Wrong place wrong time....

[fjord]

Attacking Iraq was wrong. Patently and demonstrably. Immoral and unethical and corrupt.

Anyone--on any side-- says different is wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

Did Bush call them an "imminent threat"? And yet leftists like yourself still try to claim it was Bush making all these claims and "rushing". Oh wait...that's right - he deceived that nice little lawyer Edwards...:roll:
So does Edwards have the "judgment" to potentially become President?

Oh and just for good measure - I hope you use the same criteria for Edwards as you do for Bush relating to things said. I won't hold my breath though...

CsG

Cheney certainly called Saddam an imminent threat. Then Cheney lied in denying it.

And:

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02


And the eloquently stated:
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02


And, Edwards never saw the raw data funneled by Chalabi to the OSP that was modified and then fed to the Senate.

Ah, so you condemn Edwards like you do Cheney? Seems like you are playing the apologist routine there conjur.
I don't care what word games you want to play - Saddam did NOT hold up his end of the cease-fire - regardless of "imminence" you try to claim wasn't there. "Imminence" to you seems to be on a sliding scale as with most things coming from the left this year. Lots of monday morning quarterbacking and "nuancing".

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fjord
Attacking Iraq was wrong. Patently and demonstrably. Immoral and unethical and corrupt.

Anyone--on any side-- says different is wrong.

Because YOU say so? :roll:


CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

Did Bush call them an "imminent threat"? And yet leftists like yourself still try to claim it was Bush making all these claims and "rushing". Oh wait...that's right - he deceived that nice little lawyer Edwards...:roll:
So does Edwards have the "judgment" to potentially become President?

Oh and just for good measure - I hope you use the same criteria for Edwards as you do for Bush relating to things said. I won't hold my breath though...

CsG

Cheney certainly called Saddam an imminent threat. Then Cheney lied in denying it.

And:

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02


And the eloquently stated:
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02


And, Edwards never saw the raw data funneled by Chalabi to the OSP that was modified and then fed to the Senate.

Ah, so you condemn Edwards like you do Cheney? Seems like you are playing the apologist routine there conjur.
I don't care what word games you want to play - Saddam did NOT hold up his end of the cease-fire - regardless of "imminence" you try to claim wasn't there. "Imminence" to you seems to be on a sliding scale as with most things coming from the left this year. Lots of monday morning quarterbacking and "nuancing".

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

In Feb. 2002 the intelligence seemed to point to Saddam being an imminent threat. However, as the year wore on, it was found that the administration was using dubious information and intelligence known to be false.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

Did Bush call them an "imminent threat"? And yet leftists like yourself still try to claim it was Bush making all these claims and "rushing". Oh wait...that's right - he deceived that nice little lawyer Edwards...:roll:
So does Edwards have the "judgment" to potentially become President?

Oh and just for good measure - I hope you use the same criteria for Edwards as you do for Bush relating to things said. I won't hold my breath though...

CsG

Cheney certainly called Saddam an imminent threat. Then Cheney lied in denying it.

And:

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02


And the eloquently stated:
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02


And, Edwards never saw the raw data funneled by Chalabi to the OSP that was modified and then fed to the Senate.

Ah, so you condemn Edwards like you do Cheney? Seems like you are playing the apologist routine there conjur.
I don't care what word games you want to play - Saddam did NOT hold up his end of the cease-fire - regardless of "imminence" you try to claim wasn't there. "Imminence" to you seems to be on a sliding scale as with most things coming from the left this year. Lots of monday morning quarterbacking and "nuancing".

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

In Feb. 2002 the intelligence seemed to point to Saddam being an imminent threat. However, as the year wore on, it was found that the administration was using dubious information and intelligence known to be false.

What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that some intelligence was incorrect - that doesn't change Saddam's non-compliance.

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fjord
Attacking Iraq was wrong. Patently and demonstrably. Immoral and unethical and corrupt.

Anyone--on any side-- says different is wrong.

Because YOU say so? :roll:


CsG

I'm basing my statement on what has happened since we attacked Iraq.

In other words: the facts.

All the pretext for war by the Bush admin.
All the evidence.
All wrong.

or lies
or misunderstandings
or mistakes
or faulty intelligence
or fabrications
or plagiarisms

Not my opinion
not my interpretation

Just the facts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fjord
Attacking Iraq was wrong. Patently and demonstrably. Immoral and unethical and corrupt.

Anyone--on any side-- says different is wrong.

Because YOU say so? :roll:


CsG

I'm basing my statement on what has happened since we attacked Iraq.

In other words: the facts.

All the pretext for war by the Bush admin.
All the evidence.
All wrong.

or lies
or misunderstandings
or mistakes
or faulty intelligence
or fabrications
or plagiarisms

Not my opinion
not my interpretation

Just the facts.

Or more accurately - your opinion of what constitutes relevant "facts". Ofcourse you ignore other "facts".

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Cheney certainly called Saddam an imminent threat. Then Cheney lied in denying it.

And:

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02


And the eloquently stated:
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02


And, Edwards never saw the raw data funneled by Chalabi to the OSP that was modified and then fed to the Senate.

Ah, so you condemn Edwards like you do Cheney? Seems like you are playing the apologist routine there conjur.
I don't care what word games you want to play - Saddam did NOT hold up his end of the cease-fire - regardless of "imminence" you try to claim wasn't there. "Imminence" to you seems to be on a sliding scale as with most things coming from the left this year. Lots of monday morning quarterbacking and "nuancing".

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

In Feb. 2002 the intelligence seemed to point to Saddam being an imminent threat. However, as the year wore on, it was found that the administration was using dubious information and intelligence known to be false.

What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that some intelligence was incorrect - that doesn't change Saddam's non-compliance.

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

And that doesn't change the fact that Bush ended the inspections early. Notice how the inspections ended early not long after the nuclear threat was debunked? I wonder why Bush ended the inspections early? Was he afraid the rest of his charade would be found out?


As for continuing to fight the wrong war, well, we have no choice. Bush broke it (Iraq) and now we have to fix it. However, Bush isn't even close to going about the proper way to fix Iraq. Kerry has a plan and he's made that plan clear. Anyone still unsure as to what Kerry's plan is has their ears clogged.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fjord
Attacking Iraq was wrong. Patently and demonstrably. Immoral and unethical and corrupt.

Anyone--on any side-- says different is wrong.

Because YOU say so? :roll:


CsG

I'm basing my statement on what has happened since we attacked Iraq.

In other words: the facts.

All the pretext for war by the Bush admin.
All the evidence.
All wrong.

or lies
or misunderstandings
or mistakes
or faulty intelligence
or fabrications
or plagiarisms

Not my opinion
not my interpretation

Just the facts.

Or more accurately - your opinion of what constitutes relevant "facts". Ofcourse you ignore other "facts".

CsG

Oh nice f#cking going fjord; you left off the rainbow has seven colors.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
As for continuing to fight the wrong war, well, we have no choice. Bush broke it (Iraq) and now we have to fix it. However, Bush isn't even close to going about the proper way to fix Iraq. Kerry has a plan and he's made that plan clear. Anyone still unsure as to what Kerry's plan is has their ears clogged.

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why continue to fight a "wrong war"?

Yeah yeah yeah, "kerry has a plan" :roll: Again, continually claiming to have a plan, isn't a plan.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
As for continuing to fight the wrong war, well, we have no choice. Bush broke it (Iraq) and now we have to fix it. However, Bush isn't even close to going about the proper way to fix Iraq. Kerry has a plan and he's made that plan clear. Anyone still unsure as to what Kerry's plan is has their ears clogged.

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why fight a "wrong war"?

You tell me, CsG. What would happen if we pulled every one of our troops out of Iraq right now?

Hmmm??

Yeah yeah yeah, "kerry has a plan" :roll: Again, continually claiming to have a plan, isn't a plan.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
As for continuing to fight the wrong war, well, we have no choice. Bush broke it (Iraq) and now we have to fix it. However, Bush isn't even close to going about the proper way to fix Iraq. Kerry has a plan and he's made that plan clear. Anyone still unsure as to what Kerry's plan is has their ears clogged.

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why fight a "wrong war"?

You tell me, CsG. What would happen if we pulled every one of our troops out of Iraq right now?

Hmmm??

Yeah yeah yeah, "kerry has a plan" :roll: Again, continually claiming to have a plan, isn't a plan.

Thanks for making my point.

No, you tell me. It's kerry's stance(today). He claims it is the wrong war -why would your boy continue a war that was "wrong"?

You have no point. kerry has no "plan" - he has platitudes and claims of plans. Your continued claims that he has made "that plan clear" are laughable.

CsG

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

Did Bush call them an "imminent threat"? And yet leftists like yourself still try to claim it was Bush making all these claims and "rushing". Oh wait...that's right - he deceived that nice little lawyer Edwards...:roll:
So does Edwards have the "judgment" to potentially become President?

Oh and just for good measure - I hope you use the same criteria for Edwards as you do for Bush relating to things said. I won't hold my breath though...

CsG

Cheney certainly called Saddam an imminent threat. Then Cheney lied in denying it.

And:

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02


And the eloquently stated:
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02


And, Edwards never saw the raw data funneled by Chalabi to the OSP that was modified and then fed to the Senate.

Ah, so you condemn Edwards like you do Cheney? Seems like you are playing the apologist routine there conjur.
I don't care what word games you want to play - Saddam did NOT hold up his end of the cease-fire - regardless of "imminence" you try to claim wasn't there. "Imminence" to you seems to be on a sliding scale as with most things coming from the left this year. Lots of monday morning quarterbacking and "nuancing".

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

In Feb. 2002 the intelligence seemed to point to Saddam being an imminent threat. However, as the year wore on, it was found that the administration was using dubious information and intelligence known to be false.

What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that some intelligence was incorrect - that doesn't change Saddam's non-compliance.

Now again, why exactly would kerry continue to fight a "wrong war", especially if it was at the "wrong time", not to mention if it was at the "wrong place"? Does he really believe the soundbites(stolen from dean) he has now started spewing?...or is it just another "nuance"?

CsG

Saddam's compliance is not why we went to war. It was not the main reason for war. Some intelligence was not incorrect, most of the intelligence was incorrect and the intelligence that was correct the administration decided to ignore. Compliance alone was not a reason to put our troops in harms way and INVADE a country and tear down their goverment. No matter how evil. No one, including the American people gave a crap about Saddam's "compliance". They did care though that a mushroom cloud could happen any minute at the push of a button from Saddam. The administration played the fear card to perfection and got the majority of Americans to succomb to whatever they said.

Read the NYTimes article about the evidence leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

I never supported the war in Iraq and still don't. I understand we can't pull out now though. I believe Kerry won't and will try "real hard" to do the "hard work" and surround himself with "hard working" people to be more effective in Iraq than we are now and expedite military operations and reconstruction.

 

[jpeyton]

Fvck troop morale. They are troops; they need to do their job as they're told and shut the fvck up. If Kerry acknowledges the fact that the war they are fighting in was launched with false pretenses, that doesn't mean our entire armed services will fall apart. They will keep doing their job as they are told, but instead of staying there for years, they will be withdrawn a lot sooner.

Kerry knows the situation in Iraq is wrong and his sole aim is to fix it and get us the fvck out of there.

Bush thinks that we should just re-elect him to soothe the bruised egos of our troops, because they won't fight without a President who will stick to his guns (even if that leads to their deaths). IMO, that's not a reason to re-elect a baboon to run our entire country for the next four years.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
As for continuing to fight the wrong war, well, we have no choice. Bush broke it (Iraq) and now we have to fix it. However, Bush isn't even close to going about the proper way to fix Iraq. Kerry has a plan and he's made that plan clear. Anyone still unsure as to what Kerry's plan is has their ears clogged.

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why fight a "wrong war"?

You tell me, CsG. What would happen if we pulled every one of our troops out of Iraq right now?

Hmmm??

Yeah yeah yeah, "kerry has a plan" :roll: Again, continually claiming to have a plan, isn't a plan.

Thanks for making my point.

No, you tell me. It's kerry's stance(today). He claims it is the wrong war -why would your boy continue a war that was "wrong"?

Kerry has said why and you know the answer, CsG. You think you're being cute but you're only being dodgy.

You have no point. kerry has no "plan" - he has platitudes and claims of plans. Your continued claims that he has made "that plan clear" are laughable.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh nice f#cking going fjord; you left off the rainbow has seven colors.

Ofcourse that is a matter of opinion too. three to many thousands of colors are in a rainbow, but hey - don't let me get in the way of you tripping over your mirror.

CsG

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADsortaGUY

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why continue to fight a "wrong war"?

Because it would be morally repugnent to destroy a country's government, military, and infrastructure and walk away, even if it is the "wrong war".

The war was an error of such magnitude that I doubt that we can really fix things there now, but some effort needs to be made.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
As for continuing to fight the wrong war, well, we have no choice. Bush broke it (Iraq) and now we have to fix it. However, Bush isn't even close to going about the proper way to fix Iraq. Kerry has a plan and he's made that plan clear. Anyone still unsure as to what Kerry's plan is has their ears clogged.

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why fight a "wrong war"?

You tell me, CsG. What would happen if we pulled every one of our troops out of Iraq right now?

Hmmm??

Yeah yeah yeah, "kerry has a plan" :roll: Again, continually claiming to have a plan, isn't a plan.

Thanks for making my point.

No, you tell me. It's kerry's stance(today). He claims it is the wrong war -why would your boy continue a war that was "wrong"?

Kerry has said why and you know the answer, CsG. You think you're being cute but you're only being dodgy.

You have no point. kerry has no "plan" - he has platitudes and claims of plans. Your continued claims that he has made "that plan clear" are laughable.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Again conjur - it's your boy's stance(today). I thought you Saddam apologists don't like Bush because he fought a "wrong war" -but you want kerry to fight it? Where are your principles? ..oh wait...

Again, you've made no point - you continually trying to claim you did is as laughable as kerry's "clear" plan

CsG

 

[Moonbeam]

If somebody says they have a plan doesn't mean they have one, then it doesn't mean they don't either. There's a big difference from schmoo popping and logic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CADsortaGUY

No choice? I thought it was the "wrong war"? Why continue to fight a "wrong war"?

Because it would be morally repugnent to destroy a country's government, military, and infrastructure and walk away, even if it is the "wrong war".

The war was an error of such magnitude that I doubt that we can really fix things there now, but some effort needs to be made.

Ah, so it's "OK" to fight a "wrong war" if there is a reason you accept. gotcha.

CsG

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh nice f#cking going fjord; you left off the rainbow has seven colors.

Ofcourse that is a matter of opinion too. three to many thousands of colors are in a rainbow, but hey - don't let me get in the way of you tripping over your mirror.

CsG

Hey, its hard work not kissing the Dub's a-hole.

If other want to be lazy (maraly and/or intellectualy) then so be it.

Corrupt is the word.

 

[Moonbeam]

1. Asshole gets us into a war.

2. We are not in Asshole's idiotic war.

3 We will need an exit strategy to get us out of Asshole's war.

4. An exit strategy is a plan.

5. The above logic will escape YOAA.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If somebody says they have a plan doesn't mean they have one, then it doesn't mean they don't either. There's a big difference from schmoo popping and logic.

I agree, but the claim was made that he(kerry) has made "that plan clear". Looks like more schmoo popping from kerry and his apologists.

Now about that rainbow...

CsG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh nice f#cking going fjord; you left off the rainbow has seven colors.

Ofcourse that is a matter of opinion too. three to many thousands of colors are in a rainbow, but hey - don't let me get in the way of you tripping over your mirror.

CsG

Hey, its hard work not kissing the Dub's a-hole.

If other want to be lazy (maraly and/or intellectualy) then so be it.

Corrupt is the word.

Well Cady gets all wound up wehn you leave out facts so I wanted to remind you of the one about the rainbow. If there are millions of colors then I bet there are seven. And it was by tripping that I fell though it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh nice f#cking going fjord; you left off the rainbow has seven colors.

Ofcourse that is a matter of opinion too. three to many thousands of colors are in a rainbow, but hey - don't let me get in the way of you tripping over your mirror.

CsG

Hey, its hard work not kissing the Dub's a-hole.

If other want to be lazy (maraly and/or intellectualy) then so be it.

Corrupt is the word.

Well Cady gets all wound up wehn you leave out facts so I wanted to remind you of the one about the rainbow. If there are millions of colors then I bet there are seven. And it was by tripping that I fell though it.

three to thousands. Again, it's based on opinion. Too bad that mirror blocks part of your vision.

CsG