Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 10:16:25 AM

Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 10:16:25 AM
"The 9/11 Congressional Hearings are basically saying that the Bush Administration / USA failed and should have pre-emptively struck AL Qaeda before 9/11 happened. Isn't this what we did to Iraq?"

Just had to share.  ;)
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 10:36:07 AM
buying souls Saurd?  I always suspected you had horns and caried a pitchfork
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Eagler on March 30, 2004, 10:49:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by strk
buying souls Saurd?  I always suspected you had horns and caried a pitchfork


LOL - good come back
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 10:56:15 AM
Its a social experiment, strk.  You looking to sell?  ;)
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: GtoRA2 on March 30, 2004, 11:01:40 AM
Strk
 Are you the tower number 7 guy?
Title: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on March 30, 2004, 11:42:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
"The 9/11 Congressional Hearings are basically saying that the Bush Administration / USA failed and should have pre-emptively struck AL Qaeda before 9/11 happened. Isn't this what we did to Iraq?"

Just had to share.  ;)


Pre-emptive would imply that they hadn't attacked at all wouldn't it?

Kinda like Iraq hadn't attacked at all.
Title: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 12:11:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Pre-emptive would imply that they hadn't attacked at all wouldn't it?

Kinda like Iraq hadn't attacked at all.


Ding, ding, ding.

The mind of a Bush hater is a strange and dangerous place.  It is capable of blaming Bush for 9/11 because he didnt preemptively strike at Al Qaeda before the attack and criticizing his preemptive attack on iraq before Saddam could do any damage in the same breath.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 01:24:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by strk
buying souls Saurd?  I always suspected you had horns and caried a pitchfork


Im a good southern baptist who has accepted Jesus Christ as my personal saviour

"for I am the way, the truth and the light.  No man cometh unto the father but by me" (as best I can remember)

so in short, my soul belongs to Jesus
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Ripsnort on March 30, 2004, 01:34:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Strk
 Are you the tower number 7 guy?


:rofl
Title: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: MJHerman on March 30, 2004, 01:36:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Ding, ding, ding.

The mind of a Bush hater is a strange and dangerous place.  It is capable of blaming Bush for 9/11 because he didnt preemptively strike at Al Qaeda before the attack and criticizing his preemptive attack on iraq before Saddam could do any damage in the same breath.


As is the mind of a Bush drone....

I think he was trying to point out that there is no logic in launching a pre-emptive attack against someone who was a threat to his neighbours but no direct threat to the United States (either historically or going forward).  Unless you buy into that whole "the WMD are there, I swear" or "Osama and Saddam are best buddies" thing.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 01:50:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl


what are you laughing at, cupcake?
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: LePaul on March 30, 2004, 01:53:47 PM
Everytime I see strk's posts and the Howard Dean avatar, all I can hear is the Dean "Arrrrggggghhhhhhh!" sound byte.   :rofl
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 02:22:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MJHerman
As is the mind of a Bush drone....

I think he was trying to point out that there is no logic in launching a pre-emptive attack against someone who was a threat to his neighbours but no direct threat to the United States (either historically or going forward).  Unless you buy into that whole "the WMD are there, I swear" or "Osama and Saddam are best buddies" thing.


LOL - WOW!  How did you get THAT!?!

(see?)

The gentlemen that made the statement is bringing light to the fact that very same people who are bashing Bush for going into Iraq 'unprovoked' are also bashing him for not doing something about Al Qaeda before they 'provoked' us.

to you sir - I wouldnt want my name signed beneath your 'take' on the statement.  Some serious balls.  :aok

Love,

Drone #030177
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Munkii on March 30, 2004, 02:51:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
The gentlemen that made the statement is bringing light to the fact that very same people who are bashing Bush for going into Iraq 'unprovoked' are also bashing him for not doing something about Al Qaeda before they 'provoked' us.


Then the man is wrong on both accounts.  USS Cole, Embassy bombings, and other attacks were Al Queda.   Firing at US Airplanes patrolling the No Fly Zone that Saddam agreed to (I think he did at the cease fire, I can't remember) meant that both had provoked us.  Although I didn't agree with the Invasion of Iraq at that time.  I thought we should have finished up plundering Al Queda at least.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: WilldCrd on March 30, 2004, 03:00:48 PM
sell ya mine saur BUT only iffen I can have the 007 designation
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 03:20:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
Everytime I see strk's posts and the Howard Dean avatar, all I can hear is the Dean "Arrrrggggghhhhhhh!" sound byte.   :rofl


you can thank the So Called Liberal Media, who played it 700 times in one week.

It was nonsense, of course, as ABC broke the story that the feed from Dean's mike did not pick up the crowd noise which drowned him out in the room.  THere was a film crew there doing a documentary, when the real tape was brought forward the major news outlets reported that "retraction" briefly but by then the damage was done
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Steve on March 30, 2004, 03:28:16 PM
Saur, my soul is burdened with  guilt from the foolish and selfish things I did as a young person.  You don't want it.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: lazs2 on March 30, 2004, 03:31:24 PM
face it strk.... the guy's  as batty as you are.

lazs
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 03:38:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
face it strk.... the guy's  as batty as you are.

lazs


coming from you I consider that a high compliment indeed
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Eagler on March 30, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
face it strk.... the guy's  as batty as you are.

lazs


I think Dean would argue that :)
Title: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on March 30, 2004, 03:56:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Ding, ding, ding.

The mind of a Bush hater is a strange and dangerous place.  It is capable of blaming Bush for 9/11 because he didnt preemptively strike at Al Qaeda before the attack and criticizing his preemptive attack on iraq before Saddam could do any damage in the same breath.


bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

I'm sorry. Missed point. Move back 3 places and lose a turn.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 04:32:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
I think Dean would argue that :) [/QUOTE

You got anything other than ad hominem attacks?
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 04:47:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

I'm sorry. Missed point. Move back 3 places and lose a turn.


I am but a lowly Bush Drone and may require further explanation.

Complete the Liberal circle, please:

1.)  State something obscure.
2.)  Accuse those who disagree with your viewpoint of stupidity.
3.)  Explain 'point' that doesnt make any sense or at the very least contradicts what was said in the previous sentance.

Waiting on three.  :aok
Title: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on March 30, 2004, 05:42:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
"The 9/11 Congressional Hearings are basically saying that the Bush Administration / USA failed and should have pre-emptively struck AL Qaeda before 9/11 happened. Isn't this what we did to Iraq?"

Just had to share.  ;)


We failed to STRIKE, not pre-emptively strike. See?
Title: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: muckmaw on March 30, 2004, 06:25:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Pre-emptive would imply that they hadn't attacked at all wouldn't it?

Kinda like Iraq hadn't attacked at all.


Short memory, Hippie.

Iraq...Kuwait...Gulf war...cease fire...violation of cease fire...Gulf War 2...

Any of this ringing a bell?

Keep drinking the Cool-Aid and saving the whales.
Title: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 06:31:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Short memory, Hippie.

Iraq...Kuwait...Gulf war...cease fire...violation of cease fire...Gulf War 2...

Any of this ringing a bell?

Keep drinking the Cool-Aid and saving the whales.



Are you really trying to say that Iraq attacked the US?  

How is the Kool-Aid?
Title: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Thrawn on March 30, 2004, 07:16:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Short memory, Hippie.

Iraq...Kuwait...Gulf war...cease fire...violation of cease fire...Gulf War 2...

Any of this ringing a bell?



US sponssored resolution 1441 ringing a bell?
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: muckmaw on March 30, 2004, 07:21:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by strk
Are you really trying to say that Iraq attacked the US?  

How is the Kool-Aid?


Another day, another argument with a tree-hugger.

Listen, Garfunkel...we did not attack Iraq for no good reason the first time. They made an aggressive invasion  of their neighbor, and we liberated that country.

I guess we should have not fought Iraq in that war either, huh?

MT said Iraq did'nt attack at all. He implied they were innocent victums of the Evil Boosh's and Halibertons World Domination Plan.

The invasion of Iraq was simply a continuation of the first gulf war because Iraq violated the cease fire agreement.

Should'nt you be playing guitar and face painting or something?
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: strk on March 30, 2004, 07:55:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Another day, another argument with a tree-hugger.

Listen, Garfunkel...we did not attack Iraq for no good reason the first time. They made an aggressive invasion  of their neighbor, and we liberated that country.

I guess we should have not fought Iraq in that war either, huh?

MT said Iraq did'nt attack at all. He implied they were innocent victums of the Evil Boosh's and Halibertons World Domination Plan.

The invasion of Iraq was simply a continuation of the first gulf war because Iraq violated the cease fire agreement.

Should'nt you be playing guitar and face painting or something?


Actually, wingnut, I was called up from the reserves for Gulf War I - where were you?

I said it then and I stand by it today - if Kuwait/Iraq didnt have all the Golly-geened oil, we would never have gotten involved
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: FUNKED1 on March 30, 2004, 10:03:35 PM
O'Reilly sucks hard but that's a great quote.
PS I'll give you my soul for a dozen Krispy Kremes.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 30, 2004, 11:21:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FUNKED1
O'Reilly sucks hard but that's a great quote.
PS I'll give you my soul for a dozen Krispy Kremes.


They just put one in down the street from me and I picked up a dozen yesterday.

Damned if Im given em away - youre SOL.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: GRUNHERZ on March 30, 2004, 11:46:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by strk
you can thank the So Called Liberal Media, who played it 700 times in one week.

It was nonsense, of course, as ABC broke the story that the feed from Dean's mike did not pick up the crowd noise which drowned him out in the room.  THere was a film crew there doing a documentary, when the real tape was brought forward the major news outlets reported that "retraction" briefly but by then the damage was done


So you are saying Dean wasnt a mentally disturbed raving maniac that night on the stage in Iowa after his campaign collapsed and he finshed distant t urd, I mean third, only a few weeks after leading everyone by double digits?
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Sandman on March 31, 2004, 12:13:18 AM
Arguing about Dean is so silly.

I think it would be best if we went back and argued about Clinton again.

That's always fun.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: GRUNHERZ on March 31, 2004, 12:33:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Arguing about Dean is so silly.


I understand that you guys are trying very hard to forget... :)
Title: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on March 31, 2004, 09:57:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Short memory, Hippie.

Iraq...Kuwait...Gulf war...cease fire...violation of cease fire...Gulf War 2...

Any of this ringing a bell?

Keep drinking the Cool-Aid and saving the whales.


Thanks Muck. I needed a good laugh this morning.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on March 31, 2004, 10:00:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Arguing about Dean is so silly.

I think it would be best if we went back and argued about Clinton again.

That's always fun.


We were inflicted with Clinton for 8 years. If he is the democratic party ideal then republicans would do well to remember him.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Thrawn on March 31, 2004, 10:03:07 AM
Nope, unlike Bush, the American people choose Clinton...twice.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on March 31, 2004, 10:07:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nope, unlike Bush, the American people choose Clinton...twice.


You mean that guy we impeached? And btw, Clinton took only 43% of the vote. How much did GW get?
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Sandman on March 31, 2004, 10:59:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
You mean that guy we impeached?  


Impeached and acquitted thankyouverymuch.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on March 31, 2004, 11:06:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
You mean that guy we impeached? And btw, Clinton took only 43% of the vote. How much did GW get?


48%.... just slightly less than Al Gore.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on March 31, 2004, 11:11:30 AM
A few thousand less but still many percentage points more than Clinton representing that hundreds of thousands more Americans voted for George W than voted for Clinton.

We have Ross Perot and the idiots that voted for him to thank for Bill Clinton, not the American majority.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Sandman on March 31, 2004, 11:14:06 AM
Likewise, we can thank Ralph Nader for giving Florida to Bush. :p
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Frogm4n on March 31, 2004, 11:15:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
A few thousand less but still many percentage points more than Clinton representing that hundreds of thousands more Americans voted for George W than voted for Clinton.

We have Ross Perot and the idiots that voted for him to thank for Bill Clinton, not the American majority.


The majority of americans didnt vote for bush the first time and they will not vote for him the second time.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on March 31, 2004, 11:24:35 AM
Of course after 4 years of seeing how well he performed on the job Clinton received 49.24% of the vote in 1996. I guess that kinda blows your whole point.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Thrawn on March 31, 2004, 11:34:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
You mean that guy we impeached?


The US people didn't impeach Clinton, in fact his approval rating was at it's highest during that period at over 60%.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: FUNKED1 on March 31, 2004, 11:38:40 AM
Yer right, we didn't impeach him, we had our duly elected representatives do it.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on March 31, 2004, 11:39:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
The US people didn't impeach Clinton, in fact his approval rating was at it's highest during that period at over 60%.


No, he was impeached.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on March 31, 2004, 11:46:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
The US people didn't impeach Clinton, in fact his approval rating was at it's highest during that period at over 60%.


You may wanna do a tad bit of research before another foray into the unfamiliar territory of another countries politics. Here's something to get you started:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html


Oh, now I see, you're claiming that the US Congress isn't truly representative of it's constituents.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Thrawn on March 31, 2004, 12:08:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh, now I see, you're claiming that the US Congress isn't truly representative of it's constituents.


Not always.  Look at how many US citizens want the US government to have a much stronger stance against illegal immigrants.  But I don't think this is unique to the US, this happens with governments everywhere.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Red Tail 444 on March 31, 2004, 01:44:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Arguing about Dean is so silly.

I think it would be best if we went back and argued about Clinton again.

That's always fun.


Again?

"again" implies disparity where none exists. We've never stopped arguing about Clinton LOL
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Red Tail 444 on March 31, 2004, 02:01:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
How much did GW get?


About 600,000 less than Gore...
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: muckmaw on March 31, 2004, 03:28:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by strk
Actually, wingnut, I was called up from the reserves for Gulf War I - where were you?

I said it then and I stand by it today - if Kuwait/Iraq didnt have all the Golly-geened oil, we would never have gotten involved


Listen Flower Child...

I served my country.

I was a L33T Sniper Ninja who flew F-16s for the CIA and retired when a scorpion bit me.

Alright, trying to be serious....

I'm sorry, I'm still laughing from the "Wingnut" comment...

You're right, we never would have went if the middle east was not strategically important to the US.

for serving our country......



...Hippie.;)
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on March 31, 2004, 03:38:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
About 600,000 less than Gore...


Sucks to be an American doesn't it? Wonder how many votes Gore would have gotten if we took the vote away from non-taxpayers? I kinda feel like voting is a right to be earned.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: BGBMAW on March 31, 2004, 03:48:35 PM
Quote
Listen, Garfunkel...


lmfao!!!!


dirty hippies
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: MrLars on March 31, 2004, 06:05:05 PM
Sorry, I just had to add this...

O'Reilly is just another media potato for Dubya. Here's a sample of how he missinforms his listeners to accept the agenda of Dubya et al...

"The fact that a load of weapons grade plutonium has disappeared from Nigeria should send a signal to all Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here. It is possible. And those with the mindset to do that have to be confronted…But you will not refute. You cannot refute, and neither can anyone else, that we have plutonium missing in Nigeria, we have two rogue governments, North Korea and Iraq, who are certainly capable of aiding and abetting people who will plant an atomic device, a nuclear device in a city in this country." [Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, March 4, 2003]

FACT: FACT: After the Nigerian government reported that a quantity of radioactive material had been stolen from a foreign oil company operating in the Niger Delta, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to ascertain the nature of the problem. As it happened, the company which had lost its radioactive material was Halliburton. The missing materials were radioactive elements (beryllium and americium) used in locating cracks in oil pipelines. None of this material can be used to make a nuclear weapon. None of this material is plutonium. Nigeria has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Halliburton has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Neither beryllium nor americiums are lethal. [LA Times, 3/1/03; Houston Chronicle, 3/7/03; AP 2/21/03] [EPA.gov]


But y'all already know he's nothing but a RW shill....donchya?
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: muckmaw on March 31, 2004, 07:10:23 PM
DEATH TO HALIBURTON!!!
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Red Tail 444 on April 01, 2004, 10:07:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Sucks to be an American doesn't it?


Not at all. I'm proud of my heritage.

Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Wonder how many votes Gore would have gotten if we took the vote away from non-taxpayers? I kinda feel like voting is a right to be earned.


Votig is a right, and hard earned, no doubt. It's sad to see what lengths some still go through to have (and deny) one's vote to be heard, even in 2004.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on April 01, 2004, 10:21:01 AM
Voting is a right but earned only by living long enough and avoiding felon status. No contribution in any form to your fellow citizens required.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: lazs2 on April 01, 2004, 01:27:00 PM
why should non property owners and women get to vote?  

lazs
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: muckmaw on April 01, 2004, 01:40:17 PM
I think you should have to pass some sort of exam to vote...and the exam should be in English.

It's funny but outside of AH gameplay, I agree with Lazs on everything...

and I'm starting to come around on the gameplay thing too.

I feel this sudden urge to buy some type of firearm....:eek:
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on April 01, 2004, 01:47:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
why should non property owners and women get to vote?  

lazs


You don't have to own property or be male to be a contributing member of society. As such you should have a say in government.

Why argue the finer points, no way will the vote ever be taken from anyone. Heck, your previous governor tried to give the vote to illegal aliens.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Red Tail 444 on April 01, 2004, 05:15:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
why should non property owners and women get to vote?  
lazs


Looks like you missed your wakeup call. It's now the 21st Century. I hope the 80 year power nap served you well :lol
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: midnight Target on April 01, 2004, 05:49:55 PM
Hey! Maybe a "Poll Tax" or even a requirement that your great great grandfather was a citizen... that would be nostalgic.
:aok
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Drunky on April 01, 2004, 07:21:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
You don't have to own property or be male to be a contributing member of society. As such you should have a say in government.

Why argue the finer points, no way will the vote ever be taken from anyone. Heck, your previous governor tried to give the vote to illegal aliens.


I THINK Lasz was being historically sarcastic.

If you had land then you also had a vested interest in being sure the government was run well as opposed to vagabonds, derilicts, and lay-abouts who would vote for who-knows-what.

At least thats what I learned in college.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Holden McGroin on April 01, 2004, 10:45:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Drunky
If you had land then you also had a vested interest in being sure the government was run well as opposed to vagabonds, derilicts, and lay-abouts who would vote for who-knows-what.


I just knew someone was going to bring up congress.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: AKIron on April 02, 2004, 09:05:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Drunky
I THINK Lasz was being historically sarcastic.
 


You haven't been around these boards long have ya?

While I agree with Lazs on most issues, denying women the vote isn't one of them. I will agree with him that women as a whole are sometimes in opposition to what I and many other men want for our nation but I believe they should nonetheless have the right to have their voice heard in our government. I reserve the right to move to Mexico.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Eagler on April 02, 2004, 09:15:55 AM
lets bus them in and give them cigs and booze to vote "our" way - maybe keep the polls open later, you know, just til we get the number/type of votes we need ..

so much funny biz in 2000 at the polls which will not happen again goes in favor of a stronger rep vote

can you say GW LANDSLIDE?
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: lazs2 on April 02, 2004, 09:53:18 AM
muck... eventually I beat everyone down.   Best to simply not listen to me.

lazs
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: muckmaw on April 02, 2004, 10:11:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
muck... eventually I beat everyone down.   Best to simply not listen to me.

lazs


It's just too damn entertaining to miss, though.

MOVE THE FIELDS CLOSER TOGETHER......

AHHH!!:eek:
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Drunky on April 02, 2004, 11:14:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
You haven't been around these boards long have ya?


Wait, I'm sensing weapons grade sarcasm here.

I'm longer than most, less vocal than many, but better looking than all.

And that is simply without trying.

And dammit...I'm humble too.

Not like that Mr. Black fellow.  Rumour is that he isn't really himself at all.  Apparently he's someone else when they aren't on their meds.  Oh well.
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: Shuckins on April 02, 2004, 11:40:10 PM
Lazs,

You can borrow my gaff if ya need it...:D

Shuckins
Title: O'Reilly Viewer Mail
Post by: lazs2 on April 03, 2004, 09:19:05 AM
let women vote if you want but.... why did you even leave home then?  It was safe and clean and good food.... mom took care of you .... all you had to do was follow a few simple rules that were for your own good anyhow!

So... yu wanna move back in with mom?   Then vote with the women... vote for democrats...  It's for your own good... vote republican and you might put an eye out.

lazs