My Personal voting dilema
I guess I already know the answer to this one , but i am interested in what anyone who would care to comment thinks
Normally I am what you would call in the United Kindgdom a Natural Labour(democrat for ease of conversion) voter . Anyone who reads my post's here will quickly realise that my views on most subjects are left of center .
When the Labour party regained power from the conservatives(republicans for a simple comparision) in this country , they did so by having to move camp from the left towards the center right , something that gave them power but also lost them a lot of support too .
Again , you would have to be a fool to not notice that i am not a supporter of our action in the war on Iraq and found myself unable to vote for a leader who is responsible for taking us there.
the last election was easy , in my view the conservative candidate was a far right wing nutter (hey thats my view) who i could never ever have voted for , so given the two choices my choice was not to vote at all
Now it looks like the conservatives are likely to have a new leader (likely to be kenneth clarke)
a likeable chap , who would be the first leader of the two main parties that actually voted against invading iraq , something i respect
however , he is a conservative (republican) so I am quite sure that apart from his views on iraq , there would not be a single policy of his that i would be to keen on
so do i support someone who shares my moral view of invading iraq but nothing else ?
or do i support someone who is more likely to have the odd domestic policy i support but i have no time for due to recent history ?
or do i find myself best representing my views by not voting .. again !
bah to two party politics !
Normally I am what you would call in the United Kindgdom a Natural Labour(democrat for ease of conversion) voter . Anyone who reads my post's here will quickly realise that my views on most subjects are left of center .
When the Labour party regained power from the conservatives(republicans for a simple comparision) in this country , they did so by having to move camp from the left towards the center right , something that gave them power but also lost them a lot of support too .
Again , you would have to be a fool to not notice that i am not a supporter of our action in the war on Iraq and found myself unable to vote for a leader who is responsible for taking us there.
the last election was easy , in my view the conservative candidate was a far right wing nutter (hey thats my view) who i could never ever have voted for , so given the two choices my choice was not to vote at all
Now it looks like the conservatives are likely to have a new leader (likely to be kenneth clarke)
a likeable chap , who would be the first leader of the two main parties that actually voted against invading iraq , something i respect
however , he is a conservative (republican) so I am quite sure that apart from his views on iraq , there would not be a single policy of his that i would be to keen on
so do i support someone who shares my moral view of invading iraq but nothing else ?
or do i support someone who is more likely to have the odd domestic policy i support but i have no time for due to recent history ?
or do i find myself best representing my views by not voting .. again !
bah to two party politics !
posted by _H_ at 8:03 pm
24 Comments:
H, I'm not sure if the conversions are exact or just closely resemble dems or conservatives. In the USA 60 or 70 years ago the democrats were actually the conservatives, and the republicans were closest to todays democrats. Then the repubs were champions of human rights, and wanted minimal government. The Dems believed in fiscal conservation. Somewhere along the lines the party's kind of switched, i'm sure it was very gradual but their beliefs changed a whole lot. Conservative is not a bad thing, Our government today is far from conservative, even though they claim to be. I think H, you will have too (like many Americans did in November) vote for the lesser of two evils. Hopefully one day we will have a better choice (more party's) like I said in the previous post. Until then it is exactly that, the lesser of two evils.
And G, I use that 'lesser of two evils' not as a description but as an example. I'm not calling anyone evil, just saying that my best interest is probably not in mind.
It reminds me of the bugs bunny cartoon when bugs is dividing up some carrots or money or something.
One for you one for me, two for you one two for me, three for you one two three for me....... you get the point. I guess I'm just saying to vote for the rabbit who will give you your fair share of carrots.
thanks phishy ,
yes of course the comparison is not entirly correct , it was just a rough guide to anyone who knows nothing at all of british politics
the labour party should = left
the conservative party should = right
as to the lesser evil , i refer you to your own point in a post further down
they are so much the same ,it is hard to tell
i am so desperate for representation over here that i would consider voting for big bird from seseme street if i had a chance
thankyou for your thoughts on this
H, I understand nothing of British politics, I think our political systems are very similar but really don't know much about it at all. Does the Royal Family have any say in your domestic and foreign policy?
there are very similar phishy yes
the offical name for our kind of 'democracy' is a constitutional monarchy
what that means is that the government erm governs through the permision of the queen
when you have a new law or a new government or an act of war etc , then then before we act on it , the prime minister takes it to the queen for permision on both domestic and foreign policy
when we vote for a new leader , the person who wins must ask the queen if it is ok to follow the wishes of the people
the houses of parliment , is the only place the queen can not go , she must get one of her minions (we call him black rod) to knock three times on the door of parliment to ask permision to enter ,
but every single law and act in this country does not become so , until signed by the queen
sounds creepy ? .. well if all that was true it would be yes , but it isnt
it is what i call pomp
yes the queen must sign every single law , and yes she could say no , but she would have a civil war if she did ,
the truth is the royal family have absolutly no say what so ever in anything at all , on any subject at all
they just go through the motions
if tony blair made a law tomorrow that all say erm green people should be shot , then the queen would sign it
it is what we call parlimentory procedure
government makes choice then parliment makes it law , then queen signs it to make it true
think of it as tradition , not as having any part of government
i dont think (and someone may proove me wrong) that the royal family has even attempted to not sign one of these laws for at least a few hundred years
so the queen is the head of state , on paper she has ALL the power but in reality , she is just a figuire head ,who stamps the final copy and brings in the fat tourists
i can think of plenty of times the royal family have expressed a dislike for one law or another , but they still signed the thing
i hope that this makes sense
for a more detailed view you may want to look at this
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:QI8h73E9chMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_government+british+government+monarchy&hl=en
but my version is more fun
this one doesnt even have any green people !!!!!
Thanks for the explanation and also the link. Your political system is pretty close to what I imagined. I knew there was allot of tradition involved. Also it is very, very similar to ours.
Although I don't align myself with any political groups, I still vote. If anything at all I agree with the green values mostly.
http://greenparty.org/values.php
I can hear G's eye rolling in his head as he sees this.
Sorry G, typo. I did not mean to imply that you have only one eye.
hehehe . it is not when G's eye(s) are rolling that we have a problem , it is when they stop that i take two steps back :-)
(just kidding G)
as for the greens , for some reason that i am sure will seem to bizare to me , they seem to get a bad press in the US , not so over here
they are about 4% of the national vote (i think)
and their views are closer to mine then any of the two/three main choices we get here
(its 2 really but a liberal democrat (do not confuse with your liberal or democrats) will probably say , eh . remember us !)
, the choice is do you vote with your principles , or vote for one of the two that can actually win
again . as i do on the comments from the post bellow , i shout
bring forth proportional representation .. then i could vote green .. or who ever , and the vote would actually count for something
Well said H.
you know what i find so funny over here phishy
that the majority of people accross the board actually want proportional representation , but to get it into law , then the majority of the party who wins needs to want it which never happens
a perfect example of how the wishes of the people can never be represented in a two party system
in short , to change the rules , you have to win by using the current rules , and to win by using the current rules means , you will never be able to change the rules
sounds like runsfield doesnt it !
It's exactly stuff like this that makes me Wonder how involved if at all Bohemian Grove, Illuminati, Globalists, World banks, Federal Reserve, Skull and bones etc. are.
Now just for mentioning the above organizations I will be labeled a Conspiracy theorist or worse. I simply see the names of the above come up quite often in regards to your statement above and why the people can not get there way.
Also again I am not saying thats the case, but it's certainly a possibility. And the secrecy of these groups as well as the super high profile of there members and their 'elitist' status, only makes me more suspect.
for what it is worth , i think the label "conspiracy theorist" is used as a label to try to riducule people who often get to close to the truth
take the PNAC phishy , they dont hide their view (it is right there on their web site)
they dont deny they are now in power (you just have to look)
they do not deny that they planned to attack iraq long before they got into power (there names are clear and simply read under the documents from the 1990's)
there is no doubt that all these things are true
but if you even mention something like the PNAC then you get called a conspiracist
what easier way is there to stop people from asking questions then to tell everyone that these people are nutters
and it hurts me to say it , but it works , and i dont know how to react to it
without doubt when it comes to groups like the Illuminati the freemasons , families like the rothschilds etc etc etc
that i have a whole computer full of articles and copies of genuine documents to fill a web site on its own just on these subjects
the stuff i have would if on any other subject be accepted by almost all as FACTS
but i dont post it ... why ?
well , its a tough call ... people are almost brainwashed into rejecting anything that anybody has ever called a conspiracy
i know its true , you know its true , but there is NO way on earth that you will convince anybody
when i was younger i thought i could , but i was wrong
a good example that comes to mind is on another subject ... i am not expressing a view either way here am just telling a story which is true
a british government minister in the 1970's was asked about an unidentified object spotted flying over part of the country
he said something like
" of course it was not a UFO , even if it was a UFO , trust me it wasnt a UFO , if I had a UFO parked outside ten downing street and i was charging people 10 pence to go in and walk round ,people would still refuse to accept it, so it can't be a UFO , for the day i stand here and say that it is , the government will collapse and i will lose my job"
I am not saying it was a UFO either , what i am saying is that people are conditioned to accept what they are expecting to accept
there are a lot of dark forces at work behind the scenes and for those that follow the devolpment of modern history
the way the statue of liberty was a gift from the french freemasons
for example
the full story of the knights templer
and nobody who looks into these things for themselves comes out the thinking the same way
but nobody you actually try to convince will ever think about you the same way either
so people have to find such things themselves
I have what would be called a conspiracy that i have been desperate to post for about 5 weeks , but i just can't , i want to , i know it is true , i know it is mind blowing , and i know that it questions a part of modern history that we think we all have answers to
but i can't ...
firstly nobody would believe me (regardless of the sources i provided)
and secondly ( nobody would then believe me when i came next to highlighting what MR bush is upto)
so it is a trade off
you hold back a large part of the truth you see , to enable people to see your view on the more imediate danger ,
and on the bigger global truths . i hope and pray that people will wake up and see them for themselves one day .. and soon
for i could never convince them
H, I agree with you on all of the above, except, I feel people are starting to awaken from there slumbers. Albeit painfully slow, people are waking up.
I for one have always questioned inequalities and injustice.
So I searched for something or other on the CPU one day and found an amazing piece of American history that they don't teach you in school. I won't get into it but it takes place around christmas 1913, and president Wilson was at the helm. Anyway I believe this is the biggest turning point in American history since they wrote the constitution 200+ years ago. There are some interesting Wilson quotes I found regarding this as well.
Anyhow given the information I just gave you it is easy to find what I speak of if interested.
Oddly enough, it was a big cheesy corporation (ehe-MCI) that relentlessly billed me long after I dropped them. They had collection agency's after me constantly claiming I still had them as my phone company. I did not for years use this damn company. After lengthy battles with the collection agency's I would eventually straighten out everything. But sure as shit 8 or 9 months later it started up all over again. I spent countless hours on the phone with the rudest representatives of this company, many times getting disconnected after hours. My last conversation with them I asked for the reps name and they told me they don't have to give me that info. This enraged me. I told them to make sure to remove me from there system ( being that they have all my personal info on a screen in front of some rude punk thats giving me a hard time trying to put an end to all of this). These people told me we will not remove you from our system! Well what the fuck can I do. Nothing. It has since stopped, but this little incident was enough to make me take a closer look at politics and why this extortion is legal. I mean I find it hard to believe that I am the only person in the world that these animals wrongly billed time and time again. Criminals that operate within the law. And the smallest people are the victims. Point being that the internet is where most will look for answers of any type, and if the info is there then they can decide (do I wake up or ignore it), but the info should most definitely be available in case one does look for answer.
Sorry it probably reads like a crazy nonsensical story but the point is there, somewhere.
I hear you phishy , ,
i always thought people were waking up ,
i am not ancient but i remember feeling in the 80's when i first looked at this stuff , that if only people would listen , we could change the world , and when i did , people from the 60's said to me "we have tried that"
i remember listining to people in the 90' say the same thing ..
the forces are there pulling the strings yes , without doubt ... but after a few decades of trying to get people to sit up and notice ,i am no longer the optimist i once was
i see what the danger is , and i do all i can to put my finger on the most visable and obvious part of the picture , the image that anyone and everyone can see . and i highlight that , ,
so instead of trying to "win the war" i would be happy to just win one battle (ie see george bush out)
and hope that ..... and there i will stop myself :-)
the problem of a public forum , it is just impossible to be direct ,
so H will crawl away now .. and the last thing you will hear is
"hmmm the stories i could tell"
respek
speaking strictly on your story
we have over here a thing called the "data protection act" and that means that if anyone .. even me .. wishes to keep any files at all on computer about any person
...
(your phone company would be a good example)
then they have to inform the person that they are doing so , the person has a lawful right to see that file , and a lawful right to force them to change any errors
i ruin the life of companies every day by calling them on data protection issues . its kind of a hobby
the people who MUST show you ALL your files if asked is EVERYONE , the government , the police , the bank , the doctor ,
and if they dont inform you that they have a file or they refuse to change it then the company head can go to jail
there is onle ONE exception
MI5 can keep a file on me and not tell me , NOBODY else can
and if i went to some UK web site and spotted my name (real name) there and they refused to remove it , they could go to jail , and they would be fined for not informing me
do you not have anything like that ?
i thought you did
I think we have similar protections in place. They have recently been put into effect. At least for telemarketers. And to my enjoyment MCI went down in flames 4 or 5 years ago. Our federal government I am sure keep info on all, and the patriot act makes it that much easier for the government and any of it's agency's to keep track of us.
I am sure I am on more government lists then most (I am a medical marijuana patient). So I know they keep tabs on us.
And the battle that is going on between the federal government and the state over medical cannabis is almost fascinating. If you could only see what's going on over here (California). Which comes right back full circle into my theories. Why cannabis is considered just as serious as heroine or coke. Even hemp which has no psychoactive properties at all is considered a drug and is illegal. And if you look into the miracle that is hemp, we can ween ourselves off of oil, and produce a cleaner, renewable, more ecologically responsible fuel. But thats not all, we can make superior linens and fibers, also plastics and rope. Plus better paper, and you can grow a crop for paper in months and produce more then you can by cutting down a 75 year old acre of forrest. Sorry to rant about hemp, Im not even sure where I was now. Oh yeah, solutions are out there but forces are in place to not allow us to help ourselves. I apologize for going off track. But H, please continue to present the "evidence" if you will, I know some people will get something out of it. That is for sure, You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. But most horses will eventually drink.
"Why cannabis is considered just as serious as heroine or coke."
i have always found this a joke , and in this country , it has now effectivly been (quietly) taken out of the courts
we have 3 classes of drug , A,B,C
any Hemp product is classed as a C , meaning the same as taking someone elses pescription drugs
if what you have is for personal use then it is still illigal but you won't be charged , and they wont waste the much needed time of judges to deal with such petty things
what happens .. the policeman will just take it from you ... you sign no paper , and he probably smokes it himself ,
it is only dealing that is treated serious , possesion and personal use is just left alone
it has always puzzled me how i have seen many friends(in a lose term kind of way) end up in hospital due to drinking alcohol
and getting loud and agressive , i have seen family members die due to a life times alcohol abuse but it is taxed and consumed and taxed and consumed for ever more
I have never seen anyone become violent or create any problem when stoned , apart from asking for me to find them the cartoon channel and more snacks.. but it is not taxed so , it is bad
maybe you should move to the UK hehehe
or Holland of course
as for presenting the evidence , if i can convince one person a month to take the very surface level argument i present here and use them to go and search for themselves what the truth really is then i have achieved ,
you never know , maybe one day i will be able to post real facts on this site and know that any readers won't just dismiss them as someone told them once that this type of thing was a conspiracy
but until then , i will continue to post , as i do , and i suppose i use as my ethics the workd being done on sites like information clearing house , and i would be more then happy to stick to the ethics , rules and moral standpoint that they do
I will end with the followings words from ICH and I feel that although I am in a different country ,and could not dream of being any where near to having the impact that they do , this is my tiny attempt at continuing the work they do
Purpose and Intent of this website:
This website does not suggest that it contains the "truth". The truth is a combination of all information and all facts relating to a topic. It is therefore unachievable (in my opinion) for anyone to say "I know the truth."
If you came to this site in search of "the truth" you will be disappointed. That is also true of CNN, FOX , ABC etc.
If you came to gather information you may find it a useful resource.
Gibran says in the "Prophet" Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
That brings me to my first point:
John Adams said "Liberty can not be preserved without general knowledge among people" this statement points to the absolute necessity of an informed citizenry if our nation is to remain a functioning free society.
This means that each citizen has a civic responsibility to inform himself and share that information with others. The corporate media pumps information into our homes and does a great job of providing the information that our government wants us to know.
It has in my opinion become the propaganda arm of government,
and a great number of those who call themselves journalists are in fact nothing less than presstitutes.
Those who wish to inhibit free access to information are in my opinion a great danger to our nation. Why would any adult interfere with the right of fellow citizens to inform themselves?
There is a war going on for the minds of America, those waging this war are determined to control the American people by taking possession of our minds and by controlling our sources of information.
Truth is indefinable. Information is unlimited
H, Phish... yeah, I got here finally:
Now, Dion's bubble world aside (smack talk, back off), I think the thing you need to look at of the conservative party cadidate is WHY did he oppose the war. Many far rights in this country opposed the war, not because they thought it was wrong, but because they were isolationists. The want us to pull out of the world and live behind a steel wall.
If that is his stance, I promise you wont like ANYTHING this guy stands for.
Now, onto the rest of the rants. I read about half of it, then stopped, just too much during my lunch.
Our nation needs someone who is willing to step away from the Party lines. The real problem that I see are parties and candidates that are beholden to small lobbiest groups that do not care for the wellbeing of the majority, but have a narrow agenda.
For example: Phishy likes the green party, I am assuming because of its extremely environmentally friendly stance. However, I equate that to economic lunacy. Our nation is great because of capitalism, and while localized eco-laws are good within reason, the very gas crisis we are in right now is thanks to those policies that would be enforced in even greater ammounts if they were in power. Now, they have their purpose. Without them, even the localized eco-protections would not be enforced, but to run things their way would bring us back eventually to the pre-industrial age.
Dion seesm to think that the GOP is supported and run by "greedy" people. The other claim I wont get into it with, but this one I will.
Greed is usally defined by "wanting more than one needs." To this effect, all of the industrialized nations are greedy. Every citizen is greedy. Even Dion, is greedy. Dion doesnt need a computer, TV, Car, education, or any of the other "luxuries" we enjoy. We "NEED" food, water, and shelter.
Now, the "Greed" that Dion speaks of is when he uses his own value system to self impose a limit on what someone else "needs".
That person Dion call greedy most certainly disagrees with what Dion thinks they need. Therefore we end up with a very relative definition to "Greedy."
Once we allow others or even the "majority" to set and define the "needs" of people, and we let the "majority" define other's need (and what they dont need), we gravitate twoards socialism.
Now, on the surface, its sounds good right? Here is the catch. If you want a new sports car, and it costs more than the average sedan, how do you buy it? You save up money, you work hard to make more money, and your extra effort allows you to get the sports car. Under the socialistic model though, that extra money you save... you dont need that, so we will give it away to someone else who does.... see where we are going? We've lost our motivation to work harder for anything, becuase the majority may decide that you dont "need" it.
_H_, if you want what's best for your country, vote right. That, of course, implies that I believe that conservatives are better businessmen at running the government and are fiscally more reponsible. (BTW, I liked Margaret Thatcher.) But, if you want someone who represents your philosophy best on a variety of issues, particularly social ones, vote left. I rarely see where it is worthwhile to vote for someone based on one issue.
But, I realize that there are some issues that are so important that a voter can reject a candidate based upon his views for that one. An example might be someone who is opposed to abortion might not vote for a candidate because of his position on that one thing--even if he's conservative otherwise. I would vote against a candidate who wanted to declare war on Great Britain. I have to draw the line somewhere, and I wouldn't want to get bogged down there--unless the government cut off the North Sea oil supply.
Explain something to me about your system. I watch C-Span on cable over here and they show what I think is the House of Lords in session with the Prime Minister. He's holding some book and they ask him loaded questions, and they have a game of wits with apparently no substance or meaning to the whole session. Then, when the PM is trying to answer, the bunch of loonies around him are interrupting, laughing, moaning, and just being rude in every way possible short of spitting on him. If I were the PM, I'd tell them that I would come back after they have grown up.
Here's my question. What is all of that about!?
_h_, one other thing, though it is off-topic. The U.S. is having a severe problem with the results of that hurricane. New Orleans, a very large city, is under water and it will take a year and billions of dollars to get the city operating again. In the meantime, there are several hundred thousand people who cannot go home and whose jobs are gone. Other cities were also devastated. Whenever there is a problem like that in other places, like with the tsunami, many countries immediately pledge support and send help. Most of the world has been silent on this with us. Frankly, that bothers me. This is not going to be easy. One person told me that "rich nations" don't need help. (He was French.) Well, he's wrong. What's your take on this--if you don't mind me changing the topic slightly? Thanks.
woody , your two posts i will deal with as two asnwers , this is in response to the first
erm your view of maggie thatcher ( trying to be tactful here) her image as a world wide states err women was very high , she was respected in many countries and became very close to ronald R , so i can see why you see what you do
however , about half the population over here feel disgust for that women , the colapse of our transport network due to the failure of privitisation , the first steps away from the national health system we have by allowing the rich to have operations private in 2 weeks that the rest of the people may have to wait years for , the attack on the rights of the unions , i wont go on but lets just say that the "right" loved her and the "left" spit whenever they even hear the name .. i am a spitter ! :-)
what you are actually watching is the main commons building , the house of parliment
the "house of lords" is full of very old , some what senile ex politicians etc , for them to get lively and start shouting "here here ! etc would probably be the death of them
watching the house of lords is a laugh , it is not far short of watching your elderly relatives eating christmas dinner , they struggle to keep there teeth in , they forget what they are saying half way through a sentence , they are very entertaining but a long way short of the politicians in the main chamber
on the main point of the idiotic behaviour of the politicians is one i agree with you on , so i will not try to defend it , but i will try to explain it
it may seem very disorginised but in fact the rules are very very strict , new politicians have a nightmare of a time trying to work out the rules
(1) if you sit in the wrong place , you will be ignored , if you are not in the right chair and you stand up to speak , the politicians will act like you dont exist
(2) you can not actually speak to another MP directly , every point is adressed to the speaker of the house , if the conservate leader tried to speak to tony blair , he would be removed from the building
they must say something like
" Mr speaker , I think that the right honourable member for Cheshire east is mistaken in his view on chickens"
to call someone a liar is just not allowed ,
the basic princible is similiar to the queensbury rules for boxing (if you know what i mean)
when parliment first started , it was a way to stop the constant fighting between the different groups , your sword had to be left outside the chamber , and the rules date from that time
so to stop civil wars , the idea was that everyone is honourable , nobody is a liar , and nobody gets to speak to anyone direct
the house is divided , as you go through the door , the government MP's are on the left , and the oposition members are on the right , so all packed together like a mob in suits , the mob culture takes over , but still the rules are all kept
i agree that it is stupid , it looks silly , but they keep it as it has been in place for hundreds of years , and so it has become tradition ,
it is a chamber to argue in , but it is wrong to think that real laws etc are decided that way , they are not ,
but it is a way to get every view exspresed and every view debated , before the government ignores them all anyway , if you get my drift
Woody (answer 2)
the horror in the gulf coast
I have been posting alot on other sites about what must be hell for the people suffering there
you view on the acts of the international community are not quite right
so far cananda / the united kingdom and france have offered economic aid to assist and all three have been politely turned down , why .. i dont know , you tell me ?
but the offers have been coming in , i assure you of that
I also know of a few countries that have offered to send experts to help in the rescue , i can not tell you if this was accepted or not
this is one of those issues where i have to blink to check that this actually is america ! ,
i feel the early effort to help was wrong , they knew it was going to happen and not enough was done to help the poor who could not leave by there own steam
looters
i have two views ,
firstly those that are getting food,water and diapers etc should not be attacked , they have not eaten for 3 days , and nobody is able to help them , i would help myself too
the other looters , armed in packs , stealing TV's (odd , where will they plug them in ?) etc are disgusting , and need to be stopped ,
but the distinction needs to be made betwen the two
i really feel that the reaction in the first 24 hours was apalling , and many people could suffer extra hardship due to this
but after the first 24 hours , the rescue effort has been amazing , and deserves much praise ,
one thought is the lack of communication
i am seeing thousands of people turning up at certain places to find no food , no medics , no water , and they still (after 3 days) dont know where to go
where are the loud speakers from helicopters , they dont have TV's the need to be told what to do and where to go , and i am not seing that
my general feel as you might expect is one of sorrow , i feel for those people , and collections have already started being made over here to send what we can
my thoughts are with the living and the dead
your question on the help being offered made me check my facts , i was wrong it is not 3 countries it is dozens , i have posted on it
_H_, thanks for your explanations. I wonder what would happen if Blair said "to hell with it" and didn't show up? It sounds a little bit like a political blog with the comment threads, but with commenting rules enforced. I loved the part about pretending that someone is not there if he is in the wrong seat. The members must be cracking up inside in those situations.
Thanks for the update on foreign aid to the U.S. hurricane victims. I'll travel over to that post.
Post a Comment
<< Home