Big Three's European Divisions Could Show Ailing U.S. Industry the Way Back...sm
Posted By: ms on 2008-12-13
In Reply to:
Why are the profitable in Europe? Could it be because they have no unions? It's real hard to find the positive information on the Big 3 outside of the U.S. It's almost as if someone doesn't want us to know and compare the differences...again, it probably boils down to the unions.... GM also just opened a plant in Russia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466144,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov07/0,4670,EURussiaGeneralMotors,00.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
On that healing the divisions question
I would also be trying to believe that he is NOT Bush and that things would be in some measure better. In fact, when he first announced his candidacy, I thought to myself that this was a republican I could learn to live with. It was the hate speech and ugly racism and bigotry that dashed those hopes, and the candidates made their contributions to that dialog. Having said that, in the aftermath of such a hotly contested campaign, at the very least the tenor of the rhetoric needs to be dialed back considerably on both sides.
My impressions of your posts are based on everything I have witnessed come out of your mouth for as long as I have been on this forum. A kinder, gentler sam will take a little time to get used to. You certainly are entitled to your doubts and today I have noticed a definite shift in the edge on your rhetoric. I am probably having the same trouble you may be having in dialing back but I am giving it my best shot, as I believe you are too. We probably will get better at it with a little practice. I really wouldn't expect more than that at this point...just can't help hoping that we all are in for better days ahead and am pretty anxious to see that come about.
European healthcare
Its not all cracked up as it sounds. I use healthcare right now in Sweden and its horrendously bad. I had to fly home to the US to get my breasts examined for lumps that were found because they have the "if it isn't broken, bleeding or obviously damaged, then go home and take an aspirin" mentality. They found the lumps and we were still waiting for a mammogram over a month later because they don't want to do testing and because they have a don't care attitude when it comes to everything here. Don't rush them. its amazing. Its at least 6 months waiting list (if your lucky) to see the dentist unless you are under a certain age as a youth. You can get private healthcare here but the cost of labor is such that its hugely expensive. I don't know about other places because I have only lived here and in the US. We have great healthcare in the US and we have never chosen jobs where we weren't going to have some kind of coverage, but I would never give up my doctors and my insurance in the US for this garbage social junk.
Are you SERIOUS? Here's what the European Union
The EU is a political and economic union of 27 members states, located primarily in Europe, composed of almost 500 million citizens (as compared to 710 million on the total continent of Europe), or 7.3% of the world's total population. The EU generates 30% of the wold's nominal gross domestic product ($16.8 trillion in 2007). There are 23 official and working languages. It is 100% SECULAR in nature
Criteria for membership:
1. Stable democracy which respects human rights and rule of law.
2. Functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU.
3. Acceptance of obligations of membership (EU law).
EU member countries:
1. Austria
2. Belguim
3. Bulgaria
4. Cyprus
5. Czech Rebpulic
6. Denmark
7. Estonia
8. Finland
9. France
10. Germany
11. Greece
12. Hungary
13. Republic of Ireland
14. Italy
15. Latvia
16. Lithuania
17. Luxembourg
18. Malta
19. Netherlands
20. Poland
21. Portugal
22. Romania
23. Slovakia
24. Slovenia
25. Spain
26. Sweden
27. United Kingdom
Three official candidate countries are Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized potential candidates. Kosovo has been granted similar status.
Areas of common shared interests:
1. Governance of institutions, legal system and fundamental rights.
2. Foreign relations including humanitarian aid, military and defense.
3. Justice and home affairs.
4. Economy, consisting of single market, monetary union, competition and budget.
5. Development of agriculture, energy, infrastructure, regional development, environment, education and research.
For more information on its history and details of the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Yeah, man, but it's so European!!
I guess this doesn't count as a ''tax'' as in ''no new taxes on anyone earning under $250,000''? I must've misheard that.
The insidious thing about VAT, is that you never see it. Just like a street drug that's been ''stepped on'' (diluted) by every intermediary to touch it, from Colombia to your local vender, what you end up is a whole lot less than the way it started out. You won't see a separate line for tax on your purchase. But every step of the manufacturing and transport system will be taxed as it moves along its way to you. Won't that be great?
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
European nations waking up all too late.....we seem
--
So,. bottom line, I am European born
and I have proven that my grammar and spelling is better than yours.
Sometimes I make some typos, but last not least this is a froum and on this forum there is no 'typo police' applied, not even 'grammar and spelling police.'
Go and take your meds, I bet you swallow tens of those every day and night, and pray!
Buffet and Soros manipulated Japan, European and
Care to share your theory on HOW they manipulated the markets? Are they also behind the mortgage meltdown, plummeting home values, bank failures, AIG, credit crisis, consumer confidence index, drops in retail sales, plunge in annual sales reports for GM and Chrysler, layoffs negative jobs growth, rise in unemployment, record Exxon and Chevron profits and the like? All manipulated?
With regard to your sour grapes. Obama will win this election because the republicans failed to overcome the Bush legacy of worst administration in the history of the country. They are in a leadershp crisis that produced a weak candidate who could not put together an effective issues-based campaign and, instead, indulged itself in cultural warfare and the politics of division...which in an of itself is a clear sign of 4 more years of the same stuff we are all trying to run far and wide to get away from. Their party is in shambles because of its right wing who is losing its grip of influence and power over the more moderate and centrist among them. Time for some new blood and a platform transplant.
Obama is clearly the best choice for the future of our country. We could use a little "touchy feely" and will benefit immensely by a giant step forward in terms of taking us into a post racial, post partisan reaffirmation of our core values and common sense of purpose, being unity, justice, equality and opportunity for all Americans. It comes as no surprise that some will not quickly recover from the negativity they have been mired in over this past year and it will be up to them whether they stay stuck in the mud or get with the program.
For those who opt for "more of the same," you will be finding out what it feels like to go through exactly what the democrats are finally emerging from after these past 8 years...the depression that comes from a sense of anomie and living in a parallel universe. That choice is yours.
Auto industry
I feel the same way I felt about the bank bail-outs. I would say no bail-outs for ANY business. I think it borders on extortion. First the banks need a bail-out, then it's the auto companies, then AmX reorganizes so they become a holding company so THEY an qualify for some of that free money. Latest I read the newspapers are to be next in line. Where does it all end?
My reason for my no bail-out opinion is, what did it accomplish for the banking industry? Nothing if we are to believe there is a credit crisis. I noticed this evening one of the local banks was advertising that they still have money available for loans. Why is it that it's the big guys that get into trouble? Let 'em suffer. Bail-outs are going to do nothing for working middle class people.
As I said in an earlier post where do you think new automobiles will fit in consumers priority list when they are trying just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads? Pretty far down I'd say. There are new layoffs announced every day, many have nothing whatsoever to do with the automotive industry.
So that is why I say NO BAIL-OUTS.
One more thing...UAW role in the automobile woes. The public has been dreadfully misled. Most seem to think the workers make some $70 an hour when in truth they make in the neighborhood of $27.00 an hour. Not a word have I heard objecting to the executives who are paid some $6000 PLUS per hour and all kinds of perks like private jets, etc. Wouldn't one think this would have a whole lot to do with their finances? The one thing I think the union should concede is the job bank where they are paid 95%, I think it is, of their wages when they are laid off. The rest of the workforce (and my husband spent his life working as a Teamster) should have to suffer through unemployment just like the majority of other employees. I do think that employer provided benefits such as the unions have should be available to all workers. It most surely comes in handy at retirement. I think everyone should have an opportunity to retire in their older years and Social Security sure doesn't covere living expenses. I wonder if there are any MTs who have retirement benefits? Probably not. Most seem now-a-days hard pressed to even make a living.
The car industry....just some thoughts.
My DH and I were talking the other day and we were talking about the criticism of GM. For one, we are both so sick and tired of hearing people say that GM was stupid for building bigger trucks and SUVs. Once again....GM built these because that is what consumers wanted.
Remember back when your parents had a smaller vehicles and we used to cram 5 kids in the back seat. How many of those kids were in car seats? How many even had their seat belts on? Nowadays....you can't do that. Kids have to be in a booster seat until they are 4 feet 7 inches and all people must wear a seat belt. Now tell me this.....how many car seats can you fit in a small car? If you have more than 2 children....you are really pushing it.
I've heard numerous complaints about why GM didn't make more fuel efficient vehicles. Well....let's discuss this a tad bit shall we. The government regulates certain safety standards for vehicles. They go through several crash tests to see which cars are safer. What does this mean.....this means more reinforcement in the vehicles frame which makes vehicles heavier. What does the weight do? Well, the extra material as well as the crash testing causes prices to go up and the extra weight makes the vehicles less fuel efficient. GM made the vehicles it did because at the time....that is what consumers wanted and they also had to meet Government safety standards.
Compact cars are great for single people or married couples without children, but I'd like to see you take a trip in one of those with three kids in car seats plus all of your luggage, etc.
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Insurance industry stats
I just came across these stats in an article I was reading. How can there possibly any doubt that lobbying has single handedly taken over Washington? Especially in light of the fact that the healthcare plans on the table are pushing for more insured rather than single payer system? If we don't shove out the insurance companies, how are the prices for our healthcare ever expected to go down, or even stay at the current level for any length of time? 87% in 10 years? Absolutely ridiculous. We are not reaping any benefit from it whatsoever.
"As premiums have ballooned by 87 percent in the past decade, insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health-care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector, and as of last month, had flooded the presidential candidates with over $11 million in campaign contributions to keep the present system intact."
Bankrupting the coal industry
I opened my post, and the text was there. I saw an empty box with the "dead x," so that may have been what didn't go through.
Were you unable to read the text, too? Try going to OneNewsNow.com (Fred Jackson) - 11/3/2008 7:35:00 AM, and you should be able to open it. That should be the easiest.
When my grandparents came over from Italy via Ellis Island (& legally, too!), they settled in Monongahela, PA. My grandfather worked in the coal mine, & they managed to raise 9 kids, all who went on to get doctorates, DDS, etc. So it can be done (sorry for the memory lane)!
LMK if you can open it, etc. Setting family aside, I respect the hard, dangerous work these coal miners do. The Global Warming (now named Climate Change) goofs are behind this, too. It's a joke--on us.
And if we did bail out the auto industry......sm
how much is that going to cost us and where is the money going to come from?
I realize this country's economy is in the toilet at this point and people are hurting everywhere, but my question is, like I said above, where is the money going to come from (I don't believe tax increases on the wealthy are going to cover the tab) and what is going to happen when "they" call in the loans?
the cattle industry deserves to go down why?
I guess no bailout for them, huh? I know a lot of people who run stocker steer and cow calf operations who work hard for the little money they get. Peronally, I enjoy a good burger or a steak and would HATE to see the cattle industry go down, plus, think of all the lost jobs, or are we only concerned with banks and car manufacturers?
Auto industry bailout...(sm)
I happen to think that the auto industry does need a bailout. No, I don't agree with keeping the current management, and I do believe in making stipulations for how that money is spent. I know most of you will disagree with that, but here's what I'm seeing in TN.
Congressman Zach Wamp (R) from TN was on the tube last night talkiing about how he does not want to do the bailout. If that's his opinion that fine ----- However, lets look at his reason. TN has been bidding for a new Volkswagon plant which has recently come to fruition---right here in my home town by the way. He has been pushing for this for years. This is obviously a good thing for people in TN because of the jobs it would create. What I find ironic though is that he would let American companies go down the tubes and yet support a foreign auto maker. My honest opinion about guys like this, is that they want the job creation, regardless of where the real money is going (overseas) and they would like to do this in such a manner so as to cut out unions.
ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!! 
The cattle/beef industry deserves to go down, but otherwise
x
Here's a link for the auto industry bailout
They keep flip-flopping. The second link is Paulson's idea. That was probably posted before but am posting again just in case.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27721013
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27712153
Article I read on the auto industry and the election.
Good article and the guy they interviewed, Peter DeLorenzo (?) - a guy all up on the auto biz - said neither McCain nor Obama had a clue when it came to the auto industry. The article gave a little bit of the voting records on both related to the auto industry.
Candidates Voting Record On Auto Industry-Related Issues:
Clean Energy Achievement Criteria (2007): McCain - no vote; Obama - Yes
Preventing Petroleum Export Organizations (NOPEC Act of 2007): McCain - no vote; Obama - Yes
Reduction in Dependence on Foreign Oil (2005): McCain - No, Obama - Yes
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (No) Drilling Amendment (2005): McCain - Yes, Obama - Yes
Does Palin kno McCain voted no on reducing dependence on foreign oil?
The auto industry's V6 motor is pretty good
We get 28-30 MPH with it. Why they didn't brag this up, I have no idea. It has power, too. We could keep up with the V8's with no problem. Had a very large luxury Delta 98 LS and it was the best car we ever had...but the frame rotted away, so we kept the motor and put it into a Buick LeSabre.
Part of the problem is the unions. I've always been a union supporter, but they have really killed the industry in this country in the past 20 years. That's why there are no steel industries here anymore. That's why auto workers make a fantastic wage. Once they make good to fantastic wages, they won't back down.
Face it. People are greedy and this is a gigantic wake up call, but if they don't want to, or aren't willing to, take pay cuts, or pay more for their health insurance, then we're doomed to fall into a greater depression than seen in the 30s. A me-first-and-only-me economy doesn't work.
Example: Teachers in my area are screaming and going on strike because they don't want to pay more for health insurance. They pay $40 biweekly. I pay $200 a pay and before that, I paid $630 a month. I'm happy paying $200 a month. Are they? Nope. It's me-me-me. When are people going to wake up?
If our bailed-out auto industry doesn't invest enough
over their addiction to fossil fuels to power them, why bother to buy a new one, I'll just keep patching my old one together. At least it's paid-for, so I don't have to support the Evil and Deceitful Banking Industry with my hard-earned money. I'd rather it go to a *real* worker, like my faithful mechanic!
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.
I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.
But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?
You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
Yes, SO easy. Which is why the diet industry in this country rakes in billions each year. nm
.
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.
Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):
Ayers
Wright
Dorhn
Michelle
Khalidi
The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=
I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).
Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
I know most of it's for show
But how does she get on TV saying things like she did about Jewish people? How does she sleep at night after saying something like that? She just gets more and more outrageous just to get a reaction - and yeah sometimes it works because what she says is hateful. I have no problem with anyone giving their views, but she's hateful about it and that is what I have a problem with (and no, as I've said before I don't condone hateful things on either board)
goes to show
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Just goes to show you that you need to ...sm
have an inquiring mind and not take as gospel what is spoon fed to you by either party. I particularly like the "fact checks" on both party's candidates. The perception is that we American voters are fools and will believe anything we are told.
Show me a pic
I can't find a pic with a lump on his jaw.
show me
show me refusal to acknowedge - I haven't seen it.
Goes to show you - sm
McCain is concerned about the people. Obama is concerned about himself.
McCain was absolutely right on the spot when he said there needs to be an investigation, just as there was when 9-11 happened, we need one now for this crisis.
One more plus to show McCain is interested and will work for us, while Obama....well Obama is for Obama.
Once again....goes to show
how people who get their tail feathers all ruffled after someone personally attacks an Obama supporter on the board, but they have no problem calling McCain supporters names and personally attacking them by stating they lack intelligence.
Look in the mirror....your hypocracy is showing.
Don't believe it. Show me. nm
.
You show me anywhere where he said...
95% of American workers WHO PAY TAXES. SHOW me where it says that. But, supposing that is what he means...there are still that 30-40%. Those people pay taxes. Then they get deductions and credits. They get back every dime they paid in and THEN some. They are part of that 95% who "pay taxes." Got it? And about 30-40% of the working public fall into that category. so it is back to square one. Yes, they "pay taxes." Taxes are deducted. Then they file. They get the deductions and the credits and whatever (I am talking about NOW). They get back every dime they paid in. These people technically "pay taxes." If you work one day a year and have deductions, you "pay taxes" and will be included.
I understand that you don't see it. I understand that you are filling in the blanks that he left open. I don't see it the way you see it. He is counting on people seeing it the way you see it. So be it.
YOu can yell BOGUS until you are blue in the face. I will yell NAIVE just as loud.
"He is assuming it is understood." Well, he is hoping that everyone will understand it the way YOU understand it. I am not so enamored of him that I cannot read between the lines. And frankly, as BOGUS as my line of thinking appears to me, YOURS is naive at best. So we will agree to disagree. If he went on television and told you tomorrow that he was going to cut checks to people who don't pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, you would be on this board defending the decision tomorrow night.
You show me where he says it is not.
You assume it is not. I assume that it will be. Based on everything his history is, based on everything he has said, including starting at the BOTTOM. Just where do you think Mr Obama perceives the bottom to be? What is your assumption on that?
Please show me where....(sm)
Obama has said that he will "give to those who would not [work]." And by the way, does that include Social Security?
OK show me
Where does it say the Secret Service blames McCain/Palin?
There were people who spoke about potential threats to Obama before he even became the Democratic candidate. To act now like it's all because of McCain and Palin stirring them up is ludicrous.
Bigotry is out there. Or do you honestly believe no one would have noticed that Obama is an African-American?
I don't like her either, but she has every right to be on the show
I don't like Ann Coulter at all. I think she's obnoxious and arrogant. But then again I don't like the View. I think it's filled with old "has been" housewives and mothers who just sit and gab and give their opinion and put down anyone who doesn't agree with them (i.e. anyone who is not a liberal). I watched the View a couple times and there was nothing interesting or entertaining about it. If they don't like a guest they won't even look at them (Joy Bear (or however you spell her last name) is such a pig! - I can explain and prove that in another post if anyone is interested). Anyway...for anyone to come out and say there is no reason to have someone (no matter who it is) on their show is a bit Nazi-ism. Who are you to say who they should have on and who they shouldn't. Her opinion of Barbara Walters is just that, her opinion. I didn't see the show, but when she said that I'm sure she was jumped on by the others. None of them can stand any person who is not a liberal and they try (and I use the word loosely), try to ridicule them. Luckily it doesn't work. From my understanding of what I've read on this board and elsewhere is that Ann Coulter says things to inflame others. She says things for what they call "shock value". I'm sure Barbara Walters is a big girl (I like Barbara Walters - just can't stand the others on the show), but Barbara is a big girl and can stand up for herself. She's smart and a quick thinker so I'm sure she had an intelligent comeback. But as for Ann Coulter saying things, that's just the way she is and they all know that and knew well before hand that she would most likely do that. Besides they do have a script they follow to some degree with questions prepared ahead of time and what they say and how they plan to cut down a non-liberal.
But for you to come out and say there is no reason to have such a person featured on TV? That is a bit too Nazi-ism for me. Everybody deserves to go on whatever show they want to. Her views have no value? According to you and other liberals they may not, but there are others who like her and would like to hear her interviewed. And certainly the View wanted her on the show otherwise she would have not been there.
I'm just glad your not in charge of who is allowed to go on what shows, or what books we can read (burn all those you don't agree with) - sound familiar?
Just goes to show ya
Fringers can't recognize a clean election when they see one and don't have a clue what the word "mandate" means. Uninformed? You seem to have cornered the market on that one.
same old show
Don't fret.
We get the same old show no matter what party is in office. It is a continual ball game with Republocrats versus the Democans. It keeps the American sheeple amused, cheering and fighting for its favorite team while the big boys play games with the global elite, keeping the spectators slaves to their greedy ideas. Been watching this show too long.......
But it would at least show that he
was attempting to keep his promise whether he was overrun by congress or not. If that is the case, then let congress take the fall for it and we can vote those fools out as soon as we can. But for him to just go along with it after he made promises to us. The only reason Obama turned his back and broke his promises to the American people is so that he kept the support of the dems in congress.
For once, I want a president who will stand up to his party and the other party and say....you know what....I promised the American people and they come first because WE work for them. Instead we continue to get liar after liar in office with a government system that is more interested in how much money they can spend with our tax dollars.
All this does is show him, as you said...for what he is.
a corrupt power-hungry politician, just like the rest of them. "Yes we can.." uh, no, "Yes I can." And he certainly is...lol, priceless. As they have sown....so shall they reap. Problem is, we are going to have to reap right along with them. Thank all of you who so ill-advisedly cast your vote for this charlatan...(tongue firmly in cheek). Next thing you know he will be asking us all to work for nothing like British Airways did...LOL.
The show and Powell
I thought the show was wonderful and illustrated very clearly how bits and pieces of intelligence were selected and manipulated and turned into something they weren't. (They referred to it as a "Chinese menu" that the administration used to pick and choose from.)
I taped this show and watched it a couple times. As far as Powell is concerned, it did show how Powell's relationship with George Tenet began to disintegrate.
It further showed how Tenet was, at Bush's father's urging, kept as CIA director when Dubya took office, and all the events leading to his resignation. He was one of Dubya's sacrifical lambs. I guess Bush thought giving him the Medal of Freedom made up for that.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, said that Powell told him, "I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops into Iraq and march from one corner of the country to the other and find nothing."
Powell said, "I will forever be known as the one who made the case. I have to live with that." (That made me feel really bad for Powell, who I have always trusted and considered to be an honest, ethical man. His association with Bush really dragged him down, and his statement about having to live with that just tells me that he's still an honest, ethical man, the kind of man who had a spectacular military career, actually had the guts to go fight in wars himself, someone who truly IS Presidential material, someone who doesn't belong in an underhanded, lying, foolish administration like Bush's.)
The show also pointed out how if you are someone who works for this president and you discover something not right or in alignment with his "plans," if you tell him, you'd better be prepared to resign or be fired.
This show clearly illustrated how Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, and all he needed was a reason, even if he had to invent a fictional one.
Again, I thought it was an excellent show, and if you ever have the opportunity to watch it or obtain a transcript of it, I would highly recommend it. 
Where did gt do that? Show me please because I can't find it.
It's COMEDY show
and the last I watched he was an equal opportunity offender....
I saw a show on TLC about this family...
To each his own, especially if you're footing the bill yourself, but this family is just uplain creepy. The children are all homeschool and virtually isolated from any other children other than another family or two who share the same nutty religious convictions. They even have their OWN church at home. The girls all wear these horrid sad-sack Little House on the Prairie identical plaid potato sack dresses that look like they were made from discarded curtains and when asked their only aspirations are to have lots of children and to be a mother. The boys also dress identically in little Leave it to Beaver short-sleeved dress shirts. It's called Full Quiver parenting, as in having as many kids as you get before you get to menopause or your uterus falls out, whichever comes first. I find the whole thing rather odd, but who am I to judge I suppose.
Again, please show me where I was disrespectful. Thank you.
Who is they?
Bush should take in a show
So funny, well neocons (cause I KNOW you are reading our board, just cant help yourselves), all I meant by **you got that right Abe** was that Bush should take in a show, oh my gosh, his job is so stressful he would really enjoy taking in a play..LOLOLOLOL..if you thought otherwise, then you are the **terrorist** in my opinion because you are thinking that someone wants to destroy our dear elected president..I have never wished that, thought that or advocated that..
It doesnt show up..nm
Just trying to show how silly all of this is.
Why not think of ways to make the world better on your own instead of cooking up stuff. That's all I am saying.
|
