Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/26/03 03:34 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: You are so very right. People who are anti-war are not always anti-american and non-patriotic.

But for the love of whatever you believe in a divine entity: PLEASE ARGUE FROM LOGIC

Shrike, you are cool in my books.

I decided to quote this one instead of the starting post, because it's shorter. :)

I agree, and it's something I've been saying all along. I love logic. It loves me.

Anyway, I too see the reasoning behind mysecondstar's statement about the rallys and the like. Let me say this:

I will never or HAVE never had any part in violence. I've never even -hit- someone. *lol* I stay peaceful in my demonstrations. I actually stopped going when the news reported how much the demonstrations cost the police in overtime. They never tried stopping us from our peaceful protesting, except for a few individual policemen that crossed lines, but other than that, we weren't censored. I've decided that when we have schools closing, teachers working for free, jails emptying and courtrooms shutting down...priorities need to take hold. They're not stopping me from demonstrating. I just don't want to be the reason my child doesn't get a quality education.

I don't agree with the 'it's already underway, let it go' reasoning, but that's just personal beliefs and what not. The bottom line, for me, was priorities.

This might be a long post. I wanted to give facts, and I've proven to myself that my memory isn't as shitty as I thought it was.

At 3/29/03 12:38 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: ENVIRONMENT:
The drilling was set in a wildlife perserve.
An oilwell severly damages soil fertility of the surrounding soil, and hence the perserve would be runined.

Exactly. And from what I understand, it would've been offshore drilling, which would've not only disturbed the wildlife, but the sealife as well.

Wildlife reserves are just that. Preserved for a reason.

So, now we get to the rest of it. The facts. These also aren't just bullshit research stats, but from the US Geological Survey.

Keep in mind, the only drilling I ever had a problem with was in the ANWR. All other drilling sites that weren't in a nationally protected area (only 1.5 million acres, compared to the rest of the coastline) was fine by me.

This is a direct copy/paste.

Using the USGS estimates for undiscovered technically recoverable oil, a comparison between the federal study areas of NPRA and the ANWR 1002 area shows:
NPRA federal area = 22.5 million acres, 5.9 - 13.2 BBO, mean value of 9.3 BBO
ANWR 1002 federal area = 1.5 million acres, 4.3 - 11.8 BBO, mean value of 7.7 BBO

The US consumes 19.4 million barrels of oil a day. The US Department of Energy estimates that the consumption of oil will grow by 33 percent in 20 years. If this bill to drill had passed, it would have been 20 years before the peak amount of oil was being delivered. So! Let's do some math.

We'll do all the estimates, so it's fair.

Largest estimate of oil: 11.8 BBO divided by 19.4 million.

That would last the US 608 days. Rounded down from .2.

Mean average of lowest and higest estimate: 7.7 BBO divided by 19.4 million.

That would last the US 397 days. Rounded up from .9.

Lowest estimate of 4.3 BBO divided by 19.4 million.

That would last the US 222 days. Rounded up from .6.

Now, let's take into consideration the 1/3 growth of consumption.

That would be 25.8 million barrels per day.

I don't think I have to put it in such exact terms.

11.8 BBO divided by 25.8 million: Lasts 457 days.
7.7 BBO divided by 25.8 million: Lasts 298 days.
4.3 BBO divided by 25.8 million: Lasts 166 days.

Now, sadly? I think someone's going to argue with simple math, and the United States Geological Survey, and the United States Department of Energy. But hey. I rest my case. It's not worth it.

At 3/28/03 08:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 3/28/03 04:57 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:
As for abolishing the exsisting government, there's many ways the people have been shut out of the government. We have no say. Voting doesn't do much anymore.

Sadly, most people don't vote. Maybe that's the problem.

That's a very big problem, actually. An argument I have with my boyfriend rather often. He isn't even registered.

I agree that it's an issue with people not voting. But it's also an issue with governments overturning what the people voted for, and vetos and all that. It's irritating.

At 3/28/03 09:01 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: House of leaves isn't the authority on oil drilling, it's very easy to make up facts these days.

Hah, thank you. :) We just said the same thing.

I'll be happy to supply facts. Later.

At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote:
um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling.

First...I'm a SHE.

A girl. Hah.

Second...please dont' make me your last resort for information. There's always a chance I'm mistaken, tho with this, I'm almost positive. Which is why I'm going to get the research done later. If not for HERE, than just to refresh my memory.

I USED to campaign against it. I don't work for the same organization anymore.

At 3/28/03 08:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Where did you read that? The peta newsletter? We have no way of knowing how much oil is there, but there have been estimates, both large and small. It helps the US because it increases the global supply of Oil, as well as giving the US another trade advantage.

I'll take GDP over a few seals any day.

I know that wasn't to me. But you know what? I'm going to find that information for you. I need to cook for my family first, but then I will show you EXACTLY why the probability there is only 6 months worth of oil at the current consumption, and taking into consideration the trend in GROWING consumption.

The only fact I remember for sure, and won't have to back -myself- up on, is that Americans use almost 20 million barrels of oil per DAY.

There's something like...(god damn you for trying my brain *lol*) 6 billion barrels recoverable. There's a small percentage (like 5+%) that 15 billion (don't quote me) barrels might be recovered from ANWR.

It wouldn't be recovered for over a decade, and would peak...gah. I think in 20 years. If it had actually passed, that is.

With estimations that oil demand will increase like...30 something % in the next 15-20 years, I think it's safe to say oil from ANWR wouldn't last long.

So gimme a freakin' bit, and I'll give you your goddam facts! *lmao* Sorry. But it's been a while since I've had to pull that stuff outta my brain. Taxed me, it did.

Actually, believe it or not, I used to campaign against the drilling for oil. If I was smart, I would have saved all the freakin' paperwork. As it is, I'll try to remember what I can.

The 'wasteland' isn't a wasteland. It's home to animals and -people- that couldn't live there anymore.

It would take over a decade to get that oil into the market.

AND. There's only enough oil there to last for 6 months, at the current consumption rate.

If you'd like sources for that, I can find it. But I'm multitasking and not up for siting this and that and the next thing unless someone like NemesisZ decides to call me an idiot.

I'm Christian. :) And I agree 100% with what EmeraldTokyo has said.

I'm looked down upon by my 'fellow Christians' because I refuse to depend on a church for my faith, and I won't look to the bible before I look to my God. I will not shove my religion down anyone's throat, I've studied a lot of other religions, been very pagan, and I refuse to impose myself on others.

The 'Christians' that think they're on earth to judge others and force them to believe are the ones that have made the word 'Christianity' an obscenity.

If you're my friend, I'll pray for you. If you're my enemy...well. I'll pray for you, but I don't have to like you. *lol* If you're curious, I'll tell you everything I believe. But you won't ever see me standing on the corner handing out Chick Tracts and selling my faith. Sorry, but no.

{{{{everyone}}}}

It doesn't matter what you believe. The only thing that matters is respecting everyone's right to their faith.

At 3/28/03 07:27 PM, allpro wrote:

At 3/28/03 07:24 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:
I'M WITHOUT WANG!

That's for _shadow_, if he reads this. ;)

Maybe I should change my name to House_of_FEMALE_Leaves. *lol*

i dont shadow cares that your agirl from what i gather from my talks wiht him he lieks teh wang hes alll up in the wang

...Uh, alright. See, you say that like I'd care, if I actually thought it were true. Whether or not anyone 'likes wang' isn't my business or concern.

He'll understand if he reads it.

It's not all that important, really. *lol* He just noticed how I like the word 'wang', and I try to work it into every post, just for him. Because it makes ME giggle.

That's all. :)

So, I know my name doesn't really reflect it.

But I'm a chick. Woo!

I'M WITHOUT WANG!

That's for _shadow_, if he reads this. ;)

Maybe I should change my name to House_of_FEMALE_Leaves. *lol*

Uh...see...missing an important point.

No unforgivable sin.

Ask for forgiveness, you shall receive it.

Therefore, you don't go to hell.

As for the 'why are you worried, God doesn't exist' argument, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. If someone else wants to question these things, it is not your right to tell them they shouldn't.

At 3/28/03 04:27 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 3/27/03 11:51 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: it's really difficult to comprehend a sponateuous creation of a universe...at least for me

I think that it is in physics that we can see and know the true genius of God, the first scientist. The study of the reality, and the universe, which is God Himself, is, to me, as beautiful as any chapel or basilica.

Nicely put, Commander. :) It's beautiful to me, too, even if I'm horrible at it. *lol*

At 3/28/03 04:06 PM, jimsween wrote: I'm all for homosexuality but I wouldnt want them teaching my kids to be homosexual, thats forcing your beliefs on someone.

*LOL*

Sorry, but you're taking it a little far, and I think you know it.

Teaching your kids to be homosexual. I agree with that. Teching kids to have sex at ALL is awful. That's not what sex ed is. It's about reproduction and stuff like that.

I don't think we'll ever see a day where schools will teach the lessons brought to you by 'FDA'. But come on. There's a huge difference between saying, 'This is out there, and it's alright.' and saying, 'BOYS SHOULD LOVE OTHER BOYS!'

NOW! I'm done with that. ;) I'm not gonna let myself get into that un-related debate in a thread about something completely different.

What kind of cookie did I get??

At 3/28/03 04:51 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/28/03 04:14 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1848

Lincoln said that? Because he didn't exactly allow the South that right. Not to defend the institution of slavery, but that's essentially what the South did in 1861.

With 13 years in between, perhaps Lincoln changed his mind and decided that preservation of the Union was more important?

I don't pretend to know what a man was thinking in 1848. Let alone Lincoln.

Pick it apart if you have, to. It's a thought provoking quote that I enjoy. If you don't, then simply don't use it.

As for abolishing the exsisting government, there's many ways the people have been shut out of the government. We have no say. Voting doesn't do much anymore.

At 3/28/03 04:21 PM, TheShrike wrote: I really don't like this war. I don't like any war.

But the fact is that when war happens, civillians will die.

And the fact that the US government appologizes for the terrible consequences of war is what sets the USA apart from Iraq at the end of the day.

Chew on that.

Dear God. Thank you, man. Thank you for saying that.

The United States is the only country has GIVEN BACK a nation after defeating it. Gives it right back to the people. Another part of that compassion.

TheShrike: You said it perfectly. That compassion, the thing that allows us to be sorry for the inevitabilities of war, is what makes us different.

At 3/28/03 04:09 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote:

At 3/28/03 03:58 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Does that mean I, or anyone, should lose the HUMAN COMPASSION that we have inside us?

No and I never said that....

Is it HURTING anyone to be appologetic?

Yes, the soldiers who are being killed because of these suprise attacks by Iraqi soldiers in civi's

...Dood. That's not even an argument. How on EARTH can you equate a government saying, 'We're sorry for killing civilians' to THAT? Tell me. Prove it to me. Because I honestly don't think you realize what you're saying.

I, too, am angry at our soldiers dying. But our soldiers will die in that same way, regardless of whether or not our goverment feels bad for killing innocent human beings.

To be sorry for civilian lives taken? Is it taking any energy to say, 'We're sorry'? No. And what I don't think you realize is that while our government might seem far away and cold to us regular civilians, they're human, too. With hearts, and feelings, and OH MY GOD! Maybe they actually ARE sorry for taking human life?

We can be sorry all we want, but it's not going to get the job done. Be sorry, cause I am sorry that civilians, people who want nothing to do with this war are being killed. But it is time to buck up and realize that people die in wars. Not a hard concept to understand.

Who said we don't understand that? Does being appologetic about something sad happening mean that it's not understood? That's not logical. Being sorry for killing innocent people is not 'getting the job done'? How exactly? I understand perfectly that people die in war. I'm not ignorant or stupid. I know that, and so does our government. Does that mean that we can't be sorry?

Jeezus. Are you THAT desperate to argue about this war? You're attacking America for being SORRY for killing innocent people. It's not about whether or not it's going to happen. OF COURSE it's going to happen. Everyone knows that. That's what pisses some people off.
Now tell me...if it's not hurting anyone for saying 'I'm sorry', what's the harm? Why argue against it? Do you have that much disrespect for human life?

I have every ounce of respect for human life and that is why I support this war. How many were going to die if we did nothing? (snip)
How much respect do You have for human life and DIGNITY. There are many people on Newgrounds and around the world who have friends serving in the army, navy and the Marines, and GodDamnit they are being killed too!

My, but you're being presumptuous.

I have friends and family in Kuwait right now. Don't you dare assume anything about me.

I have never once disagreed with 'people are going to die in this war'. I never once said the government should be appologetic to the point of putting OUR BOYS in danger. What I did say is that it's about compassion. Feeling sad about something that's heartbreaking.

Let me make it simple for you:

I know spiders are innocent. I know they don't do anything to hurt me, except for the poisonous ones that bite.

I step on spiders. Squish them dead.

I feel bad for doing it. After all, they did nothing to me.

I'll be damned if that means I'm going to stop doing it.

See? Get my point? I REALIZE it's going to happen. But why the hell are you wanting us to not be sorry for it? Why are you trying to make human compassion for innocent lives lost into something that's ultimately detrimental to our side of the war?

Hiroshima ended the war. Over 100,00 people died there, and I'm sure, more than one was a civilian. (Guinness Book of Records reports 155,200 that figures includes deaths from radiation). Now...tell me. Is it bad of me or the government to be sorry about the loss of human life? Obviously, it happened regardless. It helped. It ultimately saved lives, by taking predominantly civilian ones.

I STILL FEEL SORRY FOR THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO GOT KILLED.

See how that works? Feelings don't always override logic. I can feel one way, and do something completely different.

Now...instead of giving me more of how you feel about this, I'd like proof. I'd like facts. Because I don't think an American appology for taking innocent lives has hurt anyone or anything. In fact, those Iraqi soldiers that you said were walking around in American military garb? The US military now has the authorization to fire upon 'itself' if they're suspicious. If the soldiers feel it's not one of theirs, they can fire, even if they're in US clothing.

I have a feeling that might result in, oh, a couple of 'friendly fire' deaths. It's a chance they have to take, and they've taken it, to ensure the safety of our soldiers.

If someone dies, will they appologize for it? Or should they say, 'Eh. It happens.'

I don't think you'd be bitching about appologies then.

At 3/28/03 11:45 AM, Dig_the_Man wrote:

At 3/28/03 11:43 AM, TheShrike wrote: I think I'll thank House_Of_Leaves for this...

"He who gives up freedom for security is neither free nor secure." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Fantastic quote.... mind if I steal that away?

Go for it. :) It's not my quote to give away, so use it how you like. It's one I use everywhere, since that's exactly why I argue so much for the right to speak out, choose, be pissed off at our government.

Speaking of...another great quote:

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1848

My opinion, I think, is probably already pretty clear. Safety is a good thing. I like the idea that when my mother flies to Ohio in a few days, she'll be safe, for the most part. I like feeling safe.

But there's all sorts of things happening. Unconstitutional 'Free Speech Zones' aka 'First Amendment Zones' are what first got to me. Then more, and more and more...yeah.

I wrote something on the CC forums not too long ago that expresses why and how I support my thoughts about war and America and our current administration. I may post it here.

Oh, and. If a driver's liscense, SSC, and passport aren't enough for the government to keep track of me, then they can kiss my ass. I refuse to submit to any more 'tracking'. No.

At 3/28/03 03:53 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/28/03 07:00 AM, swayside wrote:

so the only reason we shouldn't teach both theories is because one might lead to some kind of related belief? if that's so, why are you for the teaching of evolution? evolution teaches a godless origins, shuns the need for morals, and claims that we're all just monkeys. (while george bush may look like a chimp, he's certainly not related to one.) while creationism teaches there is a god. that's it. you don't have to go into morality to teach it.

Thats the kind of logic that made it so they could teach homosexuality as an acceptable alternative to sex in schools.

You don't EVEN want to go there, buddy. You wanna have a discussion about it, you might wanna make a thread instead of putting it in this one. But I'll tell you flat out: homosexuality is a fact of life.

At 3/28/03 03:52 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote:

It doesn't matter anymore man! The Iraqi's are killing their own civilians and blaming it on the Americans... or at least that is what is going to happen. As soon as two Iraqi "civilians" get killed who gets the blame and the blam? The United States of America God Bless Her. So instead of taking the bum-rap that America is already getting, get it over with, kill anyone with a gun shouting "Allah Ackbar!" or whatever and call it quits. This is a war God Damnit! and if you are stupid enough to be toting around a gun in the middle of a war-zone cause you think it's cool then you deserve a Darwin award for eliminating yourself from humanity's genepool! This is a WAR not a democratic party luncheon!

Does that mean I, or anyone, should lose the HUMAN COMPASSION that we have inside us?

Is it HURTING anyone to be appologetic? To be sorry for civilian lives taken? Is it taking any energy to say, 'We're sorry'? No. And what I don't think you realize is that while our government might seem far away and cold to us regular civilians, they're human, too. With hearts, and feelings, and OH MY GOD! Maybe they actually ARE sorry for taking human life?

Jeezus. Are you THAT desperate to argue about this war? You're attacking America for being SORRY for killing innocent people. It's not about whether or not it's going to happen. OF COURSE it's going to happen. Everyone knows that. That's what pisses some people off.

Now tell me...if it's not hurting anyone for saying 'I'm sorry', what's the harm? Why argue against it? Do you have that much disrespect for human life?

At 3/28/03 09:30 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: You say it like it's a bad thing. Monkeys are very intelligent and have been known to hang from their tails. Who wouldn't want THAT?

I wouldn't.

At 3/28/03 10:09 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Do not use "retarded" or "gay" as insults.

I do wish people would listen to this. If not listen to reason, then listen to the mods.

Why is it so hard to understand that insults only make you look like you've lost the debate, and are grasping at straws? Let that sink in before more insults are thrown around.

(This was a collective 'you'. Not directed at someone. Just anyone who uses insults.)

At 3/28/03 03:47 AM, UNpossible wrote: Lump you into what? I never asked you to read my comments,

Oh, but you did. By posting them in a public forum, logic says you want people to read them.

and if you disagree with them, you would have done a lot better than to bash my comments nearly twenty four hours AFTER I made them.

And I can use the same argument. You could have done a lot better than bash me for -not being online- early enough to answer in the time frame you wanted.

If you say that you have never lumped my type into some generalization, that does not mean that someone else hasn't.

So, you get back at the big, bad stereotypers by doing the exact same thing? Good logic there, too.

I never specifically lumped you into the same category as described by me, but if you wish to interpret my words in that way, be my guest.

I will, thanks. But it's not just you. It's everyone who says, 'Those damned anti-war shysters are all the same,' or 'Those stupid pro-war idiots are all the same!' NONE of it makes sense.

You can take that any way you like, but I meant it as a small mention of how so many people claim to be openminded and fair, yet when it comes right down to it, they're just as predjudiced against people with different ideas as the next guy. It's all about respect. This isn't a personal attack. Don't get so defensive.

If you want a flame war as well, I am also open to that opinion.

Who said I wanted a flame war? That was exactly what I was arguing -against-. Sheesh!

At 3/27/03 11:51 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: it's really difficult to comprehend a sponateuous creation of a universe...at least for me

That's precisely the point, actually.

First of all, I'll state here for the record: It's a difficult and complex thing to pick apart, but if it has to be simplified, I DO NOT think that creationism or spirituality should be taught in public schools. I re-read my statement, and to be honest...if I want my child to learn with spirituality, I'll choose an appropriate private school.

The comprehension of what happened and how, especially with Creationism, has everything to do with faith. I dont comprehend it, either. But I don't try to comprehend what God does. If I did, I'd drive myself insane.

That's really the topic of this forum...not whether or not Creationism or Evolution is correct. That, gentlemen, is comparing apples and oranges.

You can give me all the science you want. You can throw facts at me til I'm in my death bed. That will not make my faith budge.

Opinion, if it's truly based on mistaken information, can be proven faulty by fact.

Faith exsists beyond fact. You can tell me there is no God. And I can tell you that until you are able to be everywhere in this universe at the exact same time, you will not ever prove to me that there is no God.

Faith is something that you cannot disprove. Give me graphs and scientists and Darwin himself telling me about his birds and the science of evolution...and I would just smile and say, 'I have faith in Christ.'

Trying to disprove someone's faulty facts is one thing.

Trying to change their faith is another.

At 3/28/03 01:10 AM, mysecondstar wrote: umm...i don't know about you guys but this has got to be one of the more interesting things i've ever had to read here. and there are a lot of interesting things.

if i'm president i'd nuke those iraqi bastards!

right...

does anyone else feel a little dumber?

I've lost IQ points having read that.

Seriously. Help me, before my brain leaks out my ear.

The Iraqi army is now dressing in American military garb.

That's really sad. Guerilla tactics are awful, and...yeah, I'm not saying too much about this now. No opinions other than, how sad.

It's not as easy as they thought it would be.

Oh, yes. And the US dropped a 5,000lb bomb. Assured all of us that 'it's not the biggest in our arsenal'. Well, THANK YOU Captain Obvious!

Anyway, I've always loved the Yin Yang in that signature, and I was going to ask if I could use it, too, but I'm not sure if I want to join any 'politics club' or whatever. I might just be too much of a bitch for it. ;)

Whatcha think, Ted?

At 3/27/03 06:28 AM, UNpossible wrote: But think of all the hard work that they would have to put into the effort! No, it's much easier to protest and take drugs (/sarcasm)

I truly hope you're joking.

It's sad to see such generalizations being made.

Easier to protest and take drugs.

Just following a fad.

I'm truly against this, and for reasons that I've stated. I have well informed opinions, and while I will not disrespect anyone elses opinions, they're not going to change mine. But for someone to lump me into 'following a fad' or the 'dirty hippy' remarks...I don't think you realize just what you're saying.

If that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you. But just remember that I, an anti-THIS-war protestor, a PEACEFUL, DRUG-FREE, EDUCATED American, has never once lumped any of you into some generalization or stereotype.

At 3/27/03 07:26 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: If they're ever there when I take my car into the city, I'm going to run them over and not even think twice about it.

Let us know how it is in prison, then.

Don't drop the soap. Unless, of course, you -want- to.

Can't you just SEE him saying that? I can picture it, really.

To be honest, people, I think George W. Bush is a nice guy. I think he's a very passionate man about what he wants. I think he's like all Texans I've met (notice, I didn't say ALL TEXANS. Just the ones I've met), in that he's hospitible and gracious.

That does not mean I have to agree with him.

Folks, I'm tired of seeing all of you pretent to be intellectually able to speak your mind, then flame each other needlessly. It's rediculous. Commanding people not to post? Demanding for another to 'get the cock out of your mouth'? Please. When did this turn into gradeschool?

I'm not exactly sure why it's so hard to understand. Debating something is one thing. Being raving assholes about it is another. If those of you who are getting involved in flame wars think you're impressing someone by what you say, you're wrong. I mean...think about it.

Are you at all hurt by the text you read from someone who doesn't like you, but you don't know?

When someone says to you, 'You're a fucking idiot.' does it make an honest difference in your life?

If it doesn't...then tell me. What makes any of you think that YOUR flaming is going to get anywhere?

This is the internet, folks. Flame wars are about as useful as emoting "/me punches you in the face" and expecting anyone to actually feel it. It's also like the 8 year old that claims he's gonna hack you for calling him queer. It's petty and childish.

OH! And something for TheShrike.

It's probably been seen before, but damned if I didn't laugh.

At 3/27/03 02:38 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: I'm not going to get into the war in Iraq, because quite frankly, I don't feel like it. However, I do have some things to say concerning Bush's domestic policy...

Education

Environment

Corporate Accountibility

Fiscal Responsibility

In conclusion, it is inaccurate to say "Bush Rox" because his domestic policy is not that good.

AMEN!

Thank you. Thank you for putting it all down for people to read. To think about. Because frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain all of it, too.

Every president has his plusses and minuses. I happen to feel that the minuses here are just...outstanding.