|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 10/10/2004 9:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 62752
lol!! sorry just had to laugh at this, good for u being a bush fan.. me no thank u, hate the man  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 9:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 62752
he changes his mind, which is good, u know we as HUMANS change our minds, i dont want a president in office that is so closed minded that says "war war war" AT ANY COST, lie to us, kill our soldiers for nothing, so he can have oil, ohhhh pa-lease |
Date: 10/10/2004 9:22:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
I mean here is a man that WHILE on the Senate Intelligence Commttee, missed 76 percent of the hearings, Yet he wants to complain that this committee isnt doing its job? WELL ya, when the people involved cant show up for meetings, I'm thinking that might be just one reason things are slow to get done? Be back later, have work to do.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 9:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Kristen, and you are able to hate anyone you want, however if you hate him, do you have good reason to do so, if so what are they if not why not? |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 9:28:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Bush didnt lie about the war and Kerry also voted that Saddam was a threat and back the president on this issue. So then its better to vote for a man that has no compassion for the elderly and them having to make a choice between meds and food? Its better to vote for a man that says that life is made at the moment of conception yet he chooses to kill that life just so people can experiement? Its better to vote for a man that WONT give the military people that give their LIVES daily for us here at home, a pay raise? Of course he has billions of dollars so I guess he thinks I've got mine you get yours? Its better to vote for kerry for president even when he is in the Hanoi hall of fame for speaking against the united states? I guess to each their own. |
Date: 10/10/2004 9:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 52337
Thank God.. someone who is finally for Bush.. I think bush just got into the office at the wrong time, like when this all really got started.. ..cady  |
Date: 10/10/2004 9:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Dennis Miller says all you need to know about Bush is, he gets up in the morning, scratches his (uhm private area) and says, lets kill us some terrorists today...that's kind of Bush in a nut shell and it appeals to the unintellectual, cowboy side of me..We are all Americans and we should be proud of our Cowboy heritage..not our French intellectual, European heritage, which most of our ancestors fled by the way...what am I saying? Heck, I don't know, just rambling on here. Kerry is a Global test, lets talk everything to death kind of guy..Bush is an action kind of guy. By the way, why is it liberals HATE to be called liberal? Conservatives don't fuss about being called conservative. Moderates don't fuss about being called moderates. Why do liberal politicians hate to be called liberal? Why do they want to hide from it?  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 10:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
KristenKay, the dictionary defines a lie as; to make a statement which one knows to be false. I think people must be total idiots, clueless or downright liars themselves to say the President "lied". President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry made statements throughout the 90's about the dangers of Saddam, using the exact same intellegince as Bush used to go to war. The same information that the French had, the Germans had. Jordans King said Saddam had WMD's, Russia said they had them, the Brits said they had WMD..heck, our good friends the French were selling Iraq missles which took out two of our tanks..so actually, France did go to war, just not with us, but against us. Our good friends on the security council recieved 2 billion dollars from Iraq, in return they were to use there veto to prevent us from going to war. Saddam wanted the sanctions lifted--Germay, Russia and France were working to get them so that Iraq could start up his wmd program again..it was all just a matter of time. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 10:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
I guess it's just easier for some people to understand "he lied"..it doesn't clutter up the brain with facts. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 10:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
One other thing..remember we were told Bush was going to plant WMD if he couldn't find any??? Whatever happened with that? If he is such a nazis-facist-liar, wouldn't he just plant the stuff and be done with it? |
Date: 10/10/2004 10:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 48531
lol...i have to laugh as well, because you get his name wrong, yet you call this facts against Kerry. Ironic i think.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 10:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 48531
Its not Bill Kerry, its John Kerry. Your thinking of Clinton, quite a ways off facts there...., you even quoted places correctly stating his name, but you still yourself dont know his name, lol, that just cracks me up. thanks for the laugh. |
Date: 10/10/2004 10:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
Um modder, she missed commas lol, put a comma after bill and then reread.  |
Date: 10/10/2004 10:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 1055
Are you serious modder? Do you even know how to read? He was using the word bill as a noun, as in "A draft of a proposed law presented for approval to a legislative body," not as a first name. I think you kinda shot yourself in the foot with your own statements.  |
Date: 10/10/2004 11:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 28767
I duno, I just think its a bad idea to leave this mess up to a new president. I think Bush should get reelected and finish the job, that he started four years ago. I honestly think the democrats are just going to raise taxs again. My parents got more taxs back under Bush than they have ever gotten under the demorcrats. I would honeslty like to see a different Pressident running too. But there is nobody else. Maybe I should just write my vote in OK everybody vote for the ---->  |
Date: 10/10/2004 11:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 62599
Nice, exactly what I was looking for. We may have disagreed on some things in the past, but i have to hand it to you here, firstborn. Awesome job.  |
Date: 10/10/2004 12:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
Monkie, I never even thought of that. Have you ever watched the movie dog wagging? Maybe I got it wrong, but there slogan was, why change horses in midstream, it was funny, anyway. I think the president needs to finish the job too and not put a new person into office at this vital part of handing over power. As far as the stem cell research question in the last debate, wasn't it nice how kerry dodged the desicion? He talks about being a magority leader, is there even a magority of educated people who are for embryonic stem cell research? It just makes me sick to my stomach that he says as soon as he is in he will repeal the law against new embryonic stem cell strains. As the lady said adult stem cells and cord stem cells have proven to work, but embryonic stem cells never have even helped one person, in fact embryonic stem cells is known to cause tumors. Why we are focusing on embryonic instead of cord or adult? Ok I'm gonna stop here, that issue drives me nuts. I think Kerry has some good ideas, but I think the most important is human life. So Bush has my vote. Thanx for posting FB.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 12:39:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
For author only, yep me too . I agree. Princess::::: Yep things happened at a bad time for bush, but I personally think he has done well under the pressure. KELLY:: LOL, yep they hate it, my husband says I'm a liberal, well if I'm why am I for bush? LOL Madder is it? cant see your taggie well, anyway, I went back and put comma's between bill and kerry so you wouldnt get confused thinking all this information is about BILL KERRY. Glad you got a laugh a a typo error, and if I FORGOT to put the comma in some places, I'm sure the rest of you know how to do that as were talking about the BILLs that kerry messed up . Yes I know his name, its called wishy washy. For author only , your welcome. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 12:42:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Thank you base, LOL, I put some commas in there before I saw your comment, thanks. Universal travler, LOL. Krazed snow monkey. I'm with you on this. I mean its like a mother giving birth, rasing the kid for four years and then someone new has to come in and raise that kid for four more years. They would be lost, as it would take a least two years to figure the kid out. AutoPilot, thank you and good to see you today. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 12:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Yep smurfPoo, I saw that also, and even tho embryonic stem cells have never worked, he still wants to ok. Why? Especially after HE said that he is catholic and believes that life starts at conception. Bush has taken alot of slack because he votes for bills and laws that reflect his moral values and his beliefs, does he always get his way, no as even the president can get voted down. But to have a man put his own moral values and beliefs to the side, just to gain votes, well what can I say? My grandma always said a man was only as good as his word. If he goes against his own values, what will he do to our values? |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 12:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
SORRY ya'll that I cant get to this post in a timely fashion but I only have a certain amount of hours that I can be on line due to working during the day, and having to stay off line to keep the phone free for bussiness calls at night. Sometimes I can get on again after 11. p.m. Thanks for having patience with me. |
Date: 10/10/2004 12:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 62506
Gobble-de-goop.I'm not going to vote for Bush no matter what distorted facts the Republican mud slinging machine runs past me.We do not belong in a war with Iraq.Period.No WMDs were found in Iraq.Period.No ties to Al Qaeda were ever discovered.Period.Spin it anyway you want to...distort the facts...divert blame to another...but it still comes down to the fact that Bush has us in a war with Iraq.A country that some may not like,but as a civilized nation we can not and must not invade every country that Bush deems to be a threat.His judgement has been found to be unsuitable for a person holding the highest office in the country.After such a devistating mistake made by this President,I prefer to vote him out of office.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 1:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Woodshed the facts are not distrorted they are a matter of public record that anyone can look up. I guess it would be better not to have gone to war, to disreguard the people that were being oppressed over there and even John Kerry saw the reports that said that there WERE weapons of mass destruction. He voted the same was as Bush did on getting rid of saddam. Now its learned that the president was given reports that failed to be true, and they are now trying to find out how that happened and I would think, putting in some fail safe programs so that wrong information isn't given to the white house anymore. But what if the information wasnt wrong and they did find WMD, would you be singing a differnt tune? But even without wmd, those people still deserve to be free of the torture, murder and oppression that bush has given them. |
Date: 10/10/2004 1:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 62246
Wow, it's nice to see so many Bush supporters. Often I feel out of place on the net, because most internet people are Kerry supporters. I also believe that it's bad to switch country leaders in the middle of something. Also, for everyone out there, I've seen many people with wrong information using against certain people. Everyone needs to watch where they get their information from. Lot's of media is not as objective as we'd like to believe. Watch everything that happens to the world and try to stay objective, then make a decision on what you think happened and what you think is right. Otherwise, if you stay opinionated the whole time, you may remember things differently. just some advice.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 2:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Sparky and good advise it is. Thanks for stoppin by, I think there are many more bush supporters then what people think. |
Date: 10/10/2004 2:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I find it amazing that Kerry is still acused of "flip-flopping" on Iraq. What is so hard to understand about Kerry's stance on the war; He would have made the decision to go to war, but not gone about it in the way that Bush did. My own opinion is that saying the world is now a safer place without Saddam (which is certainly debatable) is no excuse for the way Bush went about waging war in Iraq. The ends do not justify the means.  |
Date: 10/10/2004 2:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 49101
Wow, that was entertainment! LMBO! And the replies were almost as much fun to read as the post, let me clarify something. I AM A LIBERAL, AND I AM PROUD TO BE CALLED ONE! To others who like to misquote people, I CALL BUSH A LIAR, AND I HAVE FACTS TO BACK UP MY ACCUSATIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, I having a REALLY bad day, (home troubles) and I have a test to fail tomorrow, so I have to go and study haploids, diploids, cell respiration and well... A lot of stuff creationists just wouldn't understand. I'll be back to debate later. *Glances at post and replies again* lol! you guys crack me up!  |
Date: 10/10/2004 3:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
http://www.factcheck.org/archive.aspx.html ....The truth and only truth check it out  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 3:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that. It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act." The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. now its "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities a reason for going to war and over a thousand lifes and money that the USA simple does not have I think Not .......when there are real angry countrys that hate us out there and really do have them even bragging on the news and they are left unchecked <---this is NOT rational behavior in any sence its stupid that we would do this ............... Official statistics still show most US families lost income in 2002 even after taxes, despite misleading GOP claim to contrary the GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don't believe it. .................80% of the tax relief for upper income filers goes to small businesses.” It’s untrue – and a classic example of a statistical distortion gone amok. It may be true that 79% of upper-income taxpayers have some income from business, but Gillespie’s definition of “small” business actually includes big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and “businesses” that are really only sidelines – such as occasional rental income from a corporate chief’s ski condo. In fact, tax statistics show that upper-income taxpayers get far more of their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest than they do from small business. Bush's plan why would he do this except to make the drug companys happy ???__________“the bill forbids Medicare from negotiating lower prescription drug prices,” which is true. Pharmaceutical companies pushed for that measure so they would not have to face downward pressure on their prices. The ad also says the bill “prevents getting lower priced prescriptions from Canada, ” which is also true. Drug prices are lower in Canada because the government there controls them According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush has received $891,383 so far from pharmaceutical and health products companies and their employees for his 2000 and 2004 campaigns combined. That’s a little over one-half of one percent of Bush’s total. The industry is a much bigger player on Capitol Hill, where it does give more to Republicans than the Democrats overall. The industry gave more than $29 million in the 2002 congressional election campaign, of which 74 percent went to Republicans. Bush said ................We can cut the deficit in half over the next five years. The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 4:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
Bush did not listen to half of the United states people when They said no we dont want war and to go to war on top of it for such a flimsy excuse knowing full well at this time that Bin and his group Hated Iraq just as bad as they hated us and Iraq was not responsable for The twin towers at all <----THE BUSH administration Knew this when They entered into that war and has since told the American people that they definitely knew this before entering the war <--- he tried to lie cheat and cover up his own agenda . |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 4:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
and when it was a Very Huge deal to over Half of The USA ...not mention when any person said hey wait a minute I dont agree .......Bush insinuated that that person was a tratior .______Remember ??? |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 4:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
our media was bullied by the bush administration and his adminstration would not uphold a law instead letting it lapsed that would keep Big corporations from soul owning and controlling all the news media even when Groups representing consumers, broadcasters, entertainers and some media workers argue that the restrictions should remain to prevent a handful of giant companies from controlling what people watch, hear and read. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 4:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Factcheck.org is a great site, and everyone should go and read the entire articles there and not just focus on parts of articles that agree with their position. Keepsake, "A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war." It also says "60% of those polled do also support (at least in principle) the use of military action to remove Saddam from power, which closely mirrors recent polls taken by Time Magazine, CNN, FOX News, USA Today, CBS News and other news organizations." "A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War." Now if over 60% of people supported taking Saddam out at least on principle and before the war there was 62% support for the war and after the beginning there was still a 62% how do you accuse Bush of not listening to his people? You get mad when you think he doesn't listen to the people and when he does, then you still get upset. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 4:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 24673
Oh I love this post, thanks! 1  |
Date: 10/10/2004 4:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 37101
Boy, people sure do hate it when Republicans post pro-Bush support on this site but it's perfectly okay with all the Kerry propaganda gets strewn about... Thanks for this, Firstborn. Breath of fresh air. -  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 4:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
He does not have the much needed gift of diplomacy or care to reach peacefull resolutions with other countrys" These countrys have as much right to decide what corse of action should have been taken aginst a bad neighbor Its not Americas world alone we share this world With other Countrys and they are entitled to thier opinions just as American are entitled to ours the Bush adminstration either talked to them condesendingly Rude "bullied " or paid them to join the collalition with our technology and tax dollars ...ITs NOT RIGHT ....He says we went to war because Iraq did not do what the UN wanted them to do .....The UN told Us to wait until there inspections & investagation were finished with . The Bush adminstraion would Not wait wThe Pot calling The kettle black yet which Has caused Us to lose our children and Money on a war we did not Have ...He is a bad president and our land has suffered under his watch he is not the right man to be called leader of our country |
Date: 10/10/2004 4:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 62787
im tired or people using these facts...its so stupid. who cares what either one of them did...we should think about WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO....the past was then...we have to think about now and the future. - Blade of the Samurai  |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
That's not what you said Keepsake you said "Bush did not listen to half of the United states people when They said no we dont want war and to go to war." That's a lot different then he lacks diplomacy, nice switch. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
He is reponsable for America' s reputation of fairness and truth being lost <---this alone should be enough to hand him his walking papers |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
That's your opinion Keepsake which you are entitled to but is not a fact. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
"He is reponsable for America' s reputation of fairness and truth being lost" I don't know if you guys lack a knowledge of history or a short term memory but what reputation of fairness and truth? People have been blowing up American interests for decades because they hate us. Long before Bush entered office, the French were rude to American citizens visiting their county. We've been hated by a lot of the world long before Bush ever stepped into office. Either way America goes someone has a problem. If we step into a situation people get mad, if we stay out of a situation, people get mad. We haven't been well liked in the world for a long time, long before Bush, Clinton, or Bush Sr. I'm not sure we've ever had a reputation of fairness and truth. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
Ok almost half I conced that you are right about that not being a fact but me being mouthy " look I can admit when I am wrong which is more then I can say for our president something bush has a real problem .....with the polls being that close still a large amount of the population did not agree with his wish to go to war . by the way most of the people at that time were hyped into thinking Bin laden was there which the adminstration knew for a fact he was not responsable but did They make That clear to The public >>>>>NNOOOOOOOO they did Not <---second reason he needs his walking papers |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
lol if you feel the need to give him his walking papers then vote in the election, which I'm sure you'll do, only you know what's right for you |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
I mean the fact that Iraq did not have nothing to do with the twin towers....Bush did Not make That clear and as our president dont you think he should have? |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
he knew it and has admitted he knew that at the time |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 3642
If he was pinnochio he could keep us in wood for The next 50 years |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
From factcheck.org "It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically." http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=203.html What was also said from the State of the Union is quoted on that page. I never got the message that Bush and Cheney ever blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, but only that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. But, if so many people did believe that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein based on what they said, then yes they should have made that clearer. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 5:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 49101
the funniest thing is all the people who say "Well when you post a Bush debate all the Dems get mad! oh boohoo!" It's the same thing both ways! |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 6:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
"Kerry Later Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I knew there was an explanation for this one, just took me a long time to find it lol. The 87 billion dollar proposal did include the body armor and supplies but only 300 million of the 87 million was for the armor and supplies. When Kerry said he did vote for it before he voted against it, he's referring to a bill he co-sponsored that was defeated 57-42 that paid for the 87 million by repealing tax cuts on people making over $400,000 a year. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 9:40:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Dark Phoenix, so he says, but until one is in another mans shoes its hard to say what they would do. MissC. I've seen your posts and I'm glad we can entertain you. Keepsake, I've book marked it to check it out later. BASE:: Thank you for answering some of these comments as I cant be here much, but wanted to have my opinion on the post.Thanks. Garbage, your welcome. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 9:44:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Smooth Criminal, your wecome. I've not been around as much as I'd like, but I know there are bush supporters, just wondered why one never made a post. LOL, thanks again. KEEPSAKe" of course you know I disagree with you. Blade of the SAmaurai:: People are prone to repeat the past, we cant just say, oh well they did this or that but lets wait and see what they WILL do. That would be like saying well that man kill six people and went to prision but now hes out, its in the past, so lets just leave him alone and see what he is going to do, we cant think about what he did in the past. |
|
Date: 10/10/2004 9:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
No keepsake, we were not hyped up thinking bin laden was there, we knew he wasnt. But when these people in Iraq keep going against the inspections of course one would think they had something to hide. IT TOOK long enough to hid anything they had before they allowed people over there. Information was given by agencys that seem to show they did have WMD, even kerry voted to take haddam out. I dont care if its bush, clinton or any other president they act on information given to them from these agencies, if anything the fault is in the information, not the president. A vote was taken, and the president acted. And YES it was clear that laden was NOT in iraq. |
Date: 10/11/2004 12:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Woodshed's comment of October 10, 12:55 PM is, I think, an accurate representation of the position of many that will vote for Senator Kerry. Many of them seem to think that anyone would be better than President Bush; Senator Kerry just happens to be the candidate with the best chance of winning. Senator Kerry's presidency offers few substantial improvements and will probably plunge the economy into another recession; yet, he's better than the President is because he's a Democrat. As I've indicated before, there will be few votes for the Senator; most will be cast against the President.  |
Date: 10/11/2004 6:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Facts? Democrats and liberals have been harping since Jan.2001 that they would get Bush out of office, "Anybody but Bush". Is the rallying cry. They would vote for a tree stump if it ran against Bush. Now it's all about making the propaganda fit the candidate. A year ago Howard Dean was the second coming, after Kerry did well with his home town primary and in Iowa Dean imploded and they tossed him out with the trash. It's not now or ever will be about Kerry being the better man, it's about partisanship, they just won't admit it.  |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 9:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
^ I have to agree with BCAR on that one. Watching the Democrats pick Kerry as their candidate, it became obvious he was only picked based on "electability". Democrats really preferred Dean (at least up until the infamous speech at least) and the only reason Kerry was picked is because he was seen as the candidate most likely to beat Bush. Having said that, i still see Kerry as the lesser of two evils and would much prefer him to win the election, but it says something about politics in America when voters are forced to vote based on who they don't want to win. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 10:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 62752
first i guess ur one of the few ppl LEFT on the planet to not know the documents that colen powel showed america were not true, so to define a lie.. if they made that up, for there reasons to go to war... how did they not know? oh please whatever and bcar is right i think i would vote for big bird to get bush out!! HE LIED!! if u dont know that then ur just blind, because he sure enough never said anything when they asked him over and over on the debates, what did he do? "ill come back to that"? when will he? never |
Date: 10/11/2004 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
you know people think its that simple why he voted no or yes but look at the fluff of the bill, some bills that have like abortion also have "delaware gets 3 billion extra for the governors pocket" or something, theres alot of little stuff on bills noone ever sees. also, whatever happened to you hating how bush screwed over america FirstBorn?  |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 1:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Alfrowi< yep Im with you on that, it wont be because they WANT kerry, they just dont want bush and they can beat around the bush, heheheh, little joke, as much as they want but what most of it boils down to is because of Bushes Christian values. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 1:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Bcar, I got this in a email and really havent checked it out due to shortage of time on the puter, so here it is and what do you think of it? ""The CPUSA has made available on its Web site, http://www.cpusa.org/, an advertisement entitled Top Ten Reasons to Defeat Bush. This advertisement can be downloaded. The Communist Party urges readers to place this ad in local newspapers throughout the country to defeat President Bush. Remarkably, the "Top Ten Reasons" of the Communist party are identical to those of the Democratic party; out-sourcing, homosexual rights, abortion and the like. At first, it was thought that "this was only a coincidence." The Democratic Party of the United States couldn't be in lock step with the Marxists! So, the originator of this e-mail wrote to a spokesman of the CPUSA in Georgia and here is part of the spokesman's letter: "The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November" **Next, it was discovered that one of Kerry's campaign themes is "Let America be America Again." This slogan was borrowed from a Communist poet, Langston Hughes. This is not common knowledge to the average American. "Let America be America Again" sounds good but is a rambling, gloomy poem. Interestingly, another poem by Langston goes as follows; "Goodbye, Christ >Jesus, Lord, God, Jehovah, Beat it on away from here now. Make way for a new guy with no religion at all -- A real guy named Marx, Communist, Lenin, Peasant, Stalin, Worker, ME -- I said, ME!" Then, if this was not convincing enough that the Democratic party has lost it, a third discovery! **A Vietnam vet group took a trip to Communist Hanoi to investigate a report that John Kerry was in the "Hanoi Hall of Fame." Yes, there is a museum in Hanoi with a section dedicated to foreign activists who helped d! efeat the United States Military in Vietnam. Of course, you would expect Jane Fonda's picture to be there. But, alas, there is John Kerry's picture shaking the hand of a Communist official. Never has there been such a tragedy! Never has there been such a threat to America! Has the Democratic party has been taken over by the far, far left! They are enraged that the President wants a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage between a man and woman. Then we have the ACLU running to a federal activist judge with every piece of legislation that doesn't fit into their leftist agenda. They support every Democratic socialist whim. The removal of the Ten Commandments is their top priority! |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 1:35:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
KristenKay, everyone keeps saying bush lied. Ok good and fine, Maybe he did, maybe he didnt, but what about kerrys lies? About his military? About going against his own country? Isnt is just a big as lie to say your going to do something, agree with it and then either dont vote or vote the other way? What about clinton, he lied big time, lots of presidents have withheld the truth on certain matters, lots of men running for president that never made it have done the say thing. Now I dont believe something to be a lie, if information given to a person didn't have ALL the facts, or had more then they should have. If someone said to me, Debbie.Bcar just went over to eddos and took all his money, we have the proof. Here are the documents, well then if I acted on that information, even tho bcar may have went to eddos but didnt take all his money, then I would be accused of lying because I had just told someone else, what I THOUGHT to be the truth given the information give me. The point is Bush believed because of that informaiton that there were WMD, and acted on it. What if the reports would have been right? Ya'll would be applauding bush right now instead of calling him a liar. Does this also mean that your blind against kerrys miltary record and the way he acted over there? Does this mean that kerry is lying to God? Because kerry agrees that God is and agrees with HIS word, which means that life happens at conception, YET to get votes, he goes against what he believes, so is he lying to God? Think about it. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 1:44:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Jestr. I've always been for bush and will be for bush again as one does have only two choices. Every president does things that we dont like, and yes, the bills that bush put into effect as basically all he has to do is sign his name and martial law comes into play. There are so many bills passed now and I'm sure if you look at some of my old posts you will find the posts about them, but there are so many that really does not leave us with equal rights, we really only lie to ourself if we THINK we do have rights, we dont, but the full taking them away hasn't been implemented yet. But also I did more research on some of these bills, and most of them were put into effect during the kennedy administration and even before that. WE just didnt really know about them, until someone published them for all to see. And the fact is I never said I hated BUSH for anything, I didnt like what he did and I dont think most americans would and that is why I made posts on it. Letting people know of our NON rights, that were in fact implemented way before bush. They were just lumped with bills that bush signed again to keep them in force. Please never put words in my mouth that I HATE a person,as I hate one. It would be nice to have a president that was totatally up front and honest about everything. Have never had one, probably never will, but one has to look at the good that is done under a president and if you will read bases comments on so many of these post at usm you too can find out the good that has been done. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 1:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
You didn't lie. I did go over to Eddo's and took all his money ....... It wasn't worth the trip. But I would add that if acting on bad intelligence was a lie then there are lots of liars out there, including John kerry who voted to authorize military action in Iraq. Kerry gets a pass but Bush doesn't? I guess so. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 2:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
Off topic. but to Miss C. There are plenty of accredited scientists who believe in creationism. It drives me up the wall when people act as though people who do not go with modern belief are labeled dumb. Well, fittingly said due to his day of recognition, I guess Columbus was an idiot for thinking the world was round, when everyone just knew for a fact the earth was flat. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 2:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 36079
I think the next wave of the future should be an online post/forum debates between people who are running for president. Wouldn't that be great? At least they have the time they need to educate themselves before they write, as I'm sure most of us do, they don't have to worry about security for the candidates, hey maybe USM could host it? lol |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 4:56:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
LOL BCAR . sorry for your loss. hehehe Yep it seems kerry does get the get out of jail free card and bush dont. Smurfpoo, I agree with all you wrote, and YEH maybe usm could host it. Well I have to sign off until either LATE tonight or in the Morning. Thanks ya'll. deb oh and PS, is it just me or is usm running REALLY slow today, man its taken me five minutes just to load my page to respond to ya'll. deb |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 11:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
In fairness to the Democratic Party, they were right to pick Senator Kerry because he was more electable. The election cycle is and should be competitive, and Americans should get the most qualified person that emerges from the grueling campaign. Although Governor Dean was the early favorite, Senator Kerry has emerged as the Party's candidate. Whether he is the best candidate for President remains to be seen. I think he would have more appeal to the critical undecided voters if he had core values, as Governor Dean seemed to have. |
|
Date: 10/11/2004 11:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
I think your right . |
Date: 10/12/2004 4:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
The scariest thing to me about this election is this...the next elected president will most likely appoint 2, and possibly as many as 4, Supreme Court Justices. This, to me, is the most important thing to keep in mind when voting. These are the people who, without a majority vote, interpret our laws. A man, as liberal as Kerry, wont get my vote based upon this single presidential function. Think about it...  |
|
Date: 10/12/2004 10:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
King yeppers, and I heard bush tell us what kind of men he would put there, and that is ONE reason I'm voting for him. Thanks for coming by. |
|
Date: 10/14/2004 1:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Madder12, oh so when kerry said, A Vote Against The Funding As "Irresponsible.Talking about the 87 billion dollar bill to support Troops, he said anyone voting against it was Irresponsible. So He voted against it, this must make him Irresponsible, as he himself said so. Or was he lying? Oh I know, he changed his mind. Bush gets slaughtered when he changes his mind, then its said he lied. Or if bush changes something because he cant get congress to go with him on it, and YES we do have to depend on congress to PASS what the president wants to have done, but when they dont, then bush is a liar? I dont think so. But then Kerry said he was PROUD that he voted against the 87 billion dollar funding for the troops, because it was complicated. YES there is that word once again COMPLICATED. YET he has the nerve to come against bush because the men/women dont have all the body armor, bullet proof autos and supplies they need? HE SAYS he will make sure they have the funding for that if we vote him president, yet he votes against SAID FUNDING? Oh but thats ok, how do we classify that? As lying or change of mind. OR could it be saying one thing and doing the next? The Facts: The $87 Billion Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry Voted Against Provided Health Benefits For Reservists And Guardsmen Called To Active Duty, As Well As Support For Their Families.The $87 Billion Supplemental Funding Bill ,Kerry Voted Against Provided "Extra Money For Body Armor For Soldiers ,,Kerry's Claim: Air Cargo Is Not Being Screened For Explosives. The Facts: Kerry Voted Six Times Against President Bush's Department Of Homeland Security, Stalling Its Creation By 112 Days. Kerry repeatedly sided with labor unions against President Bush in the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. Right I can see where Kerry is much more dependable in what he says and does. I dont think so. And even if you dont care who the president is as long as its not bush, then dont bother to vote as it seems either way, you will be voting for a liar. |
Date: 10/16/2004 5:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 23610
I'm curious if anyone has even ever read this bill in its entirety to see what was actually included in it and how it was stated that the money would be allocated. Does anyone even know what this bill is called?  |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 8:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 22080
so you dont think bush is behind sept. 11th anymore like you used to boast or atleast the american government? as for an honest president, well vote 3rd party and nader is quite honest. the only reason we have a 2 party system is because people wont vote 3rd party, see look at it this way, one person wont vote for 3rd party cause they think their neighbor wont. no multiply that into the hundreds of thousands. yeah grow some guts america, who cares if its a wasted vote, atleast you stood up for yourself. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 9:14:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
From what I have read ladynxy, The vast majority of the funds that the president has requested will go to the troops who are risking their lives in this struggle. Of the $87 billion, $66 billion is to support ongoing military operations: money for military pay, fuel, transportation, maintenance, weapons, equipment, life-saving body armor, ammunition and other military needs. I have limited time on the puter so if you can find information on that bill, please let me know. JESTR. never DID i say bush was behind 911, I said they , according to reports HAD the information to stop it BEFORE IT HAPPENED. Do I think some part of the government was behind 911 yes I do. There are little groups in the government that dont let the president know all they are doing. But dont go putting words in my mouth about saying bush was behind it. Good lord!! |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 10:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 22080
and the links shall flow: http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm274655.html(hmm hes a dictator eh?) http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm264606.html (hmm bush has to approve bills like this as well) http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm206996.html (presidential executive order eh?) those are only a few of your posts involving anti-bush sentiment. theres lists of posts under osiris's,freegirls,drkptrs and all those guys posts. hmm yet you like bush. intriguing. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 11:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
yes jester and I dont denigh the words I put in those posts, About the bills, and our rights, about the government KNOWING about 911 and never stopped it. It was told they didnt recieve those facts or at least get them together until AFTER 911, a communication problem but even then, it was the agencies as one cant do something about something if they have no idea on it. Get it together son, its not anti bush, its anti government because as you should know it takes congress to pass some of this stuff. Why do I still like bush as president ???? EVEN tho he has done things I"M NOT Happy with, rather its him or his government , congress ect ect, is because given the alternitives I KNOW they would do worse. Its a thing about the lesser of two evils. I know the posts your talking about, I'm not saying I didnt make them, respond to them in a anti government thing, things that have been done under bushes administration. and YES while I'm still for bush for president as appossed to Kerry, I would still make posts on those facts, I would still answer posts about this stuff. Bottom line we WILL have someone for president. I think that bush is less of a threat then Kerry is. LOL, did I tell ya I love ya today and its good to see you back on trying to make me nuts? Oh and sorry about not being on yahoo more, but I have limited time now to be on line. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
In the 2nd debate Kerry stated that his reason for voting the way he did was..."I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision." Sounds like good thinking to me....but what is he refering to? I will have to make a few posts for this....so that it is not all crammed together in one paragraph. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
The Bill in effect gives Donald Rumsfeld a 9 Billion dollar slush fund. How is that? Well the Bill states ..... "NOT LESS THAN $1.4 billion, to remain available until expended, may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payments to reimburse Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistics, military and other support provided, or to be provided, to United States military operations." ... Huh.... we are reimbursing our "allies" for their support? And....what constitutes support? What does that mean...equipment? Personnel? What? |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
Another section, subtitled the "Iraq Freedom Fund," states that the secretary of defense can transfer 1 Billion, 988 Million, 600 thousand dollars from one part of the overall $87 billion supplemental to any other part. ... Where is the definition and accountability for this? |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
And another provision included in the Bill ... "The Secretary of Defense may transfer between appropriations up to $5 billion of the funds made available in this title." ... Another ill-defined and therefore vague appropriation of money to the Secretary of Defense. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
Yet another appropriation would give Runsfeld authority to "transfer not more than $500 million of the funds appropriated in this title to the contingency construction account … to carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law." .... Okay who has the biggest construction project in Iraq? That would be Halliburton and Bechtel. The no bid contractors. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
And another part of the Bill .... "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from funds available to the Department of Defense for Operations and Maintenance in fiscal year 2004, not to exceed $200 million may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide assistance to military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other friendly nearby regional nations to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan." |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
The President may transfer "any appropriation made available in this title," as long as it does "not exceed $200 million." ... Sigh ... again...where is the definition of this? Where is the accountability for this? |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
When you add this all up it totals $9.3 billion - 11% of the 87 billion dollar bill. With little or no defining terms or accountability. Can I see why Kerry would think that the policy on this bill was wrong and why he wanted a better bill with accountability. You betcha! |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 4:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
One other issue that has not been discussed in the debates is the fact that Even BUSH THREATENED TO VETO THE $87 BILLION BILL because as part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 6:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
kerry is talking about so much good compared to bush. bush makes us want to think we're not lining the riches pocket. kerry tells us if it does. not only that, all of the bills that kerry was for but voted against "when it was popular" he did due to porkbarreling, you know the term that means like say a bill is for education but sen.clinton also added in 2 million to her pocket for "state funds" |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 6:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
p.s. i love you to*tehehe* |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 10:35:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Ladynxy, thanks for the info and yes in your second comment I would think that it was for equipment, support as a lot of our allies do not have the funds we have. I can see where he might want a better bill, however I think that he figured that out second thought after so many came against him for not voting for it. Does kerry or has kerry tried to start a new bill for the funding of our troops for equipment ect ect? As far as I know he has not. I think the reason why bush still went for this bill is because the over all funding would still go for what he needed. I guess the bottom line is that we all have to vote the way we think is best. One could debate about kerry and bush until the cows come home, but each person will vote what they think is best. JESTR and ladynxy, it seems that most bills not only in some form line the pockets of another fund, or at the end of the year each department that hasnt spent their fund, from what I hear, the money gets divided and I've read where they take millions home , some of them because they didnt allocate the funds to go anywhere. Politics are like lawyers, they can confuse you so much, that one doesnt know if they are coming or going. BUT from what I've heard from kerry, he just strikes me wrong. totally wrong. I just think he is too much of a wuss to get anything done, without having to have eighteen committee meeting and a ten year vote on a subject. Jestr, LOL, I've missed you. |
|
Date: 10/16/2004 11:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
I hear what you are saying, FB, but ... what one would think he would do with it...is not necessarily so...which is the point being made. It is ill-defined and there is no accountability. As for whether or not Kerry has offered up a new bill? I haven't looked into that...and it is not the point...the point is that Kerry is being accused of not supporting our troops because he did not agree with this vague (slush fund) bill. .... Not to mention that the Bush administration threatened to Veto the bill itself if they tried to attach an amendment because they opposed provision for the Veterans medical care. |
|
Date: 10/17/2004 12:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 23610
Let me make that last sentence a little clear...all these "theys" is confusing...What I was saying was ... the Bush administration threatened to Veto the bill itself if the Senate tried to attach an amendment to include provisions for the Veterans medical care because the administration opposed giving them that money. |
|
Date: 10/17/2004 12:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
I dont buy kerrys reasons for not signing the bill simply because this other bill was signed by Bush for the Vets. President Bush Signs Smith Veterans Benefits Expansion Legislation New Law Will Increase Support for Disabled Veterans, Surviving Spouses, and their Children (Washington) - In an Oval Office ceremony today, President Bush signed H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, a bill composed of 7 titles with 39 substantive provisions, authored by Congressmen Chris Smith (NJ-4), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. All totaled, the new law authorizes $1 billion over the next ten years for new and expanded benefits for disabled veterans, surviving spouses, and children. Increases the specially adapted automobile grant from $9,000 to $11,000, and increases the specially adapted housing grants from $48,000 to $50,000 for the most severely disabled veterans and from $9,250 to $10,000 for less severely disabled veterans. · Restores dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), home loan, education, and burial benefit eligibility for spouses remarried after age 57. · Increases monthly educational benefits for spouses and dependent children of disabled veterans from $695 to $788 for full-time study, from $522 to $592 for three-quarter time study, and from $347 to $394 for half-time study. · Expands benefits eligibility to children with spina bifida who were born to certain Vietnam-era veterans who served in Korea near the demilitarized zone. · Allows the surviving spouse or dependent children to receive the full amount of accrued benefits if the veteran dies while their claim is still pending. * Eliminates the 30-day requirement for POWs to qualify for presumptions of service-connection for certain disabilities: psychosis, any of the anxiety states, dysthymic disorder, organic residuals of frostbite, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. * Provides full compensation and DIC to members of the new Philippine Scouts if the individual resides in the United States as a citizen or permanent resident. Also extends eligibility for burial in a national cemetery. "H.R. 2297 is another important step towards ensuring that our Nation continues to honor and care for veterans who have suffered as a result of their service, as well as their surviving family members. For the brave men and women who have defended and continue to defend our freedom, nothing less will do," Chairman Smith said. Amoung other things |
|
Date: 10/17/2004 2:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
And that addresses the "slush fund" how? |
|
Date: 10/17/2004 3:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 54174
Bush fact for you. Bush: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those 'exaggerations'." Actually, that's not what Furious George said two years ago: George W. Bush: "So I don't know where he is. Nor - you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I...I truly am not that concerned about him." Kerry was not exaggerating when he made that comment. - I remember this comment as well two years ago, it was on television, heard the president say it himself. The media ram file is somewhere online, but I will post that later after I look around a bit for it.  |
Date: 10/17/2004 7:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 62220
oh, it's so beautiful to hear someone rail on Kerry, let me just bask in the light of your facts *baskbaskbask* mmmm so niiice...I luv you and your beautiful punching Kerry facts..new best friend right here...  |
|
Date: 10/17/2004 11:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Ladynxy, if you will look at so many of the bills that get passed it seems there is some kind of dumb slush fund that lines politiicians pockets. I dont care for them anymore then the next person, but in order to get the funding sometimes you have to put up with that junk, apparently bush thought because the bulk of the money was going for what he needed that is why he signed it and that was the main goal wasnt it? Getting money for the troops. Mercedes, I saw where he said that too, I also saw the way he said it. It wasnt like most would have ya think. Sarah, LOL, bask bask with ya. new best friend. |
Date: 10/18/2004 2:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 23610
I still hear ya, my friend, but we are not talking about "so many other bills". This is a specific bill with specific reasoning from Senator Kerry regarding the 9 Billion dollar slush fund that he did not want to pass on. As he says, "We can do better".  |
|
Date: 10/18/2004 5:37:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
I'm with him, we could have did better. But I find it funny that all the things he is against bush for, are simple, the answers should be simple, butwhen he is asked then suddenly the answers become complicated and his reply is there is more to it then that. Granted he was a very good speaker when it came to bashing bush, and I watched all three debates, but when ASKED a question he was evasive as can be. |
|
Date: 10/18/2004 8:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
Well, ya know...these guys get caught in what their people tell them to do (as far as how to reach the public) and also what they are critisized about in the media. Kerry has been raked over the coals for talking too much and rambling on....so I'm sure he was told that he needed to be brief. So when he only explained it by saying, ... "I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision." .... yeah, he could have given more detail...but then he would have been accused somewhere else about going to far into details and loosing people in all the talk. LOL...some of us want a full answer....some just want the short version...it's hard to please everybody....I got enough of an answer to be able to at least do a little checking on my own. |
|
Date: 10/19/2004 12:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
I guess to each their own. Still I'm a bush person. LOL |
|
Date: 10/23/2004 11:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 62220
everyone's gonna have some dirt on them, that's the meaning of "politician" (look it up! jk). No one's perfect, either, and no one can go through life as president WITHOUT making mistakes, and this goes for both sides. I think a lot of people forget that the president isn't perfect and does make a lot of mistakes, AND SO WOULD WE if we were president. I'm A-Political myself but I would vote for Bush, becuz I think he cares more about the people than Kerry. |
|
Date: 10/25/2004 11:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16671
Me too. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
