Democrats:Party of No

**dg806** · 02-04-2005, 10:36 AM

President Bush’s State of the Union presented a positive agenda for keeping America safe and preserving Social Security, but the Democrats have defined themselves as the party of ‘no’ in responding with obstruction and pessimism.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “We Will Not Allow The President To Play Retirement Roulette And Turn Social Security Into Social Insecurity.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Said President Should “Forget About Strengthening Social Security Because It Will Not Happen."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Said Democrats “Are United” Against President’s Social Security Plan.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “We’ve Got To Fight On This Issue, And We’ve Got To Wage An Aggressive Fight.”

They continue to shoot theirselves in the foot. They have not learned anything in the past 10 years.

DOMS · 02-04-2005, 10:41 AM

The Dems are nothing more than the anti-party. They don't come up with any positive ideas or plans anymore. They just react to anything the Republicans say with whining.

**Dale Mabry** · 02-04-2005, 10:55 AM

If the Dems had the House and Presidency, the GOP would be the party of no. Common sense guys.

**dg806** · 02-04-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If the Dems had the House and Presidency, the GOP would be the party of no. Common sense guys.

Sure they would. But we are talking about fixing a problem here. Do you think it needs fixing?

DOMS · 02-04-2005, 11:01 AM

Not true. Even when the Slick Willie was in the White House the Republicans espoused the same general ideas they had before and the same general ideas they espouse now.

**Dale Mabry** · 02-04-2005, 11:12 AM

This is actually something of his I agree with, but because I know I could make alot of money if I had access to that shit for investing.

On the other hand, if some dumb fuck who only has access to that and is not saving in a 401k loses it all, who takes care of the douche?

BoneCrusher · 02-04-2005, 09:28 PM

Enron would hook up the douche-bag.

No way in hell the couple of penies a month those thieves in government send our old people would even keep my crack habit rolling ... I'd have to start killing people like Flex for side money.

Witmaster · 02-04-2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Enron would hook up the douche-bag.

No way in hell the couple of penies a month those thieves in government send our old people would even keep my crack habit rolling ... I'd have to start killing people like Flex for side money.

Flex carries that much cash or is there a bounty on him?

cman · 02-05-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If the Dems had the House and Presidency, the GOP would be the party of no. Common sense guys.

They had it for 40 years. thats why we are in the mess we are in. When the Repubs got in they uncovered money scams that were draining tax dollars into dems private accounts. Like buying 10,000 dollars worth of stamps on the whitehouse budget and returning them for cash. You don't need a stamp to mail something out of the whitehouse. We found the same here in GA after we ousted the dirty bastards. Found out they were steeling the money to fix Atlantas sewage problem. Money granted by Fed Gov. Indigtments were served.

BoneCrusher · 02-05-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Flex carries that much cash or is there a bounty on him?

He's broke and not worth much either ... although he may have some fedia after the game Sunday.

**Dale Mabry** · 02-05-2005, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cman

They had it for 40 years. thats why we are in the mess we are in. When the Repubs got in they uncovered money scams that were draining tax dollars into dems private accounts. Like buying 10,000 dollars worth of stamps on the whitehouse budget and returning them for cash. You don't need a stamp to mail something out of the whitehouse. We found the same here in GA after we ousted the dirty bastards. Found out they were steeling the money to fix Atlantas sewage problem. Money granted by Fed Gov. Indigtments were served.

You mean like the 100's of millions of dollars the FCC was supposed to use for providing the internet to underpriviledged schools that Michael Powell squandered?

**Dale Mabry** · 02-05-2005, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cman

They had it for 40 years. thats why we are in the mess we are in. When the Repubs got in they uncovered money scams that were draining tax dollars into dems private accounts. Like buying 10,000 dollars worth of stamps on the whitehouse budget and returning them for cash. You don't need a stamp to mail something out of the whitehouse. We found the same here in GA after we ousted the dirty bastards. Found out they were steeling the money to fix Atlantas sewage problem. Money granted by Fed Gov. Indigtments were served.

You mean like the 100's of millions of dollars the FCC was supposed to use for providing the internet to underpriviledged schools that Michael Powell somehow managed to squander?

John H. · 02-05-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Sure they would. But we are talking about fixing a problem here. Do you think it needs fixing?

Hi Dg,

I have no problem with someone fixing something as long as that is what they actually are DOING and that what they DO does TRULY REPAIR something that TRULY BENEFITS ALL. I do not like someone who USES others and USES their money to cause those using to BE the only ones to realize a profit and the hell with those that actually put up the capital and are actually taking risks. To me, Social Security should be just that - SECURE and GUARANTEED for ALL involved and NEVER PUT AT ANY RISK BY ANYONE.

Even the stock market is not really interested in this basically as they feel it will not really benefit a small investor (individual accounts with less than $10,000 to start) which most people would be and it would cause a lot of trouble for the broker that would not be worth anyone's time or effort in the end.

For anyone to really be an investor in the stock market you really need at least $10,000.00 or more to begin because smaller amounts are really not helpful to anyone and bring in very little and waste a broker's time. Most people with little earnings NEED that $10,000 themselves to survive and do not have the money to gamble with in the first place. Most individuals would fit this category because they would have far less than the $10,000 to invest in a personal account. Also you have to realize that any investing in the stock market IS A RISK and IS NOT GUARANTEED. Yes you can invest in something that has historically paid ok with not much risk BUT THE RISK IS THERE JUST THE SAME. NOTHING IN THE STOCK MARKET IS GUARANTEED even historically ok investments - except that the possibility does exist you COULD LOOSE EVERYTHING you invested. Then what? When you are talking about someone's retirement income and they loose even a portion of that - THEN WHAT? WHO makes up that loss? Everyone else? How? Surely the stock market will not and certainly does not really care because it will not BE their problem.

I talked with several broker's on this and they tell me that sure it will pay them as a broker to have clients because they charge their clients for each transaction they make but the return to the investor in small investments is not a viable way to go. Brokers like people who have a lot of money to invest or at least larger amounts because they can make more money without a lot of hassle on those investments and not be "nickeled and dimed to death" with "penny investments". If a way could be figured out that people could POOL their money into ONE and invest as ONE who represents many people and that investment BE GUARANTEED A RETURN that would be something else and would be possible but in the end each person in the pool would have to split the earnings according to the amount THEY contributed to that pooled investment.

Social Security is in trouble for these reasons:

1) The govenment dips into this fund to balance its budget when they have a shortfall and more often than not never repay what they "borrowed" and certainly with no interest paid on the money borrowed. And they do this to hide the reality of what is really going on financially speaking.

2) People who enter this country - legally or otherwise - that have never contributed to Social Security have been able to draw from it. .

3) It takes MORE people working and contributing into the fund and LESS actually drawing from it to make Social Security solvent.

4) UNemployment. Those not working are not contributing. And can not even it they wanted to because they have no money for anything.

5) UNDERemployment. Those that make relatively little for the work they do contribute less because they have less to contribute.

6) People who enter this country to work many times do not pay taxes of any kind on the money they are earning here and take everything with them to their home country.

7) People are living longer. But that does not mean that Social Security could not provide for them the same as it does now. People WORKING are those that contribute to the fund and make it solvent. If enough people ARE working and paying into Social Security there is no reason why those retired can not benefit properly - they EARNED their retirement and MUST receive it to survive.

Social Security problems are just ONE problem and do not reflect the WHOLE of what REALLY IS GOING ON in the USA. People UNemployed and/or UNDERemployed IN THIS COUNTRY and not able to support themselves or their family and thus can not participate like those that are working and making a decent living wage is the root of the problems in this country. People who work IN this country and MAKE a decent living wage SPEND in this country and thus support it and everyone here. People WORKING IN THIS COUNTRY being properly compensated SUPPORT THIS COUNTRY in ALL its endeavors. There is ABSOLUTELY NOT SUBSTITUTE for this. NOTHING will ever help this country more than people IN this country EARNING a decent living wage IN THIS COUNTRY. It has been always and ALWAYS WILL BE the ONLY WAY things happen in this country.

Take Care, John H.

Rich46yo · 02-05-2005, 07:38 PM

The Democrats are fucked! Even The High Priestess of the Bra-Burners is changing her tune on abortion. Did you hear her the other day? Saying the focus should be on "preventing unwanted births"? And calling baby killing a "sad tragic choice"? http://womensissues.about.com/b/a/142064.htm Normally she's shrieking for the right to chop up little Sally and little Bobby. But now? All of a sudden she's going to be a regular Mrs Cleaver, Billy Klinton as "Ward Cleaver", and with Chastity as "The Beaver". Maybe they can get John Kerry to play Eddie Haskell again.

What happened in the last election is far more fundamental then any discussion of issue's. Most Americans don't know shit about issues, but they do know "shit" when they see it. And The Democrats, John Kerry, that elitist babbling bitch he's married to, and all these flagburning, Eastern seaboard, know it all cocksuckers are in serious trouble.

I go to work and see untold numbers of healthy people living their entire lives on the welfare tit and I ask myself, who's responsible for this? Who was it that made it the Govt.'s "aka taxpayers" job to support healthy people? Who was it that dreamt up the idea of tossing money at every social problem we have as if it alone was going to make them disappear? Who was it that started this "Great Society" load of horseshit? Who was it that ran down the US Military every time they got in office? I could go on and on, gay marriage, abortion,taxes,gun control,criminal justice,litigation.................The Democrats nowdays simply have connection to what is, and always has been, the soul of this nation.

Whats the outcome going to be? The Next Democrat candidate for President is going to be a southern, or western, shitkicker that will be, at beast neutral on abortion, against gun control, will pray every day, will be against gay marriage, will love NASCAR, be a US Vet, wont think mush of the U.N., will throw horseshoes instead of wind sale, will go to barbecues instead of opera, and wont be married to some malignant,pseudo-commie, foreign twat.

Just wait and see. Uncle Rich is always right...........................................

.............Uncle Rich

John H. · 02-07-2005, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

The Democrats are fucked! Even The High Priestess of the Bra-Burners is changing her tune on abortion. Did you hear her the other day? Saying the focus should be on "preventing unwanted births"? And calling baby killing a "sad tragic choice"? http://womensissues.about.com/b/a/142064.htm Normally she's shrieking for the right to chop up little Sally and little Bobby. But now? All of a sudden she's going to be a regular Mrs Cleaver, Billy Klinton as "Ward Cleaver", and with Chastity as "The Beaver". Maybe they can get John Kerry to play Eddie Haskell again.

What happened in the last election is far more fundamental then any discussion of issue's. Most Americans don't know shit about issues, but they do know "shit" when they see it. And The Democrats, John Kerry, that elitist babbling bitch he's married to, and all these flagburning, Eastern seaboard, know it all cocksuckers are in serious trouble.

I go to work and see untold numbers of healthy people living their entire lives on the welfare tit and I ask myself, who's responsible for this? Who was it that made it the Govt.'s "aka taxpayers" job to support healthy people? Who was it that dreamt up the idea of tossing money at every social problem we have as if it alone was going to make them disappear? Who was it that started this "Great Society" load of horseshit? Who was it that ran down the US Military every time they got in office? I could go on and on, gay marriage, abortion,taxes,gun control,criminal justice,litigation.................The Democrats nowdays simply have connection to what is, and always has been, the soul of this nation.

Whats the outcome going to be? The Next Democrat candidate for President is going to be a southern, or western, shitkicker that will be, at beast neutral on abortion, against gun control, will pray every day, will be against gay marriage, will love NASCAR, be a US Vet, wont think mush of the U.N., will throw horseshoes instead of wind sale, will go to barbecues instead of opera, and wont be married to some malignant,pseudo-commie, foreign twat.

Just wait and see. Uncle Rich is always right...........................................

.............Uncle Rich

Hi Rich,

You have a problem with seeing things from ALL perspectives and considering information from ALL sources ALL the time. You also are not objective.

Take Care, John H.

bandaidwoman · 02-07-2005, 01:09 PM

obviously Bush hasn't learned about the " Social security privatization success" in Chile

http://www.umwa.org/journal/VOL113NO4/jul4.shtml

My dad is a commodity broker and a republican and says it's a damn awful idea.

Why "personal accounts"? If the issue really is that we are not getting a high enough return on our tax dollars, why not simply have the gov't invest part of the SS fund in the market on our behalf? It would certainly be MUCH cheaper in terms of fees than maintaining millions of “personal accounts”. People like my dad will be the only ones benefitting.

**Prince** · 02-07-2005, 01:17 PM

I just hope that there is at least $500 billion worth of oil in Iraq.

If a democrat were the one that had the US in this war with Iraq and caused the biggest national debt in US history as Bush is doing this year, I wonder if the Republicans would agree with it all?

John H. · 02-07-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

obviously Bush hasn't learned about the " Social security privatization success" in Chile

http://www.umwa.org/journal/VOL113NO4/jul4.shtml

My dad is a commodity broker and a republican and says it's a damn awful idea.

Why "personal accounts"? If the issue really is that we are not getting a high enough return on our tax dollars, why not simply have the gov't invest part of the SS fund in the market on our behalf? It would certainly be MUCH cheaper in terms of fees than maintaining millions of “personal accounts”. People like my dad will be the only ones benefitting.

Hi Bandaidwoman,

Yes.

A friend of mine that has someone in their family that goes to the Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, N. Y.) and they said that students there figured out what the benefit would be or not by Bush's proposal and that people NOW have a higher rate of return on their investment through Social Security directly as it is now set up and would make far less in the Stock Market. Even the Stock Market is not all that keen on the idea as it would cause a lot of paperwork for a little amount of money based on individual accounts.

Take Care, John H.

John H. · 02-07-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

I just hope that there is at least $500 billion worth of oil in Iraq.

If a democrat were the one that had the US in this war with Iraq and caused the biggest national debt in US history as Bush is doing this year, I wonder if the Republicans would agree with it all?

Hi Robert,

The world is sucking off that supply of oil in that region. I have no idea how long they "think" that supply will last. I doubt very long given the amount consumed worldwide and on a daily basis.

Here is the key to all this : SOMEONE is MAKING A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY from this oil (Guess WHO - NOT the Iraq people) and could NOT care LESS about the health and welfare of the world or its financial well-being. Or the environment. All they care about is their own pocket and how much they can stuff in it at the expense of everyone else - now that certainly SOUNDS REPUBLICAN to me. And I love how they brought all the "religious" people into all this mess (just like Lemmings being led to the sea) so they could get re-elected. And they act as if ONLY REPUBLICANS are "moral" people - all else have none...

We can actually blame Great Britain for all this mess because it was they that had control basically of this entire area of the world in the early 1920's and they are the people who basically created this mess in this region. They devided this area up. And the people that lived in this region and their religious beliefs really had not much to do with this division.

>....................................

Take Care, John H.

DOMS · 02-07-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John H.

Here is the key to all this : SOMEONE is MAKING A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY from this oil (Guess WHO - NOT the Iraq people)

So John, who do you believe is "making all the money"?

BoneCrusher · 02-07-2005, 04:09 PM

In spite of looking around with an open mind and a conservative perspective nothing I've found shows the money going anywhere other than to BushCo. Go figure.

Here is the part where all the Bush fans provide sourced links showing how the money is all going to the Iraqi's and not gettting diverted onto the coffers of the crooks in BushCo. Good luck.

DOMS · 02-07-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

In spite of looking around with an open mind and a conservative perspective nothing I've found shows the money going anywhere other than to BushCo. Go figure.

Here is the part where all the Bush fans provide sourced links showing how the money is all going to the Iraqi's and not getting diverted onto the coffers of the crooks in BushCo. Good luck.

Actually, I was just going to shit all over your source. If that's OK with you...

You linked to a page with three sources.

1. Links to the Sunday Herald, a "news" site with "news" items such as "Westminster sabotaged McConnell’s bid to attract immigrants" and "Fed ‘more of a threat than bin Laden’". Yeah, no left-wing agenda there. Who, by the way, creates every sentence with a mixture of "quotes" and their own opinions. Check out the first sentence, they string together that Iraq is the largest impediment to the flow of oil (embargoes) and then an opinion (not a quote) as to why this will need 'military intervention' (quotes in the original).

2. A BBC news article that says the rising gas prices benefits a gas company. Well, there's news. So, gas prices are rising because the US is getting all that Iraqi oil? Alrighty then...

3. A 404 (Page Could Not Be Found) error. Honestly, this one was the most riveting of them all...

I really like the quote:

"The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns,"

Because, as we all know, no one else who produces or sells oil around the globe is making any profit. Although, I am mystified why only the "oil elite" (in the USA, Russia, the Middle East, etc.) would be making money on the rising price of oil and not pig farmers in Ohio. No sense at all...

BoneCrusher · 02-07-2005, 07:01 PM

I had mentioned to my son that someone was bound to take a shot at that liberal POS site as a cheap way out of the task. Along came you my friend ... armed with nothing more than sarcasm.

Look here for something more ... and stop being lazy. Dig for a respone of merit, inetead of that weak ass attempt at killing a liberal site. BTW ... that site had way more than three sources. It was rather lengthy and well linked. Google news is unbiased. Tear it up ...

DOMS · 02-07-2005, 07:15 PM

Nothing more than sarcam?

The site that you reccomended was complete crap. It referenced three sources, which I ripped apart. The main thrust was that the Bush Administration planned the attack on Iraq to make his "oil friends" rich by raising the price of oil. Which is additionally funny in that the other half of Angry Left belives that we did it to steal oil from Iraq, which would have led to lower oil prices and thus made his "oil friends" lose money. So which is it?

Wasn't that your point, that "BushCo" was making money off the war in Iraq? Didn't you try to back it up with a very crappy site? And you got the Smack Down.

So, how did I get "out of the task"?

02-04-2005, 10:36 AM	#1
dg806 Guardian of The Homeland Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 17,447	Democrats:Party of No President Bush’s State of the Union presented a positive agenda for keeping America safe and preserving Social Security, but the Democrats have defined themselves as the party of ‘no’ in responding with obstruction and pessimism. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “We Will Not Allow The President To Play Retirement Roulette And Turn Social Security Into Social Insecurity.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Said President Should “Forget About Strengthening Social Security Because It Will Not Happen." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Said Democrats “Are United” Against President’s Social Security Plan. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “We’ve Got To Fight On This Issue, And We’ve Got To Wage An Aggressive Fight.” They continue to shoot theirselves in the foot. They have not learned anything in the past 10 years.
	www.sbmuscle.com

02-04-2005, 10:41 AM	#2
DOMS Metrosexual Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In a van, down by the river... Posts: 21,728 Photos: 6	The Dems are nothing more than the anti-party. They don't come up with any positive ideas or plans anymore. They just react to anything the Republicans say with whining.
	I never lie because I don't fear anyone. You only lie when you're afraid.â€”John Gotti

02-04-2005, 10:55 AM	#3
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 13,883 Photos: 10	If the Dems had the House and Presidency, the GOP would be the party of no. Common sense guys.
	If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

02-04-2005, 11:01 AM	#5
DOMS Metrosexual Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In a van, down by the river... Posts: 21,728 Photos: 6	Not true. Even when the Slick Willie was in the White House the Republicans espoused the same general ideas they had before and the same general ideas they espouse now.
	I never lie because I don't fear anyone. You only lie when you're afraid.â€”John Gotti

02-04-2005, 11:12 AM	#6
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 13,883 Photos: 10	This is actually something of his I agree with, but because I know I could make alot of money if I had access to that shit for investing. On the other hand, if some dumb fuck who only has access to that and is not saving in a 401k loses it all, who takes care of the douche?
	If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

02-04-2005, 09:28 PM	#7
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,580	Enron would hook up the douche-bag. No way in hell the couple of penies a month those thieves in government send our old people would even keep my crack habit rolling ... I'd have to start killing people like Flex for side money.

02-05-2005, 07:38 PM	#14
Rich46yo Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 861	The Democrats are fucked! Even The High Priestess of the Bra-Burners is changing her tune on abortion. Did you hear her the other day? Saying the focus should be on "preventing unwanted births"? And calling baby killing a "sad tragic choice"? http://womensissues.about.com/b/a/142064.htm Normally she's shrieking for the right to chop up little Sally and little Bobby. But now? All of a sudden she's going to be a regular Mrs Cleaver, Billy Klinton as "Ward Cleaver", and with Chastity as "The Beaver". Maybe they can get John Kerry to play Eddie Haskell again. What happened in the last election is far more fundamental then any discussion of issue's. Most Americans don't know shit about issues, but they do know "shit" when they see it. And The Democrats, John Kerry, that elitist babbling bitch he's married to, and all these flagburning, Eastern seaboard, know it all cocksuckers are in serious trouble. I go to work and see untold numbers of healthy people living their entire lives on the welfare tit and I ask myself, who's responsible for this? Who was it that made it the Govt.'s "aka taxpayers" job to support healthy people? Who was it that dreamt up the idea of tossing money at every social problem we have as if it alone was going to make them disappear? Who was it that started this "Great Society" load of horseshit? Who was it that ran down the US Military every time they got in office? I could go on and on, gay marriage, abortion,taxes,gun control,criminal justice,litigation.................The Democrats nowdays simply have connection to what is, and always has been, the soul of this nation. Whats the outcome going to be? The Next Democrat candidate for President is going to be a southern, or western, shitkicker that will be, at beast neutral on abortion, against gun control, will pray every day, will be against gay marriage, will love NASCAR, be a US Vet, wont think mush of the U.N., will throw horseshoes instead of wind sale, will go to barbecues instead of opera, and wont be married to some malignant,pseudo-commie, foreign twat. Just wait and see. Uncle Rich is always right........................................... .............Uncle Rich
Rich46yo Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 861	"Death to Tyrants"!

02-07-2005, 01:09 PM	#16
bandaidwoman inadvertant tree hugger Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 601 Photos: 4	obviously Bush hasn't learned about the " Social security privatization success" in Chile http://www.umwa.org/journal/VOL113NO4/jul4.shtml My dad is a commodity broker and a republican and says it's a damn awful idea. Why "personal accounts"? If the issue really is that we are not getting a high enough return on our tax dollars, why not simply have the gov't invest part of the SS fund in the market on our behalf? It would certainly be MUCH cheaper in terms of fees than maintaining millions of “personal accounts”. People like my dad will be the only ones benefitting.
	Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks Eat more mud, mountain bike until you die! XX Feminine power

02-07-2005, 01:17 PM	#17
Prince the one & only Administrator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Colorado Posts: 34,003 Blog Entries: 25 Photos: 320	I just hope that there is at least $500 billion worth of oil in Iraq. If a democrat were the one that had the US in this war with Iraq and caused the biggest national debt in US history as Bush is doing this year, I wonder if the Republicans would agree with it all?
	SBMuscle.com - Discount Supplement Superstore AlltheWhey.com - Bulk Protein Powders CEM Products - Research Chemicals & Supplements MusclePharm - Complete Nutritional Arsenal BigBackGrips - If you lift weights you've got to try these grips! HumaneVoLabs - Foaming Transdermal Delivery System. Creatine Ethyl Ester HCL (CEE) On Sale $17.49 per bottle!

02-07-2005, 04:09 PM	#21
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,580	In spite of looking around with an open mind and a conservative perspective nothing I've found shows the money going anywhere other than to BushCo. Go figure. Here is the part where all the Bush fans provide sourced links showing how the money is all going to the Iraqi's and not gettting diverted onto the coffers of the crooks in BushCo. Good luck.

02-07-2005, 07:01 PM	#23
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,580	I had mentioned to my son that someone was bound to take a shot at that liberal POS site as a cheap way out of the task. Along came you my friend ... armed with nothing more than sarcasm. Look here for something more ... and stop being lazy. Dig for a respone of merit, inetead of that weak ass attempt at killing a liberal site. BTW ... that site had way more than three sources. It was rather lengthy and well linked. Google news is unbiased. Tear it up ... Last edited by BoneCrusher : 02-07-2005 at 07:14 PM.