Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

They towed Bush's line for 6 long years. Ask any progressive

Posted By: just how liberal the media is....sm on 2008-11-08
In Reply to: Right. and the poster said "Censored Media". Um, - excuse me, it is a LIBERAL media anyway!!.nm

better still, branch out and listen to opposing media views, including progressive radio and newspapers...those guys have yet to get mainstream coverage. To get any kind of decent international coverage, one is forced to go to media source outside of our own country. You might be REALLY surpised at what you find there. Get real.


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

I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way.  To each his own.
Four years is a very long time

in political terms and our memories seem to be pretty short.  Politicians under suspicion of all types of malfeasance in office, some actual convicted felons are elected and re-elected.  In 2012 much of her family turmoil may have been forgotten.  If she keeps doing a good job for Alaska, does nothing stupid or illegal in the course of her official duties, I think she'll be okay in four years. 


However, I believe that the mainstream media will make a point of hounding her every step for the next four years to make sure she is not in a position to run for national office.  And I think that every problem she has, both personal and professional, will be blasted at us constantly as a reminder.


Oh, I'll be here with bells on. Waited 8 long years for this day....
Don't forget your smelling salts, cold rags for the forehead and be sure to pack a few anxiolytics while you're at it.
They have bought into Bush's propaganda hook-line-and sinker.
"If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorist." - pres Bush

That's why anytime they hear an adverse opinion to Bush's war in Iraq, they start their spill about liberals being with the terrorists.
yes, they will, but not for a long time, thanks to Mr. Bush. NM
x
Under the Bush regime, I don't think it's that much of a long shot.
I think and fear it is possible.  Wouldn't surprise me if the next civil war breaks out in the United States in the form of another Christian crusade.  It could happen.  We don't really live in a republic any more.  :-(
relief wouldn't have taken so long if BUSH were up for reelection!!!nm
x
The breeding ground started long before Bush
I for one have never cared for allowing Iranian and Iraqi students into this country; I went to school over 20 years ago where Iranian and Iraqi students came to study, but we were always curious as to what they were really doing here. They were not sociable, did not want to tell you why they were here, and constantly went back and forth to their country several times a semester. They never even tried to fit in with their surroundings. They were openly vulgar and critical of the United States, but we allowed their sorry butts here to study?

If they want an education, let them get it in their own country and somewhere else. I don't feel sorry for them one bit. When we asked why we never saw any female Iranian/Iraqi students, they were always quick to let us know females were not important, did not need to be educated, and that God did not make females their equal. And they were always quick to let us know they believed ALL western females to be whore-like and sluts.
8 years under 'Herr Bush' can do that
Heil!
You mean 16 years - Both Bush AND Clinton
Disastrous!
Bush = 6 years before Dems took
a tiny barely majority in Congress, but not enough to override his vetos, and the damage was already done by then, so yes, BUSH and the republicans are completely to blame.
ZERO years. He's done no harm. Now BUSH,
*
Buck up!! We got through the Bush years, and how
did that work out for you?  Oh, that's right, we're still living with the consequences of his two terms because of his economic and foreign policy disasters.  Whatever Obama does or doesn't do cannot be any WORSE than what Bush has DONE.  Bush has brought the US to its knees, and while on your knees, PRAY for this new prez. 
Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts

Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.


June 30, 2005


Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.


Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.



Analysis



 


Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.


The Bloodshed


Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.



Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?


What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index."  The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.


The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website  Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports.  Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.


The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.


Reconstruction Progress


In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:



Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . .  Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.


Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report  shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.


On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.


Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.


Conclusions or Facts?


The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"



Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.


In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.


Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.


The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.


Terrorism


Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.



Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .


Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.


Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:



Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.


But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.


Osama bin Laden


Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":



Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."


However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."


In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.


--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst


Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman


Absolutely! If you want 8 more years of the Bush Admin! nm
nm
Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and,.sm
for the last 2 years we had a republican president, who was always threatening to veto, and a democratic congress by a very small margin. You can't blame everything on the democrats for the last 2 years.
The economy was great for 6 years of Bush until
nm
Look to the leader of USA for past 8 years GW BUSH nm
n
That has been an ongoing tradition for years, not just Bush (nm)
x
gee, and it was okay for Bush to be the elusive target for the last 8 years??....s/m
...and probably beyond.....that wasn't unhealthy????? from the DNC, liberal democrats, and the liberal media???


and you haven't had enough of being trampled by Bush for the last eight years?

Bush Presidency - eight years in eight minutes

I watch Olbermann.  Sometimes I agree with him.  Sometimes I don't.


However, last night he hit it into the park with his attempt to review what Bush did in the last eight years into eight minutes; he ran over time a little bit because there was so much to say.


I would strongly urge anyone who is not too busy whining, moaning, groaning, hating and raging about Obama -- anyone who is truly interested in the future of America -- to watch this, from beginning to end -- especially at the end (since this is done chronologically, not by matter of importance).


THESE are the reasons people voted for Obama.  THESE are the reasons that Obama supporters cannot understand why Bush worshippers still support him and reject the man who might undo the wreckage of Bush.


BUSH is the man who claimed to have a direct line to GOD.  Obama never claimed anything of the sort; if he had, I probably would not have voted for him for that very reason -- because it creeped me out so much when Bush did it.  So the assertion that Obama supporters are "worshippers" is ridiculous, when, in fact, it seems that those who still support Bush (the closest thing to the Anti-Christ that I'VE ever seen) are the ones who seem to think Bush is some sort of god.


Please watch every single SECOND of this video.  It will give you just a taste of the grueling task ahead of Obama in trying to correct all the damage that Bush has done.  We may, in fact, never know the full extent of the damage because Bush (as is mentioned in the video) has "exempted" himself from the Presidential Records Act.


THIS is why every truly honest, patriotic, honorable American who voted for Obama is so relieved he won.  Not so much "happy" -- but RELIEVED -- hoping (yes, HOPING) that our country may once again resemble the USA that once held respect throughout the world, the USA where hard work was once rewarded, the USA where families could afford to feed their children, and the USA where one's ability to obtain something as basic as healthcare wasn't only limited to the wealthy.  I'm not naive enough to believe this can all be fixed in four (or even eight) years, because Bush has been like a four-year-old sociopath that was armed with Daddy's credit card, an AXE and an arrogant giggle, each of which he used to its full capacity, and that's a LOT to clean up.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663


 


Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm

How many more lies before everyone wakes up?


Editorial Toledo Blade:  Another lie on Iraq


WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.




They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.




No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.




No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.




The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.




As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.




Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.




And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.




Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.




Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.




So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.


 


Bush lost the respect we held for him years ago.
and in no small measure is responsible for the divisions that we all find ourselves grapping with at this very moment. The election is over and the time is here for us to move on into the new age our fellow Americans have delivered to our feet.
Right, it'll be "it's Bush's fault" for at least the next two years. I wonder when O
and his own white house. I'm fearing he won't. It will be "Bush's fault" for a long, long time to come.

Marmann's just proved it.
If it Clinton screwed something up - why didn't Bush fix it? He had 8 years!

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?


Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.




Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.





We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)




All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.




Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.




THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 



Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.


I stated 8 years ago that Bush' foreign "Policies"
,
Hello?! 8 years of Bush cratered the country & caused this
nightmare in the first place. They are all frantically trying to keep us from another Great Depression caused by Bush & republican control. I personally think the damage runs so deep that it can't be stopped in time, but at least they're trying! Maybe next time the idiots will remember what Bush & his cronies have done & will be smarter than to vote republican...
Spoken by someone who posted about Laura Bush's accident about 40 years ago. sm
But I guess we were supposed to forget about that, too?
Yeah, and guess who he'll blame the whole four years....yep...bush...nm

It will take YEARS for repubs to recover from PALIN AND BUSH AND FOX NEWS... sm
Because they have demeaned themselves and truly hurt the republican party.
last line of Matthews piece cut off in error. 1 line sm
complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
Progressive new sources
On reviewing the posts below, I see someone has supplied you with a number of conservative sources to investigate. For the sake of balance, here is a list I prepared a few days back of progressive sources that will also give some insight into the Obama camp and their beliefs. You could Google around with this list, but don't be overwhelmed. In my personal opinion, the Democracy Now! Amy Goodman is a nice all-round overview of all the others. Here's that link and the list.
http://www.democracynow.org/
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast

why progressive taxation?
Two answers:
1. Because it's good for the economy. Money doesn't exist to stagnate in pools; it has to move.
2. Because it's the moral thing to do. If you have for example a flat 10% income tax, a millionaire will flinch, but a poor man will starve.
progressive taxation
See, DNH, the thing I'm getting at is, it already *is* my money. My money, your money, it's being taken already, and given to people who don't work, billionaires who have not a worry in the world.

Your example of a 25% tax rate is even better than mine. That guy making 60,000, he's making 45,000 after taxes. Well and good--it was a big bite of his income, but he can still afford his house and to feed his kids. But what about the guy making 30,000? Suddenly he's making 22,500 a year, and how's he going to pay his heating bill this winter? He can't afford food, he can't make rent.

So what looks initially like equal treatment, is actually something far different: A neglible weight on the wealthy, a noticeable burden on the middle class, and a death sentence on the lower class.

The incentive argument doesn't work, either. During the height of taxation in the 50s, the economy grew at a healthy rate, and it grew by making things, building things, actual goods and services, not the fake growth we've seen in the recent low-tax decades, where all the wealth is made up of obscure financial instruments that nobody understands.

People don't give up their dreams because they fear a high tax rate. They give up their dreams because suddenly they can't afford food anymore, and they're going to get thrown out of their houses, and their kids are going to be dressed in rags, because every dime they worked so hard for is being redistributed right on up into the hands of billionaires.

What if it were my money? I'd rather every dime I had go to the poor, than yet another penny wind up in somebody's else's hedge fund.
I a progressive politically. Sounds like it. nm
nm
They're a lot more progressive and educated.

right, al the young and educated, progressive
people voted for Mousavi. Even before all the votes were in, the government already announced a landslide win for Ahmedinejad. Definitely fraud, Ahmedinejad's ratings before the elections were very low, high unemployment rate. How could he win?
Tax cuts, progressive tax system, social programs
are as American as apple pie and these same policies and initiatives can be found puncuating the pages of our history from the day of our country's inception.

You do not understand Marxism or socialism, or you would be a lot more exercised by the current redistribution of wealth that takes your tax dollars and moves them upward to an elite ruling class that represses and undermines the middle class at the drop of a hat. State ownership of banks, lending institutions and direct personal property "buy outs" (as proposed by McCain certainly smack of Marxism and are not exactly what you could call traditional American values.
I'll take progressive-thinking, educated liberals any day
8)
Actually, I answered your posts line by line
about not "allowing" you to have an opinion. Those are your words, not mine. This is a good example of how this discussion has escalated from a simple link to this utter squashed bug nonsense. Why are you not able to simply debate the original issue at hand...the Eric Holder appointment? Too much of an intellectual challenge when somebody presents a THIRD-PARTY alternative viewpoint? You are the one who mentioned losing sleep and I remarked that it was probably unnecessary since you were blowing something out of proportion....something you have been doing all afternoon. You takes things WAY too personally.
You'll be waiting a long, long time, then, cuz she's going to do

He died a long, long time ago! (If he was ever
Don't force your beliefs on others. It further devalues your faith in the eyes of others.
For this you have to wait at least 3 years and 8 months , maybe 7 years and 8 mohths...nm
nm
Not quite- 2 years Catholic, 2 years Muslim. NM
X
Don't you get it? SP 1st in line. JM=72.
nm
That is really out of line and
comparing Obama to Hitler? Talk about paranoid. There is nothing to suggest Obama is Marxist or Nazi. This is all hate and pot stirring rhetoric. Boy some people just operate on fear and are sour grapes that the majority of the people have spoken and Obama was chosen.

You really should come up with a better line.
No such thing as Bush juice. But I wouldn't expect less from someone on the kool-aid.
That's the only line you took from the speech...sm
But you think Bush who admits that he did drugs - obviously inhaled or sniffed, and was an alcoholic is a living testimony of credibility. Is there a double standard here?
Newsweek on-line

nm


Oh geez. The least you could do is get a new line...
you asked me that same question under a different moniker not long ago. At least get some new material. Geez! And as far as emailing you...not in this lifetime. I did that once...once burned, many time shy. You guys can get pretty hateful on this board, but a sailor could take lessons from you when you are uncensored...LOL Had enough of potty-mail all-tolerant liberals to last me a lifetime. And anybody knows you can have more than one email going to the same place. Geez. Get a new schtick. This one is oldddd.