Random Pics from Washington March 09/12/09

[SteamWake]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/P9120009.jpg

The sign says "With Ears like these why arent you listening" :rotfl2:

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/P9120025.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/P9120026.jpg

[FIREWALL]

:har::har::har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::up :

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMXz6xGeqc

[SteamWake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMXz6xGeqc

LOL I knew that dude would make it to you tube :rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

LOL I knew that dude would make it to you tube :rotfl2:


Probably not a dude...got pink tennis shoes on :03:

[SteamWake]

Probably not a dude...got pink tennis shoes on :03:

There you go with your snap judgements again :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

I thought I might hear that! :har:

[Biggles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMXz6xGeqc

Socialism is not freedom? Then what is freedom?:hmmm:


Heheh, not trying to start something here, btw:O:

[FIREWALL]

Socialism is not freedom? Then what is freedom?:hmmm:


Heheh, not trying to start something here, btw:O:

Freedom is the USA.

Socialism is watered down Communism. :O:

[GoldenRivet]

if congress passes this health care thing.

picture all of the above images only with smoke, and gunfire.

[SteamWake]

if congress passes this health care thing.

picture all of the above images only with smoke, and gunfire.

Pitchforks !

and sharks with freakin lasers on their heads :haha:

[Thomen]

Pitchforks !

and sharks with freakin lasers on their heads :haha:

Gotta get me one of those to practice angry mob behavior... :D

http://mouemagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/angrymob.jpg

[GoldenRivet]

dont forget flaming torches

[Stealth Hunter]

Anyone else notice the CSA's flag in the first picture on the car?

:nope:

WAEH SHOOCKS, CORNOL, BETTA CAHL AUN 'OL JEFF DAVIS 'N GIT HIM 'UP IN HEARH.

Jesus Christ these people are a waste of space on the face of the earth.

@ the last pic.

The jacket and gold jewelry, black jeans, cigarette... I'm guessing you are a pimp?

[nikimcbee]

okay, here's some pro obama footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGMUysRIYpE&feature=related
:woot:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQO86q_EIM&feature=related

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm confused- I thought he was a Socialist...?

Now he's a Communist?

[August]

Jesus Christ these people are a waste of space on the face of the earth.

Well anytime you want to try to retake that space we'll be ready for ya... :up:

[Task Force]

hmm... just to think people were acting so excited when he was elected...

(I myself didnt like ither of the runners...)

[Stealth Hunter]

Well anytime you want to try to retake that space we'll be ready for ya... :up:

I didn't know you were marching with them in Washington.:huh:

[ETR3(SS)]

Anyone else notice the CSA's flag in the first picture on the car?

:nope:

WAEH SHOOCKS, CORNOL, BETTA CAHL AUN 'OL JEFF DAVIS 'N GIT HIM 'UP IN HEARH.

Jesus Christ these people are a waste of space on the face of the earth.

@ the last pic.

The jacket and gold jewelry, black jeans, cigarette... I'm guessing you are a pimp?Yes because if one person has a confederate flag on their Lincoln Navigator it means all those people are wackos screaming "The south shall rise again!":nope: There's bad apples in every bushel.

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh I was hardly saying that. Just remarking how odd it seems that they didn't turn around and beat him to death; being freedom-loving Americans and all, I just assumed they'd strike down any "Old Rebs".

[August]

Oh I was hardly saying that. Just remarking how odd it seems that they didn't turn around and beat him to death; being freedom-loving Americans and all, I just assumed they'd strike down any "Old Rebs".

"Beat him to death", is that how they do things in your country?

[mookiemookie]

:rotfl2:

http://www.imagevat.com/uploads/9162009/674184235.jpg (http://%3Ca%20href=%27http://www.imagevat.com/uploads/9162009/674184235.jpg%27%3E)

[SteamWake]

You lifted that from pundit kitchen dident you ;)

Saw it there too. Heard it was staged and not even in washington :cool:

By the way do not bother going to that website its porn. :haha:

My pictures on the other hand are first hand accounts. I rather trust their source. ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

By the way do not bother going to that website its porn.


Thats why Mookie showed up to that website. :O:

[mookiemookie]

Thats why Mookie showed up to that website. :O:

:haha: Oh no, that kind of porn is not my cup of tea.

[Aramike]

You lifted that from pundit kitchen dident you ;)

Saw it there too. Heard it was staged and not even in washington :cool:

By the way do not bother going to that website its porn. :haha:

My pictures on the other hand are first hand accounts. I rather trust their source. ;)I figured that had a staged feel to it. :cool:

[Stealth Hunter]

"Beat him to death", is that how they do things in your country?

Actually hanging is more common. Maybe they should lynch this reb for his treason.

FETCH SOME ROPE.

[August]

Actually hanging is more common. Maybe they should lynch this reb for his treason.

FETCH SOME ROPE.

Lynching is not only illegal it is wrong.

And BTW treason is a strong word for a bit of a flag displayed in a corner of a single picture. For all we know the caption on the sign might have been a condemnation of the Confederacy. You know the rebellion started by southern Democrats and put down by Republicans?

But be that as it may i'm 100% Yankee and if i had lived a century and a half ago it's certain that i'd be wearing blue and not gray, but I have to admit that nobody flying that flag has ever did me or mine any harm. On the other hand I have watched people flying the flag that you're sporting in your sig take 53 of my fellow countrymen hostage for well over a year so I have to ask myself, who is my enemy here?

[mookiemookie]

My pictures on the other hand are first hand accounts. I rather trust their source. ;)

Here's all the first hand accounts you can handle. A fine example of trolling old white people and the kids they drug along who are too young to understand the issue. I got a kick out of this one:

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/

"Let them eat Advil" :lol:

[Steel_Tomb]

I really don't understand sometimes... first they're like WOOHOO REFORM and now they're just moaning constantly. I just don't understand the paranoia over there... you mention any form of socialism no matter how weak and watered down it is and everyone starts screaming HES A COMMUNIST!

FFS get a grip people, having a public sector healthcare doesn't mean you'll be having a communist USA anytime soon... ok? :damn::damn:

[Tchocky]

if congress passes this health care thing.

picture all of the above images only with smoke, and gunfire.

Really?

Over expanding health care coverage?

REALLY?

Taking up arms over health care legislation - that's not a reason, it's an excuse.

[SteamWake]

Here's all the first hand accounts you can handle. A fine example of trolling old white people and the kids they drug along who are too young to understand the issue. I got a kick out of this one:

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/

"Let them eat Advil" :lol:

I think you have a loose interpritation of 'first hand account' ;)

[mookiemookie]

FFS get a grip people, having a public sector healthcare doesn't mean you'll be having a communist USA anytime soon... ok? :damn::damn:

You don't understand: With these people, there's this nostalgia to go back to an America that never was. Anything even slightly left of Ayn Rand is deemed communist and/or socialist.

[AVGWarhawk]

I really don't understand sometimes... first they're like WOOHOO REFORM and now they're just moaning constantly. I just don't understand the paranoia over there... you mention any form of socialism no matter how weak and watered down it is and everyone starts screaming HES A COMMUNIST!

FFS get a grip people, having a public sector healthcare doesn't mean you'll be having a communist USA anytime soon... ok? :damn::damn:

In short, most people do not like change...even small change. What Obama is proposing is a radical change in the status quo. Many said Obama will govern down the center but he has turned radically left and this frustrates/scares the radical right (wingnuts as they call them). To many, this is uncertain waters. They fear huge taxes with an already struggling economy. Last thing the citizens need is another tax hike. Also, many do not want to contribute to healthcare for a participant that does not contribute. The free ride is getting extremely old. Homes are foreclosing and business are closing but Washington is more wrapped up in healthcare. Furthermore the healthcare system needs to be fixed. It is broken in many places. Address these first before you throw in millions of new insurance toting citizens. Truly, this is a very radical government compared to any the citizens have seen in over 25 years or more. It is not a wonder that we do not go like sheep to slaughter. However, when any stand up it is alway a mob or wingnuts at another town hall creating havoc.

[AVGWarhawk]

You don't understand: With these people, there's this nostalgia to go back to an America that never was. Anything even slightly left of Ayn Rand is deemed communist and/or socialist.


What was the America that never was:06: Who are 'these people' you refer:06:

[SteamWake]

What was the America that never was:06: Who are 'these people' you refer:06:

You know "those people" :03:

[Tchocky]

Full marks to the guy on the left.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/2673/slide_2673_37542_large.jpg

[stabiz]

:rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

You know "those people" :03:

Are they similar to this person:

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/portrait_gallery/IMG_2478.JPG (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/portrait_gallery/)


This one?

http://www.zombietime.com/global_day_of_action_march_18_2006/IMG_5653.JPG (http://www.zombietime.com/global_day_of_action_march_18_2006/)

I think these two get full marks as well. A+ for everyone!

[mookiemookie]

What was the America that never was:06: Who are 'these people' you refer:06:

Those people in the photographs.

[AVGWarhawk]

Those people in the photographs.

Which ones? I see people with Obama is a socialist signs and people with Bush is Hitler signs. So what gives? Looks to me like everyone at one time or another was or is 'one of those people' :03:

[Stealth Hunter]

Lynching is not only illegal it is wrong.

First part- true according to the Supreme Court. But it was still a common occurrence in the 1930s in small towns.

Wrong? Wrong how? Right and wrong are points of view- opinions-- in this case (lynching, I mean). Nothing more. Opinions are never facts.

And BTW treason is a strong word for a bit of a flag displayed in a corner of a single picture.

Tell that to Oklahoma, whose legislation believes that it's treason- that any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government, or the defiance of the laws of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma is a felony with a possible 10 year prison sentence and a $1,000 fine.

For all we know the caption on the sign might have been a condemnation of the Confederacy.

Well that guy is just a little bit out of place if he is condemning the CSA in Washington, D.C. here and now in 2009. It's been gone for a good 144 years.

At an anti-government rally

There again, I don't think people would be getting his point if he showed up with that kind of a message at this kind of a rally- but I digress.

You know the rebellion started by southern Democrats and put down by Republicans?

More like early Dixiecrats. Not that it really matters since I'm not a member of either party, but saying something like that doesn't actually prove or disprove anything- despite what you think. For example, Abraham Lincoln was a Deist, Jefferson Davis was an Episcopal Christian. Does that make one religious belief system more honorable/better than the other? Not in the least. The same goes for the political parties and the American Civil War, especially when you consider that it happened nearly 150 years ago.

But be that as it may i'm 100% Yankee and if i had lived a century and a half ago it's certain that i'd be wearing blue and not gray,

Glad to hear it.

but I have to admit that nobody flying that flag has ever did me or mine any harm.

Didn't you have any relatives in the Civil War? If so, the boys flying that flag were out to harm you and yours. Your ancestors- that much is true, but without them you'd never exist.

On the other hand I have watched people flying the flag that you're sporting in your sig take 53 of my fellow countrymen hostage for well over a year so I have to ask myself, who is my enemy here?

Thirty years ago. After they overthrew an authoritarian monarch which the United States' government officials helped to put in power. After the CIA and MI6 executed a coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh because he would not let them interfere in the private business interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. After we had a democracy for the first time, and you overthrew it because of greed. Fifty-five years ago.

Now as far as the hostages are concerned, they were all returned home alive and well. Does that make what happened the right thing to do in the first place? In my humble opinion, no. But as far as grudges are concerned, I'd say we've got more of a reason to be angry at you all than you do at us. Myself included. Because the actions of your government directly affected my government- as well as myself and my family. But more importantly, your actions affected the course of Iran's history entirely.

As I said, we had a working democracy going; then you destroyed it. Because of greed. Not because we'd declared war on you, not because we'd declared you enemies of the state, not for any logical and justified reasons... you did it because you were greedy. For oil. And you didn't care one bit about what would happen in the future, or how many people would die from the aftereffects.

You set us back decades in our struggle for a positive change in our politics and government- if not centuries. The protesters in Tehran have not succeeded in their struggle. Without help and support, I doubt they ever will unfortunately.

Thanks for ruining my country and what my family had there.

[Stealth Hunter]

Full marks to the guy on the left.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/2673/slide_2673_37542_large.jpg

I think you mean "full MARX".:har:

And for those who don't get the gist and ironic joke here, the USSR was created in the aftermath of overthrowing Tsar (or Czar) Nicholas II of the Empire of Russia. Tsar refers to a monarch; if Obama really is a Communist as these people are claiming, then he's not a part of a monarchy.

[Aramike]

Thirty years ago.Wait - didn't you just bring up the US Civil War?

[Stealth Hunter]

Wait - didn't you just bring up the US Civil War?

The difference being the Civil War had a lasting impact on the country, still here even 144 years later. The Iran Hostage Crisis- well did that change the very course of history for the United States? Nope.

[August]

The difference being the Civil War had a lasting impact on the country, still here even 144 years later. The Iran Hostage Crisis- well did that change the very course of history for the United States? Nope.

It pulled us out of the post vietnam era funk.
It got Jimmy Carter out of the oval office before he could do more damage.
It got Ronald Reagan into office
It made enemies of our two nations.

The effects of these things are still being felt and will continue for a long time.

As for your previous posts: Dance around the subject all you want but calling for someones lynching just isn't funny.

[Sea Demon]

Thanks for ruining my country and what my family had there.

Things weren't exactly rosy during your authoritarian Monarch period in your country. I think Iranians didn't exactly do much to make their country a stable and wonderful place for all it's citizens before US policy there. What responsibility do Iranians have for their own role in the ruination of your country?

And as far as the blunder in allowing the Islamic Revolution to take place in Iran, you can thank the impotent Jimmy Carter administration and the Democrats of the time. You know, the very people you vote for in my country. You can thank people like yourself for Iran's dismal failure in two different ways.

August is right regarding your views between the Rebel Flag and the Iranian flag in your sig. You're just spinning because you can't do an adequate job of explaining it away.

[Stealth Hunter]

It pulled us out of the post vietnam era funk.

As far as history is concerned for the United States, there was no real "Post-Vietnam Era". The Vietnam War ended in 1975 according to Gerald Ford. Since it was part of the United States' effort against Communism in the Cold War, that's the timeline era it would fall under. And the Cold War didn't end until the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

It got Jimmy Carter out of the oval office before he could do more damage.
It got Ronald Reagan into office.

Not the fuel shortage problems and Soviet's invading Afghanistan- when the United States supported the Mujaheddin? Not John Anderson's attempt at the presidency which got him 6% of the popular vote? Not the other independents who ran and took votes from Carter? Not his period of stagflation with other nations?

Carter did not lose for one reason. You and I both know politics is too complicated to allow something like that to happen. There are many things that decides who will be victorious, some larger than others. And with that said, comparing with other issues the United States had at the time he was president, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was hardly the biggest one to hit him- most vocally so when you consider things like the Soviets trying to push into and take over the Middle East and Carter's reaction to it.

It made enemies of our two nations.

And now when Obama wants to repair it and Ahmadinejad and the clergy are willing to have it repaired, the Republican Party on a whole and some of the Democrats are saying that we shouldn't even bother because of some stupid incident that happened 30 years ago which didn't start a war between either one of us, or cause either one of us to commit terrorist acts against the other, or even cause anyone to die (no seriously, none of the hostages died and none of the Iranians died; Carter did fulfill one promise it seems).

The effects of these things are still being felt and will continue for a long time.

But did any of these effects include a massive revolution for you all that changed your government style completely? Did anyone die as a result of this? How about a war afterwards which got over a million people killed? Did that ever happen?

No. None of these things happened to the United States as a result of the end of Vietnam or Cold War, Jimmy Carter losing the election to Reagan, or relations between the United States and Iran deteriorating. But they did to Iran as a result of the United States couping Dr. Mossadegh and placing a tyrannical monarch in power. And you did it because of greed.

As for your previous posts: Dance around the subject all you want but calling for someones lynching just isn't funny.

What subject are we talking about here? The CSA flag image or Iranian-American history and relations? Because I addressed both quite clearly. Which reminds me, you still haven't explained why that flag is there.

Things weren't exactly rosy during your authoritarian Monarch period in your country.

Yeah no kidding.

I think Iranians didn't exactly do much to make their country a stable and wonderful place for all it's citizens before US policy there.

Because we couldn't. Because the Pahlavis had a tremendous amount of power over us. The monarchs always did. They had the Imperial Guard watching their backs at all times, half the regulars were loyal to them, and the citizens themselves had nothing to fight with.

The coup the put Mossadegh in power was a great thing. But then they couped a second time and put the Pahlavis back on the throne. We wanted democracy and for a time we had it, but then it was taken away from us and that was a huge setback and major historical event.

Now I don't know how many of us deserted from the regular army when the Islamic Revolution began, but I know it was a lot of us. And I also know that if any revolution had happened any earlier, there would have been a lot fewer deserting to join the rebellion. And for the time, we were using powerful stuff. Most of it we got from the Soviets and turned out to be total crap when we actually used it against the Iraqis, but against ill-equipped and poorly trained militias I assume it would get the job done.

What responsibility do Iranians have for their own role in the ruination of your country?

And as far as the blunder in allowing the Islamic Revolution to take place in Iran, you can thank the impotent Jimmy Carter administration and the Democrats of the time. You know, the very people you vote for in my country. You can thank people like yourself for Iran's dismal failure in two different ways.

Making it a theocracy run by Islamic clergymen. That certainly didn't help our situation in the slightest, but we could have avoided that in the first place if Mossadegh hadn't been overthrown. The majority of the people loved him, saw him as a hero who put his principles above any personal gain.

Well that fact never made me a fan of Carter, but it still angers me more than anything that Eisenhower and Churchill couped us after Mossadegh had gotten in power. We never would have had a revolution after that. Not saying the prospect would be an impossibility, but it certainly would be very unlikely. That's one of the reasons I liked Truman: he refused to meddle in our oil affairs.

Furthermore, Reagan and the Republicans would not have been any better of a choice. Yeah, they guaranteed us independence and shipped us some ammunition and weapons, but they counted on Iraq winning in the long run. That's why they dedicated most of their support to the Iraqis by shipping mustard and chlorine gas to them, by helping to train their soldiers, and by shipping weapons and ammunition to them. And the Soviets weren't much better, but the only reason they were helping us more than Iraq was because the Iraqis supported the United States over them.

I can thank both sides for messing Iran up. Neither one of them are saintly, which is precisely why I don't bother vouching for one or the other. They're both in it for their own personal ends. Nobody should kid themself about that.

August is right regarding your views between the Rebel Flag and the Iranian flag in your sig. You're just spinning because you can't do an adequate job of explaining it away.

Spinning would be me trying to bridge a comparison between the two, and that's not what I'm doing. So no, I am not "spinning" anything.

What is there to explain? The flag of the CSA is in the pic, it's got no belonging at an anti-Obama/government rally (maybe at some sort of Civil War-related rally, but that's not what this is), and it's quite easy to infer that it's there to demonstrate either racist and unsupportive feelings for having a black president (that's always been the original usage of it; check out the KKK rallies sometime- they're never short on Stainless Banners) or to inspire a rebellious sense of attitude among the crowd.

[mookiemookie]

and it's quite easy to infer that it's there to demonstrate either racist and unsupportive feelings for having a black president
Sometimes the code is easy to break. Good thing there weren't any black people there to see it.

[August]

As far as history is concerned for the United States, there was no real "Post-Vietnam Era". The Vietnam War ended in 1975 according to Gerald Ford. Since it was part of the United States' effort against Communism in the Cold War, that's the timeline era it would fall under. And the Cold War didn't end until the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

Yeah ok, like you'd know more about that than someone who lived here during that era.

Carter did not lose for one reason.No he didn't but the hostage crisis and his bumbling response to it was arguably the single biggest reason.

And now when Obama wants to repair it and Ahmadinejad and the clergy are willing to have it repaired,Obama is a fool for thinking he can normalize relations with the mullahs.

But did any of these effects include a massive revolution for you all that changed your government style completely? Did anyone die as a result of this? How about a war afterwards which got over a million people killed? Did that ever happen?None of that stuff happened after the American civil war either. I believe the question was whether Vietnam had a lasting impact on this country. Nothing you have said contradicts that.


What subject are we talking about here? The CSA flag image or Iranian-American history and relations? Because I addressed both quite clearly.If that's what you call it. It looks to me like a song and dance around the truth.

Which reminds me, you still haven't explained why that flag is there.Well you haven't either dearie. Maybe the flag was put there by a Democrat party operative trying to make the opposition look bad. After all they have a track record for employing tactics like that.

like this (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/)

and this (http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/yet_another_democrat_plant.html)

and this (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efc_1251346675)

and this (http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2009/09/08/man-carrying-obama-hitler-sign-at-rep-dingell-event-was-democrat-plant/)

Now I'm not saying the Republicans have never done this but the Democrats do seem to have made a habit of it.

That still doesn't excuse you advocating vigilante murder.

[August]

Oh and while i'm at it. 70% of Americans still regard Iran as an enemy. Not bad for a "stupid incident that caused no permanent harm"...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/ally_enemy/u_s_standings_for_various_countries_around_the_wor ld

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah ok, like you'd know more about that than someone who lived here during that era.

Apparently I do.

No he didn't but the hostage crisis and his bumbling response to it was arguably the single biggest reason.

Arguably. Exactly. But moving on.

Obama is a fool for thinking he can normalize relations with the mullahs.

And you know this... how exactly? It's certainly not impossible. I mean, we've done it with bigger and more aggressive nations before. Why- with Nazi-Germany, our diplomatic relations with them were favorable. And how about Communist China? We've got good relations with them.

If he doesn't in the end, then at least he tried. You can't scrutinize a person for trying. Not out of dishonest bias, anyway.

None of that stuff happened after the American civil war either.

But the American Civil War in itself was precisely these things: a revolution. It began when the southern states split and organized the Confederate States of America, and the northern states remained part of the United States of America. War broke out as a result. Millions died, millions more were wounded, the government's view on succession and federal power changed entirely, and the course of American history was set on a completely different route (for the first time, blacks had the right to vote and slavery was abolished)

I believe the question was whether Vietnam had a lasting impact on this country.

What question? You never asked a question. If you did, then I'd say that the war itself did, but the events of the Post-Vietnam Era do not any longer. Not for the government anyway.

Nothing you have said contradicts that.

See above.

If that's what you call it. It looks to me like a song and dance around the truth.

In the long run, how is this even relevant? Whatever you think it may be and whatever it truly is, the facts themselves stand quite evident and clearly.

Well you haven't either dearie.

You might want to read again a little more carefully this time:

"and it's quite easy to infer that it's there to demonstrate either racist and unsupportive feelings for having a black president (that's always been the original usage of it; check out the KKK rallies sometime- they're never short on Stainless Banners) or to inspire a rebellious sense of attitude among the crowd"

Maybe the flag was put there by a Democrat party operative trying to make the opposition look bad.

Maybe. Or maybe I put it there...

After all they have a track record for employing tactics like that.

like this (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/)


So how exactly does Journey's question for the debates and opinion about John Edwards have anything to do with making the opposition look bad? And for the record, why exactly did you need to cite a "reporter" who states that Journey is a "big slobbering Anderson Cooper fan"? She (and you, for that matter) never proved that this girl was working as a "Democratic Party operative"; that she was "planted" there.

Why exactly are we supposed to just take this as you present it for granted- as Malkin presents it?

Furthermore, "Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone"...

...? What seems to be the problem here? I've known plenty of Republicans who have supported/voted for Democrats before. Are you saying that they're not allowed to have their opinion? How about Mrs. Anderson?

Off-topic for a second, but I'm just going to come right on out with it and say, as bluntly as is humanly possible, that Malkin... she's a bitch. There. I said it. I don't care if you (or her, for that matter; or anyone else here) takes offense to me saying that or not. She's that quack "reporter", if one could dignify calling her that, who worked for O'Reilly and stuck with him through thick and thin before becoming and opportunist and deciding to move out of FOX and establish her own "Conservative Blogspot". Apparently, she's also a jingoist- because she had no problem scrutinizing the Students Against War organization by posting their personal information and contact information online at her website. Then there was the Captain Jamil Hussein controversy and her drummed-up rant/controversy about Rachael Ray wearing a headscarf that she claimed was an Islamic mashadah (it's not even a symbol of the Jihad to begin with, you two-faced moron).

and this (http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/yet_another_democrat_plant.html)

That's about the exact same thing you posted above. Did you ever bother to read it- or did you just Google keywords about this stuff as frantically as possible and pull up whatever sounded good? I'm guessing the latter.

and this (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efc_1251346675)

Again, I see LiveLeak claiming that this guy was planted by the Democrats- but I don't see them producing any actual evidence to back that assertion up.

and this (http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2009/09/08/man-carrying-obama-hitler-sign-at-rep-dingell-event-was-democrat-plant/)

So where are the photographs of this guy doing this? Where's the audio-taped recording of him discussing health care with Dingell as this guy on FOX claims? I see them doing that a lot: they proclaim plenty of things as fact, but they never do produce anything to back them up and confirm them as fact.

Now I'm not saying the Republicans have never done this but the Democrats do seem to have made a habit of it.

You're basing this not off actual evidence, but mere claims- aren't you? From the links you posted above, that's evidently the case. You never did check to see where FOX got their information from about Dingell and the guy who they said was a plant, did you? You never asked if they had proof to confirm the story, did you? You never asked if LiveLeak had any evidence to show that their guy was a plant, did you? Or Malkin and Coleman for that matter.

Considering how these people cover what they report (especially Malkin's statement on Journey liking Anderson Cooper), their reliability certainly is questionable.

That still doesn't excuse you advocating vigilante murder.

I (and/or we/you) can advocate whatever I (and/or we/you) want. Advocation isn't illegal. You can frown upon it, but I can't be thrown in jail for it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh and while i'm at it. 70% of Americans still regard Iran as an enemy. Not bad for a "stupid incident that caused no permanent harm"...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/ally_enemy/u_s_standings_for_various_countries_around_the_wor ld

I'm impressed with Rasmussen's thorough poll-taking skills. It must have taken them a long time to interview all 305 million Americans living h- oh yeah that's right. They didn't...

[Sea Demon]

I'm impressed with Rasmussen's thorough poll-taking skills. It must have taken them a long time to interview all 305 million Americans living h- oh yeah that's right. They didn't...

Dude, you need to know when to quit. :DL You have been presented nothing but facts, and you continue to do nothing but create your own myths and spin like a top. You've been caught spewing weak and false premises, and you can't escape any of it. You cannot seem to account for Iranian personal responsibility for their own failure in the ruination of Iran...instead it was the US and Soviets fault. You see a picture with a confederate flag on a car and think that means everybody there is a pro-slavery confederate racist. (lunacy) You apparently don't understand that black activists are at these rallies as well. And they're opposed to the same stuff as these "white racists" in the pictures. You see a poll overwhelmingly reflecting the feelings of my country regarding Iran, and apparently have no clue that most Americans understand the potential problems posed by Iran. You're in denial over fact checked sources where Democrats were sabotaging themselves in the hopes Republicans would take the blame. And much more to list.

Dude, you lost the game at least a page back or so.

[Stealth Hunter]

Dude, you need to know when to quit. :DL You have been presented nothing but facts, you continue to do nothing but create your own myths and spin like a top.

I have been presented with sourceless blog entries and sites which freely state that they're opinionated for one side or the other- no independent ones unfortunately that are not blogs and freely state that they do not take sides. The burden of proof rests with them to show that their assertions are correct; I'm simply pointing out that you are taking their word for granted without putting any further analytical thought to it.

You've been caught spewing weak and false premises, and you can't escape any of it.

And what are this "weak and false premises"?

Why try to escape? It is you who claims that these things exist, not I.

You cannot seem to account for Iranian personal responsibility for their own failure in the ruination of Iran...instead it was the US and Soviets fault.

Which couldn't be more wrong. I've already stated twice that the appointment of Islamic clergymen to positions of power did hindered progress for the nation as a whole, but I also pointed out that the US' efforts did little to help.

Soviets? I'm not placing any large quantity of blame upon the Soviets for what happened with Dr. Mossadegh, which was my primary focus. That was strictly the faults of the US and UK.

You see a picture with a confederate flag on a car and think that means everybody there is a pro-slavery confederate racist.

I do not think and them assume as you are stating, merely assert and consider the distinct possibility. There is a difference; I hoped you'd know it but it seems you don't. Either way, that would be stereotyping for the whole lot to say that "everybody there is a pro-slavery Confederate racist"- which is precisely why I never said it in the first place; you did.:DL

(lunacy)

Indeed.

You apparently don't understand that black activists are at these rallies as well.

Very few if you watch the videos. Either way race never was an issue I intentionally brought up, but that just goes for me.

And they're opposed to the same stuff as these "white racists" in the pictures.

Hey- you said it; I didn't.

You see a poll overwhelmingly reflecting the feelings of my country regarding Iran, and apparently have no clue that most Americans understand the potential problems posed by Iran.

And you obviously don't understand that one poll does not represent the feelings of all 305 million citizens. Yes, you can never appease what everybody wants nor can you discover what everybody thinks and feels, but you're hardly going to find out from a poll conducted by a news network of any kind. Which is why I go by government surveys. They're on a much larger scale. Now if the people at Rasmussen cite their sources, I'd be more inclined to believe them. Otherwise, what they say is hardly of any value to me- or to anyone who believes in the burden of proof debate concept.

You're in denial over fact checked sources where Democrats were sabotaging themselves in the hopes Republicans would take the blame.

FOX News brings on a man and a woman who claim that this one guy was holding up an "Obama=Hitler" sign at a health care rally and later turns out to be an advocate supporting Dingell, ergo a "plant" of the Democratic Party. They don't say who these people are coming up with this story, they don't provide any video footage or audio recordings to back this claim up, and the fact that its FOX alone does little to add to the credibility and reliability (in terms of accuracy) of the story. Just look at how they support people like O'Reilly and that morning group "FOX & Friends". That's the exact same reason I don't watch MSNBC. There's nothing to go on, lol. Just that guy's word. I'm not saying he's lying; I'm simply saying there's no reason to believe him as you and August are. Can't you figure that out for yourselves? The burden of proof concept is not at all complicated. But since you assert that these were "fact-checked sources", who were their sources and what's the backstory on the facts? I investigated and didn't find anything; no video footage, no audio recordings, no pictures, etc. So since you're the one vouching that they are indeed accurate, you find the proof that shows they are.

Again, I'm not saying that there is no proof and that the story isn't factual; just that they have shown an astonishing lack of proof and thus there is no reason anyone should assume they are being factual.

The same applies to Michelle Malkin's stories about the YouTube girl, Republican, and Worker's Union wife. She claims they're all working for the Democrats, but she doesn't provide any evidence to support her assertion- so there's no reason anyone should believe her. This isn't a matter of opinion, SD; it's a matter of logical principle. If a person makes a claim (or assertion, they refer to the same type of thing), it is up to them to present evidence directly related to that claim and topic of said claim to confirm it as fact. Dear god- didn't someone teach you this in gradeschool?

Now claims, evidence, and whatnot aside, Malkin's reputation certainly does make her reliability and credibility questionable. I mean, a journalist who says they're "fair and balanced" one minute and the next says that a person who likes Anderson Cooper is a "a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan" isn't exactly free of bias. You and I both can tell that that ; so does August (you're both smart enough people that you should be able to figure that out).

And much more to list.

Hey- I've got time. Continue listing.

Dude, you lost the game at least a page back or so.

This is a debate, not a game. If you can't tell the difference, there's no reason for you even bothering with this. If you want to persist, that's fine with me. I really do find it amusing and fun. I love an easy debate just as much as the next man. Though I know that someone is going to come along to this post and say, "It's long, and the only reason why it is long is because you know you've been beaten and you're just not willing to admit it." But that will not assuage this discussion in the least, nor will it discredit anyone in it.

[August]

And you know this... how exactly? It's certainly not impossible. I mean, we've done it with bigger and more aggressive nations before. Why- with Nazi-Germany, our diplomatic relations with them were favorable. And how about Communist China? We've got good relations with them.

We're not going to have good diplomatic relations with a nation that denies the holocaust, threatens Israel with destruction, funds and trains terrorist groups and is actively trying to build a nuke.

If he doesn't in the end, then at least he tried. You can't scrutinize a person for trying. Not out of dishonest bias, anyway.

I didn't say he was dishonest. I said he was a fool for negotiating with the Mullahs that run your country and he is.

But the American Civil War in itself was precisely these things: a revolution. It began when the southern states split and organized the Confederate States of America, and the northern states remained part of the United States of America. War broke out as a result. Millions died, millions more were wounded, the government's view on succession and federal power changed entirely, and the course of American history was set on a completely different route (for the first time, blacks had the right to vote and slavery was abolished)

You said it changed our government style completely. It didn't. We had a President, a two house Congress, a judicial branch before, during and after the war. Then you say "Millions died, millions more were wounded" when you know that's a huge exaggeration. A little over 600k died and about 400k were wounded. If you're knowledge of the post vietnam era is as flawed as your knowledge of the civil war you might want to re-examine the basis for your arguments.

Maybe. Or maybe I put it there...

Or maybe somebody trying to score political points for the opposition put it there. Now you can infer all you want SH but the point is we don't know and you can't consider your theories to be "fact" and certainly not representative of the Tea party movement.

That's about the exact same thing you posted above. Did you ever bother to read it- or did you just Google keywords about this stuff as frantically as possible and pull up whatever sounded good? I'm guessing the latter.

Right, "frantically" seven hours after you posted. That's because i'm just hanging upon your every word... :roll:

I (and/or we/you) can advocate whatever I (and/or we/you) want. Advocation isn't illegal. You can frown upon it, but I can't be thrown in jail for it.[/QUOTE]

Well I thought I was frowning on it. The only one that mentions jail is you. Must be that guilty conscience talking...

[Platapus]

Oh and while i'm at it. 70% of Americans still regard Iran as an enemy. Not bad for a "stupid incident that caused no permanent harm"...



I wonder how many of that "70%" are totally clueless of the history of Iran and only base their opinions on what they read in American Press?

I have worked international policy for far too long to be impressed with the opinions of the public.

[Stealth Hunter]

We're not going to have good diplomatic relations with a nation that denies the holocaust, threatens Israel with destruction, funds and trains terrorist groups and is actively trying to build a nuke.

Oh please. Ahmadinejad and the clergy deny the Holocaust; but they are not the people- and their views differ from the people's, so as far as representation is concerned, they do not speak for the people. The citizens of Iran are forced to live in a theocratic government when they would have it to be secular in nature if they ever had the power to make it so. And they did at one time. But not now.

Nobody threated Israel with destruction. Not even Ahmadinejad- where that rumor stems from. He said it must "vanish from the pages of time". That's a Qur'an prophecy about how the end of days will come about, not any more different from the Bible's; it's not a declaration of war.

"Funds and trains terrorist groups"? What evidence do you have of this? I've heard plenty of people claim that they are, mostly the same people who claimed that Iraq had WMDs and was supporting terrorist groups. But did they ever confirm any of these allegations? No, they didn't. As far as reality is concerned, they were all bulls***.

Listen, groups like Al-Qaeda don't need anyone to give them weapons, money, and ammunition. You and the Europeans gave them plenty of that when they were unified in the Mujahideen against the invading Sovets; so did the Saudis. Back then, you called them "freedom fighters". Now, you call them terrorists. So which is it?

And yes, I do have a citation for my claim that they received funding from you, financially and equipment wise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm

I didn't say he was dishonest.

I didn't say he was either; I said that a person who does scrutinize him for trying cannot be doing it for much more of a reason than because of dishonest bias. If he tries and succeeds, then he accomplished what he set out to do. Otherwise, nothing is lost or gained.

I said he was a fool for negotiating with the Mullahs that run your country and he is.

Why? Why is he a fool? Because he's trying? I'm not calling him a genius, but I'm not calling him a fool either. Why can't you simply say you don't know what the outcome will be to the talks? Why can't you admit that we'll all just have to wait and see what happens before we can draw any kind of fair judgements?

You said it changed our government style completely. It didn't. We had a President, a two house Congress, a judicial branch before, during and after the war.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments abolish slavery, give equal protection under the law, and allow blacks to vote- respectively. The Republican Party takes control in Congress and passes the Morrill Tariff, Morrill Act, Homestead Act, National Banking Act of 1864, and approves construction of the transcontinental railroad. The planter "aristocracy" concept in citizenship is destroyed, industrialization undergoes radical advances in both production and sophistication, and the states that joined with the CSA lost billions in finances impacting the economy on a whole.

The 13th through 15th Amendments alone changed the "fundamental laws" of the country and government principles as a result. The Homestead Act changed for a time how property was owned and managed nation-wide until the 1980s. I don't think I need to clarify on the business effects of the Morrill Tariff, National Banking Act, or transcontinental railroad's construction. Putting it briefly, Representative Morrill's tariff allowed the Union to raise required funds during the Civil War, the National Banking Act of 1864 marked one of the first lasting bank regulation charters in the country's history, and the transcontinental railroad allowed for the faster transportation of raw materials, workers, and products for industries.

Then you say "Millions died, millions more were wounded" when you know that's a huge exaggeration. A little over 600k died and about 400k were wounded.

Actually 700,000 died, either from battle or disease (that's counting the 40,000 dead from black units and 5,000 dead from Indian units, as well as civilian casualties; this isn't wounded casualties, mind you). You're getting that from military casualties alone, aren't you? As in- the blue and the grey on the battlefield. Anyway, about 650,000 were wounded (not counting black and Indian units), 200,000 of which died later either from disease or the severity of their injuries (such as stress on the body or surgical complications). So that brings your total to 900,000. According to Union records, 50,840 soldiers died as a result of side accidents. That breaks down to be 25,000 prisoners, 5,000 drownings, 5,000 general accidents (construction, misfires, falls, etc.), 520 murders, 400 suicides, 315 sunstrokes/heatstrokes, 270 military executions, 105 killed after being captured by the Confederates, 70 military executions by the Confederates, and 14,160 are listed simply as "unclassified". I don't know what that refers to, but that doesn't really matter. So your total breaks down to be 950,840 dead, 650,000 wounded- of which 200,000 died so roughly 450,000 were wounded and lived on. The Confederate casualties are estimated, however, by Burke Davis (this stuff is all from his book "Strange and Fascinating Facts" about the war; link below). This is also omitting the roughly 20,000 dead at Andersonville Prison. They didn't keep very good records, even about army strength. Davis speculates that their dead may have pushed up to 325,000 and Union dead may have gone up to 425,000 to 430,000- that's just from battle losses and disease related to the effects of the battles, which would take it just past the 1,000,000 mark considering all the other stuff he's mentioned. Whether or not his estimation is correct or not- I don't know. Personally I wouldn't doubt it, figuring up things like naval losses and Confederate POW camp losses it certainly doesn't seem impossible, or injuries Confederates and civilians suffered. I mean the SS Sultana's explosion alone killed like... what- 2,000 people? Including civilians? About 500 others had third-degree burns. And speaking of civilians, how many people were killed in the Kansas slavery and territory disputes- or by Confederate freelancers like Quantrill? I'd also like to find out how many of the foreigners who went to fight for the Confederates were killed.

Burke Davis' book: http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Strange-Fascinating-Facts/dp/0517371510

If you're knowledge of the post vietnam era is as flawed as your knowledge of the civil war you might want to re-examine the basis for your arguments.

I was about to suggest the same.

Or maybe somebody trying to score political points for the opposition put it there.

I'm pretty sure I put it there.:)

Now you can infer all you want SH but the point is we don't know and you can't consider your theories to be "fact" and certainly not representative of the Tea party movement.

Never was considering them as fact. Stated that several times already. Just tossing out food for thought on it and my two cents.

Right, "frantically" seven hours after you posted. That's because i'm just hanging upon your every word... :roll:

The time between postings is irrelevant. How much time you took to find and look over sources is all that matters here. And apparently, you didn't take very long at all- because they were both talking about the exact same thing, not separate events.

Why golly-gee, I'm flattered that you are.:salute:

Well I thought I was frowning on it.

Yep, wasn't disputing that.

The only one that mentions jail is you. Must be that guilty conscience talking...

Far from it actually. But I chuckled all the same. Simply pointing out that advocation of a "vigilante murder" is fine and good and perfectly legal; it's just the vigilante that's going to jail for doing something illegal; i.e. performing the murder.

[August]

Oh please. Ahmadinejad and the clergy deny the Holocaust; but they are not the people-

They were put in power by "the people". As long as they remain in power our two countries will remain enemies. Fact of life, get used to it.

[Stealth Hunter]

They were put in power by "the people".

No- Khomeini came back to Iran after his exile to France. Prime Minister Bakhtiar was the one who had support after the Shah was removed. He brought with him a large congregation of his followers and got several thousand members of the army to defect to his side and turn on Bakhtiar. Then he declared a Jihad on the rest of us who did not join him. Weapons and ammunition were gained by him, and it was impossible to stop him from taking over. Then our Islamic constitution was drafted and Khomeini was named Grand Ayatollah. From then on, his position acted as the leader of the clergy and nation.

The "president" of Iran is but a puppet to them, who acts as a mouthpiece to the rest of the world. Ahmadinejad included. The clergy decides who wins and who loses in the elections, regardless of who the people want as president and regardless of what you or anyone else may think contrare to this.

As long as they remain in power our two countries will remain enemies. Fact of life, get used to it.

To you, but thankfully your opinion does not matter in the long run because it's within a minority among the executive and legislative members. Neither does mine, butmy opinion sides with that of the people in power. And they want to improve relations with Iran- not just let ourselves always be at odds as you and your ilk would have it. And they will not be deterred by objections by someone like you.:up:

[August]

My "ilk"? :DL

[Stealth Hunter]

Yes. The people who would have us isolationist and non-negotiation with them. Who wouldn't even bother to try.:D

[Tribesman]

"Funds and trains terrorist groups"? What evidence do you have of this?
Come off it, no one could honestly deny that Iran funds and trains terrorists. Then again no one could honestly deny that the US funds and trains terrorists either, so that puts the whole "but they support terrorism" argument out of the window for both parties.




On the other hand I have watched people flying the flag that you're sporting in your sig take 53 of my fellow countrymen hostage for well over a year so I have to ask myself, who is my enemy here?

Ah of course, the MEK .
Now which country is sitting on a pile of those terrorists funds and is repeatedly having politicians putting forward bills in both houses to not only release the funds but also re open their offices in the country for more terrorist fundraising?

I said he was a fool for negotiating with the Mullahs that run your country and he is.

Actually since there are no viable options available he would be a fool not to negotiate, though of course now that Irans regional threats have been eliminated for them it isn't really a good time to negotiate as America is playing with a weak hand.....but you can't turn the clock back and play with the hand you threw away and you can't wait in the hope of a new hand as it looks like it will be decades before the cards are redealt(unless of course you can get Putin in to fix the game in your favour, which isn't very likely)

[Stealth Hunter]

Come off it, no one could honestly deny that Iran funds and trains terrorists. Then again no one could honestly deny that the US funds and trains terrorists either, so that puts the whole "but they support terrorism" argument out of the window for both parties.

They've got the Basij to act as their terrorists, lol. But anyway, I was merely asking what evidence he had for this? Personally, I would not doubt the plausibility of such an idea- it's just that nobody has ever come forward in their case with any real proof. Like with the Mujahideen, their members admitted the US financed them. Members of the CIA admitted to financing them. But with Iran- I've never heard or seen any terrorist groups openly stating that they've received support from them. And Iran continues to deny it. I'll put it like this: my people don't like terrorists anymore than your people. Because they know that they're a serious threat and they know that they could turn on them in a second if they wanted to and cause some serious damage.

[Tribesman]

Personally, I would not doubt the plausibility of such an idea- it's just that nobody has ever come forward in their case with any real proof.
Well where do you want to start?
Kurdistan ? the various groups there have got training and funding from mong others Iran Iraq Israel America Russia Syria....
Keeping it in the region you have the Badr brigades trained and based in Iran as part of the supreme council for islamic revolution in Iraq(thats the people the US put in power with their invasion funnily enough)
On the same note SCIRI opened offices for foriegn political groups for diplomatic representation with the emerging Iraqi government. One group that had its "consulate" in Iraq in a SCIRI facility was of course HezB'allah who strangly enough were originally trained and armed by the revolutionary guard.
As that brings it over to the west of the mid-east I suppose the recent intercepted weapons shipments to Hamas is worth a mention.
Or should we go further west to Pakistan and talk about the rebels in Baluchistan?

I'll put it like this: my people don't like terrorists anymore than your people.
Thats true , my country was founded by terrorists and a right bunch of muppets they turned out to be, we still have terrorists now and they are still idiots after all these years.
Some people do like them though.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well where do you want to start?
Kurdistan ? the various groups there have got training and funding from mong others Iran Iraq Israel America Russia Syria....

Where are you getting this from? SOURCES, DAMMIT, SOURCES.:)

Keeping it in the region you have the Badr brigades trained and based in Iran as part of the supreme council for islamic revolution in Iraq(thats the people the US put in power with their invasion funnily enough)

The Badr Organization was never endorsed by the Iranian government; they were just a bunch of rejects who didn't like Saddam who decided that they'd band together and fight Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. We were doing the hard work, not them. They were never our allies. It's punishable by death if you're caught helping them or are found to have had any ties with them. That Allawi chap alleges that we had them kill Iraqi officers after the coup on Saddam, but he's never even bothered to investigate this- nor has he produced anything that takes his words beyond wild claims.

On the same note SCIRI opened offices for foriegn political groups for diplomatic representation with the emerging Iraqi government. One group that had its "consulate" in Iraq in a SCIRI facility was of course HezB'allah who strangly enough were originally trained and armed by the revolutionary guard.

Hezbollah was not trained by the RG. They, like the Badr Organization, were a bunch of rejects (anarchists, exiles, revolutionists, etc.) who decided to band together after the Islamic Revolution (it inspired them really) and form a rebel group. Now some of their leaders were members of the RG, but none of them were on active duty. Most actually had deserted from the army- especially so during the middle years of Iraq's war on us when things were looking bad. Very bad.

As that brings it over to the west of the mid-east I suppose the recent intercepted weapons shipments to Hamas is worth a mention.

Now they have been giving money to Hamas. Not for weapons, but because they feel that "Hamas has acted as a charitable organization, that builds schools and hospitals and steps in where the Palestinian Authority has failed". But I'll give you that one; $47 million less than the Saudis have been contributing to them, but they have been giving them money nevertheless.

Or should we go further west to Pakistan and talk about the rebels in Baluchistan?

Which ones? They've got like two-dozen rebel organizations. The Jundallah, Bugti Militants, Dad Shahs, Baluchi Liberation Front... to name a few. Those people agree on nothing. If they're not doing deals with each other one minute, then they're at each other's throats the second. So disorganized that nobody bothers funding them. Not even Al-Qaeda takes them seriously. India has been sending in people to hunt them down for decades, and every year, hundreds of them are caught and executed like the dogs they are.

Thats true , my country was founded by terrorists and a right bunch of muppets they turned out to be, we still have terrorists now and they are still idiots after all these years.

Well I wouldn't call the founding fathers terrorists, per say. Like us, they were revolutionaries. They used guerilla tactics to win skirmishes as well, just like us.

Some people do like them though.

I must admit I liked some of the things they stood for, but because of their tactics, I could not keep on liking them.

[Tribesman]

SOURCES, DAMMIT, SOURCES.
Garlic or Pepper?

[Cohaagen]

Some high-quality pics of the march from those who were there:

http://www.theruthlessforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3155

[Onkel Neal]

...likes how this robust discussion is being conducted without personal attacks, name-calling, etc. Keep up the good work, guys. :up: