr when people call you on your BS. So, please have all that courage you keep bragging about to stand by that conviction.

Ok now you are the one appearing to be the idiot. You seem to have "problems" letting things go. :laugh: I'm "over" it, perhpas you should be too. :shrug:

I was voicing my concerns to irishgirl, and I don't think any of it conerned you...but I knew, somehow, you'd jump in with your "you have no facts to argue...your an idiot...Ann Coulter is a sow...you are a martyr" talk. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Ok now you are the one appearing to be the idiot. You seem to have "problems" letting things go. :laugh: I'm "over" it, perhpas you should be too. :shrug:

Wow - you think I am idiot - Well, I've guess I have been called worse by less :laugh:

But back to the point, ahhhh - the old passive agressive game.

Hmm let's see - you brought the Clinton military thing up again and then presented yourself, once again, as the helpless victim being wrongly attacked on the facts and you referenced me, not by name granted, but me nonetheless as it was our argument. I mean if you were not referencing me - who were you referencing? So, I was responding to you bringing it up again. Can't you ever get your facts straight :laugh:

Finally, you never did anwer the question you asserted people, namely me, attacked you for answering, which was and is and likely will remain:

If Clinton lessened the might of the American military so badly, which you and W assert he did, how did W, who did nothing in his first nine months to strengthen the military despite promising to do so, win in Afgan and Iraq with that same military that Clinton changed so horribly?

If you are having trouble answering that, maybe you ought to email Annie C. so she can fabricate a non-responsive, home spun, lying answer for you :rolleyes:

In the end, you apparently want everyone to see you as this person who says true things and then everyone attacks them - hence the martyr reference. Well, good luck with that posture here.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Hmm let's see - you brought the Clinton military thing up again and then presented yourself, once again, as the helpless victim being wrongly attacked on the facts and you referenced me, not by name granted, but me nonetheless as it was our argument. I mean if you were not referencing me - who were you referencing? So, I was responding to you bringing it up again. Can't you ever get your facts straight :laugh:

Never presented myself as a victim, just simply stated that I wasn't being taken seriously. Not mad about it. Not crying over it. Just said it was pointless!

Finally, you never did anwer the question you asserted people, namely me, attacked you for answering, which was and is and likely will remain:

If Clinton lessened the might of the American military so badly, which you and W assert he did, how did W, who did nothing in his first nine months to strengthen the military despite promising to do so, win in Afgan and Iraq with that same military that Clinton changed so horribly?

Ok first of all...do I actually have you, a liberal, on record saying that under the Bush administration battles were actually won? I'm taking note of this.

Secondly. I remember you insisting and insisting that the military under the Clinton administration was simply great and it was because of him that we were "ready" to fight the war on terrorism. When I provided you with credible links to "shut you up" and prove you wrong, you changed the question to "Well how were we able to go into the war at all if the military was in such shambles?" Well let me see if I can elaberate...

In a sense, you are right. You get good at war through practice. With Clinton's continuous military strikes designed to remove his scandals from the front page, he had us exercised and ready for a real war. Granted, he used us as an instrument of murder, given that his sole purpose for sending us into battle was public relations, but he did a good job of getting us ready for a fight. So I will give you that much, which however doesn't change the facts that the military was still in poor shape when Bush took office

They didn't have enough equipment when this war started. And the Dems blamed that on Bush, do you recall that? Don't you remember all the Dems whining about the lack of equipment and the shape the equipment was in when the troops received it? That was willy's fault.

Oh, and he also had us highly trained at figuring out how to accomplish necessary tasks without the proper equipment or funding. Innovation is the key to success on the battlefield. Once Bush got into office and funded and equipped us properly, we were ready to kick anyone's a*s.


If you are having trouble answering that, maybe you ought to email Annie C. so she can fabricate a non-responsive, home spun, lying answer for you :rolleyes:

Again you result to patronizing. You are hilarious, I will give you that. But do you really think that it accomplishes anything?

In the end, you apparently want everyone to see you as this person who says true things and then everyone attacks them - hence the martyr reference. Well, good luck with that posture here.

Again, I don't really care what anyone here thinks of me, hence the "I'm not here to gain respect" reference above. Silly rabbit...

[strandinthewind]

Again, I don't really care what anyone here thinks of me, hence the "I'm not here to gain respect" reference above. Silly rabbit...

Of course you are not, you are here to incite people.

Have fun arguing your nonsense with yourself from now on :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Of course you are not, you are here to incite people.

Have fun arguing your nonsense with yourself from now on :wavey:

Didn't respond to the post. You answered my question...thanks! :wavey:

[estranged4life]

Bush & Clinton do have something in common, the use of the word "blow":

Bush did blow (Cant wait to see his upcoming "Coke mustache" commercial "Got Coke?" :lol: )

And Clinton was...Uh...ya get the picture (Ask Monica) :lol:

[SuzeQuze]

How could Clinton be responsible for the lack of equipment when Bush was already in office for 3 years when we went to war in Iraq?

[strandinthewind]

How could Clinton be responsible for the lack of equipment when Bush was already in office for 3 years when we went to war in Iraq?

Exaclty. However, because Brown Eyes cares not for respect or being taken seriously by any of us and he posts to piss people off, he will never face that fact and just keep spouting his lies.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

How could Clinton be responsible for the lack of equipment when Bush was already in office for 3 years when we went to war in Iraq?

I see what you are saying, and looking back at the post now...It seems that I should have made myself clear. I was trying to point out that when the war began the liberals were complaining about the lack of equipment. I didn't mean to imply that it was from my own assertion that we truly were un prepared...I was just making a point about the complaining and should the question have been asked with Clinton in mind versus Bush. In trying to answer his original question it seems that I went on for too long! :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Exaclty. However, because Brown Eyes cares not for respect or being taken seriously by any of us and he posts to piss people off, he will never face that fact and just keep spouting his lies.

Oh God...from one statement...comes a mighty flood of redundancy! :rolleyes:

I said I didn't care whether or not I gained respect around here...not that I wouldn't welcome it if it came my way.

I never said that the only reason I post here was to piss people off. I just noted that if people did get pissy in the process it didn’t bother me. Also that post was made in good comical fun, which seems to fly right over your head.

But I'm sure, knowing you, from now on every post you have in response to mine will contain the entire "over played" crap you just posted above!

[Sapphire Girl]

I think the best bet for credible news is to go to PBS or NPR, something that isn't mainstream but yet is factual.
And for additional neutral sources you might want to try sites such as moveon.org, the Daily Kos and the democratic underground message board, which is best remembered by its acronym dumb. ;)

[strandinthewind]

And for additional neutral sources you might want to try sites such as moveon.org, the Daily Kos and the democratic underground message board, which is best remembered by its acronym dumb. ;)

:laugh: you are so bad :laugh:

Actually, for what is going on right now/today/currently/etc. - I go to AP and Reuters, which almost all major news sources (Fox, CNN, etc. ) carry - those are most of the ones I cite to as they are not really biased and are pretty much just straight fact reporting. For editorials, I tend to avoid the extremes on both sides because they distort the facts and/or do not tell all the facts - tough occasionally some will and some are just downright too funny to ignore. In the end, facts are what interest me and I have been known to go to the minutes of the Congressional meetings to prove myself correct against some fact spinner :laugh:

In the end, most people are so politically one sided and all they listen to is one thing on either side, so they never really get all the facts, which is ashame. Then, when someone points out the facts, they are so brainwashed they cannot believe them and get angry and yell :laugh:

[irishgrl]

And for additional neutral sources you might want to try sites such as moveon.org, the Daily Kos and the democratic underground message board, which is best remembered by its acronym dumb. ;)

why now, why didnt I think of those? Personally, I dont think you can get a better newsprogram than Frontline on PBS....or Free Speech Radio, which is funded solely by journalists, and not beholden to the uberich megamoguls
like Turner or Murdoch.

[irishgrl]

Well, I always cite to the facts and then conclude. I am neither right nor left wing. I am a true conservative who thinks govt. has as little place in our lives as possible, which is fighting words to both the left and the right now.
That sounds more like a Libertarian to me my friend! As for Government having little place in our lives, I agree...especially the Bushwad version of Government. Especially the Fundie version of Government. We need a Ledgie version of Government here...hmmm theres a thought: who would we pick from the Ledgies?

[gldstwmn]

why now, why didnt I think of those? Personally, I dont think you can get a better newsprogram than Frontline on PBS....or Free Speech Radio, which is funded solely by journalists, and not beholden to the uberich megamoguls
like Turner or Murdoch.

Turner has pretty much divested himself of his holdings. He's got a huge humanitarian streak.

[strandinthewind]

Turner has pretty much divested himself of his holdings. He's got a huge humanitarian streak.

The lithium is working :laugh:

Oh the stories that float aroung this town about him :eek:

I've met him very briefly and he was extremely nice as was Jane.

[irishgrl]

The lithium is working :laugh:

Oh the stories that float aroung this town about him :eek:

I've met him very briefly and he was extremely nice as was Jane.
tsk tsk...name dropping again :) it'll all pale by comparison when you finally meet
































me.

[gldstwmn]

The lithium is working :laugh:

Oh the stories that float aroung this town about him :eek:

I've met him very briefly and he was extremely nice as was Jane.

Well, according to Jane's book, the is a whole other side to the multifaceted Mr. Turner. ;)

[irishgrl]

Well, according to Jane's book, the is a whole other side to the multifaceted Mr. Turner. ;)
multifaceted or multitalented? :p she didnt stay with him so long just for his money ya know...

[dissention]

Turner has pretty much divested himself of his holdings. He's got a huge humanitarian streak.

I love Turner. When he opens his mouth, common sense comes out. It's a rarity.