quote: Yes, and U.S. officials paid money to Al Qaeda to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union... are they terrorists too?
Actually NO, we did not pay Al Qaida any money to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union. We did pay and train the Afghan Mujahideen (which was before Al Qaida existed) to attack the Army of the Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan.
HUGE difference. Huge.
Now if you said we paid the Muhahideen to infiltrate the Soviet Union and blow up a school, you would be correct. But we did no such thing.
Huge difference in backing one army against another vs. backing one army against unarmed civillians.
posted
CStroman, we fund terrorists too. I agree that Saddam was a terrorist financier though, at least in the past, and needed to be taken down somehow. Voting to give the President authorization to go to war, if necessary, as the Senators John did, was a necessary first step. Pouring money, diplomacy, and troops into Iraq is now the necessary third step. But the second step was totally botched. It was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It's a typical Bush Admin tactic to frame conditional support for them as unconditional support. That's why they say the Senators flipflopped--because saying yes to one thing means they can never say no to anything. Voting for a Democratic Iraq spending bill means they can't vote against the Republican Iraq spending bill, even in symbolic protest. The criticisms of Republicans who support his candidacy are irrelevant. When polls showed America favored going to war if we got U.N. support, Bush said that meant we favored war, and the rest didn't matter.
Oh, and Cheney lied when he said he'd never met Edwards.
This lie came as part of a specious attack on Edwards for his attendance record in the Senate, which I'm sure is totally due to his being out campaigning and perfectly excusable.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, one thing that will make a lot of the news stories to know is the major "big lie" of the evening. On MSNBC, they played Cheney's statement tonight in which he denied ever saying Iraq had a role in 9/11. They then pulled up a tape of an appearance by him from "Meet the Press" about a year ago in which DID say that.
Indeed. The real question is, will the Kerry campaign start a "flip-flopper" argument against Cheney and Bush?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the second step was totally botched. It was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
That is your opinion. Mine is that it was the perfect time and at the perfect place.
If not, choose another war against another Middle East country that would have been better to go in and set up a democracy of change?
Again, just my opinion, but there is a time for war and Iraq/Sadaam met all the qualifications in my book both short term and long term.
But there is a SERIOUS flaw, IMHO to someone who votes FOR the war, then opposes the funding of it based on "political party politics". Especially when soldiers lives are at stake.
That's akin, to me, of inviting a stranger in, and then yanking the rug out from under him.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps they never met but were at the same meeting and just as John Kerry and Jane Fonda were at and spoke at the same rally, etc, but supposedly never "met".
I believe the same arguement applies to both cases.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Must I point out, yet again, that Bush cut benefits to soldiers. That is thousands times worse! You just dont' do that during a war! Furthermore, how logical is it to cut taxes for people who do not need tax cuts during a war?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Must I point out, yet again, that Bush cut benefits to soldiers. That is thousands times worse! You just dont' do that during a war!
I may have to disagree with that on the grounds that giving the troops what is need to survive and fight is more important than leaving them literally "stuck in the sand" but making sure their checks get home.
I think both stink btw. But don't vote for them to go to war, then stick them out there naked.
Again, just my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here's hoping that Bush learns to debate and get a little offensive strategy before the next one. (doubtful, but I'm hopeful)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there is a SERIOUS flaw, IMHO to someone who votes FOR the war, then opposes the funding of it based on "political party politics".
Gotta be my single most hated "fact" of this whole campaign.
He opposed the funding of it without accountability. He voted for a version of the same bill that included accountability and an explanation of where at least some of the money was coming from. His mistake was explaining it in such a way that gave the opposing team sound bites forever.
I have serious concerns about Kerry as a president, but that stupid campaign mud pie was never one of them.
[ October 06, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CS, the funny thing is that Kerry voted FOR a much better bill before that, and Bush and Co shot it down. Kerry has also tried to increase their pay and benifits, and has fought strongly AGAINST the closing of several MA VA Hospitals...that Bush ordered closed anyways.
He wanted to give the soldiers fullbody armor, an voted against the partial body armor (that has been blamed for many of the casualties)that Bush gave them in place, because it would cost less.
He also didn't think the companies that got the contracts should ahve,because he didn't think they would be cost effective, adn had no faith in their ability to do the job they were hired for...and he has been proven right many times over.
APC's without armor, soldiers wearing ineffective body armor, gas prices highly inflated shipped to the military...or not shipped to them, just billed to them...lol...
posted
One opportunity that Cheney missed was when Edwards kept emphasizing that Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attack. Cheney should have countered that Nazi Germany had no connection to the Pearl Harbor attack either, but from the beginning, President Roosevelt rightly made fighting Germany the priority.
It was devasting when Cheney referred to all the times Edwards was absent from the senate, and how as president of the senate who presides over the senate, Cheney had never met Edwards until this debate. Talk about taking Edwards out for a whipping behind the woodshed!
The reason why Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter was because he hoped to put Cheney on the spot because Cheney has a different view than the president on the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Cheney, of course, is obligated to support the president's policy. Cheney handled that with class, thanking Edwards for his nice comments about his family, then saying he had no more to say. I agree that it was a cheap, sleazy tactic by Edwards.
Cheney provided some devastating sound bites along with solid arguments, like when he described the circumstances of the vote by Kerry and Edwards against the supplemental appropriation for funds to support the troops in Iraq, that it was right after Howard Dean had moved up in the polls after declaring himself against the war, then Cheney concluded, "If you cannot stand up to Howard Dean, then how can you stand up to Al Qaeda?" That one blew away both Kerry and Edwards!
[ October 06, 2004, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "If you cannot stand up to Howard Dean, then how can you stand up to Al Qaeda?" That one blew away both Kerry and Edwards!
I'' bet anyone a $100 that Bush (being the lousy speaker he is) uses that on the next foreign policy debate (if it comes up again).
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Voted for the authorization. Disapproved of how the authorization was used. Voted for a broad spending bill to support the troops. Voted in protest against one they didn't like with a similar purpose.
Stop it, Bush and Bushies! It's not a contradiction, it's not even fuzzy.
And Ron, Cheney's "zinger" will hopefully backfire, as it's clear that Edwards' voting record is perfectly normal for a Prez and VP candidate. He showed up when he needed to, but he was out campaigning. Bush didn't spend much time in the Governor's mansion once his first campaign started. This, combined with the fact that they did at least onceattend the same event in their capacities as President and Member of the Senate, rendering Cheney's statement inaccurate...Cheney opened his speech [at the congressional event] by greeting Edwards.
Will you please stop repeating these talking points designed solely for the gullible and/or unengaged?
posted
There's one thing that keeps bothering me about something Edwards said last night. While talking about gay marriages he stated, twice, that he and Kerry believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They, however, aren’t against partnerships or unions (I thinks those were the words) between gays and lesbians who have been in a long term relationship and who are committed to each other.
Where do you draw the line there? Who's to say how committed one is? Would you ask a gay couple how many years they'd been involved "seriously"? There are heterosexual couples today who get married at the drop of a hat, just to prove something, or for lack of better judgment. There are those who “know it was meant to be” and marry on that assumption within days, weeks or months. Celebrities constantly make a joke out of the sanctity of marriage.
Where do you draw the line? If he's working the gay/lesbian voters, which it's obvious he is, why do you think he keeps adding in the “who are in a long term relationship and who are committed to each other”?
quote:Will you please stop repeating these talking points designed solely for the gullible and/or unengaged?
posted
Tammy, I think you'd draw the line at the point where the two partners would be willing to draw up a contract, which is basically what a civil union (and secular marriage is).
But on the debates, I came away thinking Cheney was more polished and prepared... but it was Edward's message that stuck with me today.
And the overall theme of his message was: Look at where we are and what our country has done over the last four years! Do you want this to continue? Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Do you really feel that it is getting better? Do you even trust these folks anymore?
Cheney is a smart fellow, and he threw his barbs quite well. Edwards, honestly got stung a few times and missed his chance to sting back each time.
I will say that Cheney showed much more class than I thought he was capable of when Edwards brought up the VP's daughter. You could almost see the human being under the rather thick shell that Cheney lives in.
Basically, Edwards was strongest in the first half of the debate, Cheney had the upper hand for most of the last half, and Edwards' closing remarks were the better.
A very close debate, but I feel that its implications aren't going to be good for Bush. Cheney was strong enough to stop the fall in the polls after Bush's last performance and maybe repair it a bit. But I'm afraid folks are now going to judge Bush vs. Cheney more than Bush vs. Kerry.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have always known that Cheney is more experienced, a better speaker, and perhaps brighter than Bush. Why do you think there was so much talk from the Republicans in 2000 about it being ok to vote for Bush because he had surrounded himself with smart people?
Cheney has somehow been made out to be this evil psuedo-human being over the last few years. Some of it seems to come from his ties to Halliburton, some of it seems to come from his gruff behavior. I am not entirely sure, however, that it is fair to make the jump to "he doesn't like people" as some folks in this thread have done.
I would guess Cheney likes people just fine, but his exterior doesn't really show it. If you are a tough and strong and "keep it to yourself" kinda guy, you might not come off as being a loving and caring person on tv. But when you see him talk about his family, some of that starts to come through. I think it just takes a really strong emotion for anything to make it from Cheney's brain to his face in a way we could read it.
posted
BTW, I highly recommend watching the debates on C-Span. They did a split screen last night throughout the debate that let you see both men throughout the event.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the hypocritical things that bugs me from the B/C camp is they harp on Edwards 'lack of Washington experience', which to them makes Edwards unqualified for the VP slot. Lets look back though. Bush had zero Washington experience before becoming PRESIDENT.
quote: Bush had zero Washington experience before becoming PRESIDENT.
I seem to remember a previous Bush as a president.....
Also I don't think it is so much his lack of Washington politics, but his lack of politics in general. He's a first term senator and not even a full term, and a civil lawyer before that.
Let's say Kerry gets elected and should anything happen to him, you get Edwards as your new commander in chief. I don't think he is anywhere near qualified to run the country (nor do I Kerry either).
posted
It's interesting, too, Sopwith, that Republicans often complain about 'career politicians' like Al Gore and the like who don't have any experience in the 'real' world. Which is it, is a long political career good or bad?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there is a SERIOUS flaw, IMHO to someone who votes FOR the war, then opposes the funding of it based on "political party politics". Especially when soldiers lives are at stake.
I read it more like this: It is like giving authority for people to carry and conceal weapons (like here in Ohio). The thought of this is to allow a citizen to arm themselves and protect themselves from imminent harm. If that now-armed person decides that the real threat (the ones breaking into your house, let's say) needs to be put aside so you can go shoot up that neighbor down the street who has been giving you mean looks...that certainly is giving authority and then regretting how that authority is used. I think that is how Kerry is feeling right now.
I would think that even supporters of concealed weapons for everyone would be upset of those gun owners abused that priviledge and that responsibility.
Same could be said when my parents gave me the keys to the car oh so long ago. Was it flip flopping when they wanted them back after my crushing of mailboxes in the neighborhood?
posted
It depends on if there were "conditions" laid out in advance that listed that as a repurcussion of abusing that priviledge.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox News has up on their website an AP "Factcheck" of the debate, that found miscues on both sides. Here is the link: Fact Check on VP debate
Cheney did in fact meet Edwards on three previous occasions, one time sitting down next to him at a prayer breakfast. Of course, Cheney's point was that Edwards hardly ever showed up in the senate over the past several years (even before Edwards was out campaigning for this year's election), and Edwards did not dispute Cheney's claim during the debate.
As for Edwards' claim that Bush sent troops into Iraq in the first place without body armor, that is untrue:
quote:Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said 40,000 troops did not have the brand new, improved armor but, "every soldier and Marine on the ground over had body armor."
The supplemental $87 billion appropriations bill that Kerry and Edwards voted against included funds to update the body armor with the "new, improved armor."
Edwards also misconstrued facts when he claimed that the Bush administration "lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay" (of the troops in Iraq. In actual fact:
quote:When the government faced prospects that increased allowances for the troops would expire as stipulated by Congress, the Pentagon said it would make up any shortfall through incentive pay or similar means.
And on Edwards' and the Democrats' continual harping on the awarding of contracts (without any competitive bids) for reconstruction in Iraq to Haliburton, a company Cheney used to be CEO of, as if this were some kind of favoritism or impropriety that hangs like an albatross around Cheney's neck, that is completely groundless:
quote:But congressional auditors recently reviewed those contracts [to Haliburton] and concluded U.S. officials met legal guidelines in awarding the business without competition — in part because Halliburton was the only company capable of doing some of the work.
Cheney and the Republicans were also questioned by the Fact Check on their claim of how many times Kerry voted for raising taxes:
quote:Cheney accused Kerry of voting for taxes 98 times. That's down from the 350 times wrongly claimed by Republicans, but it's still a stretch. Those 98 votes include times when Kerry voted for lower taxes — but not as low as Republicans wanted. And times when many procedural votes were cast on a single tax increase or package.
Also challenged was another of the Democrats' favorite criticisms of the Bush administration over "out-sourcing of jobs."
quote:The Council of Economic Advisers said job outsourcing is part of a healthy dynamic in which free trade in return benefits Americans. And Chao said last month that the concerns about job losses ignore that foreign-owned companies are creating many jobs in the United States at the same time.
Chao said employers have eliminated about 300,000 jobs in the United States in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere, but about 9 million Americans currently work for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.
quote:Sneak Preview! The Cheney-Edwards Debate By ANDY BOROWITZ
Published: July 11, 2004 New York Times
PLANNING for the 2004 vice presidential debate is already under way. In an attempt to level the playing field, Senator John Edwards's image will be digitally altered to make him 40 percent less "hot looking," and Vice President Dick Cheney will be on a five-second delay. Finally, each man has submitted a wish list of questions to ask the other during the high-stakes face-off.
QUESTIONS FOR DICK CHENEY
1. Former Senator Alfonse D'Amato has suggested President Bush dump you from the ticket. What's your response to him, in two words?
2. If Halliburton and the Carlyle Group both invited you to the movies on the same night, who would you go with?
3. Over the past four years, how many days would you say you spent above ground?
4. Describe in detail your favorite high-impact aerobics routine.
5. Didn't "Fahrenheit 9/11" totally rock?
6. Exactly when did you remove Kenneth Lay from your online buddy list?
7. If there really are no plans to reinstitute the draft, why did you just request a sixth deferment?
8. Is it true that you wept during Darth Vader's death scene?
9. If anything happened to you while serving a second term, would George Bush be fit to be president?
10. Here's something I've always wondered: Does the other side of your mouth work?
QUESTIONS FOR JOHN EDWARDS
1. Who made the final out in the 1954 World Series?
2. What do you have that Dick Gephardt doesn't have, besides eyebrows?
3. Agree/disagree with the following statement: "Litigators are opportunistic leeches who are sucking the lifeblood from our nation's economy."
4. On average, how many times a day do you check yourself out in shiny surfaces?
5. Is it true that your son, Jack, said of Senator Kerry, "Daddy, please don't make me play with that weird old guy anymore"?
6. On the night Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon, which pajamas were you wearing, the ones with the cowboys or the ones with the ducks?
7. What's your secret to remaining fully conscious when Senator Kerry is speaking?
8. What's Malibu Barbie really like?
9. If, as you say, there are two Americas, which one is your vacation home in?
10. Do you have any idea how late it is? This is a school night.
quote: Cheney has somehow been made out to be this evil psuedo-human being over the last few years. Some of it seems to come from his ties to Halliburton, some of it seems to come from his gruff behavior. I am not entirely sure, however, that it is fair to make the jump to "he doesn't like people" as some folks in this thread have done.
I would guess Cheney likes people just fine, but his exterior doesn't really show it. If you are a tough and strong and "keep it to yourself" kinda guy, you might not come off as being a loving and caring person on tv. But when you see him talk about his family, some of that starts to come through. I think it just takes a really strong emotion for anything to make it from Cheney's brain to his face in a way we could read it.
Prolix,
You can make all the excuses you want, but not only did Cheney give an incredibly limited amount of money to charity.
Edwards was correct in all of his statements last night.
quote:Edwards: The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
You don't get this record without being unsavory. His saving grace for American politics is that he is harder on the terrorists than his is on his fellow Americans. You can make all of the excuses you want, but you don't get to be a nice guy and vote the way he voted and give the way he gave.
If this is a debate about character and humanity, Cheney would get laughed off of the stage. But since it's about policy and terrorists, he is one of the more qualified people in the nation.
posted
Irami, the AP Fact Check article shows you are incorrect in your claim that Edwards was correct in all his statements last night. He was in fact wrong on many of his most important points.
Plaid, I have to admit, number nine of questions for Cheney cracked me up.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Out of all those votes you just listed, the only one I care about is the plastic guns. He was wrong on that one.
I would have voted against head start as well. I don't care one way or the other about Martin Luther King day, or president's day, or flag day, or arbor day....you get the picture.
Meals on wheels is a good thing. I would vote for that I suppose. As for Nelson Mandela, I don't think one more person asking for his release was really what was needed.
I guess my point is that a person's ability to like other humans is not neccessarily pointed out by how many times they voted against "humanitarian" programs. Besides that, I would be interested to see how many such programs he voted for. If you can show me that, I would be more impressed. But if he has voted for 100 such programs and against these half dozen, I'm not sure you can judge his character based on that.
If he has voted against 100 humanitarian proposals and for 6, you might be able to persuade me otherwise.
I sound like I am assigning you homework or something just to change my mind. lol.
posted
(thanks, Storm Saxon) Here is FactCheck.org's summary of the debate:
quote:Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.
Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.
Unfortunately for him, Cheney mistakenly sent people to www.factcheck.com to support his case.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much more objective and accurate is the Fact Check article run by Associated Press, which various news oraganizations ran--such as Fox News. I did quote the main points from that article in my post of 12:27pm today.
Here again is the statement that article gives about the bogus Haliburton issue Democrats have been harping on groundlessly:
quote:But congressional auditors recently reviewed those contracts [to Haliburton] and concluded U.S. officials met legal guidelines in awarding the business without competition — in part because Halliburton was the only company capable of doing some of the work.
[ October 06, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is your link 'more objective and accurate'? Is it possible both links are 'objective and accurate', but focus on different things?
I see nothing wrong with either article, since both candidates appear to me to get about equal time in both, though the articles sometimes focus on different parts of the debate, or focus on the same part of the debate and reach different conclusions.
posted
Interestingly enough, if you go to factcheck.com, and then replace com with org on the address bar (failing to notice that the bar now says georgesoros.com), it directs you to moveon.org.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess my point is that a person's ability to like other humans is not neccessarily pointed out by how many times they voted against "humanitarian" programs. Besides that, I would be interested to see how many such programs he voted for. If you can show me that, I would be more impressed. But if he has voted for 100 such programs and against these half dozen, I'm not sure you can judge his character based on that.
This was Edwards' point though. He was throwing the same reasoning Cheney was using right back at him, and in doing so illustrating that you can't take votes out of context and prove anything with them. That was precisely what Cheney had been doing all night - and throughout the campaign: taking Kerry's votes out of context.
With a long enough record, you can make ANY politician look bad by doing this selectively.
I though this was one of the strongest, though subtle, points made by Edwards.
quote:Actually NO, we did not pay Al Qaida any money to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union. We did pay and train the Afghan Mujahideen (which was before Al Qaida existed) to attack the Army of the Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan.
HUGE difference. Huge.
Why is it huge? All that changed was the name, since the roster of the Mujahadeen made up the roster of Al Qaeda. Sure, Sudanese and Saudi Arabian forces bolstered the numbers, since bin Laden was chased first out of Saudi Arabia and then out of Sudan, but what else do you call it when forces we trained and funded become part of a terrorist group? Not only that, but are you saying that the Mujahadeen weren't terrorists? Sure they were terrorizing the "evil communists," but they were terrorizing nonetheless.
Were the Taliban terrorists? We sure supported them, sending millions of dollars their way in the years preceding 9/11. Is that a huge difference? If so, why?
How about the US WMD arms supplied to Iraq in the early 80s to attack Ayatollah Khomeini? Does that count, since Hussein wound up on our list in the War on Terror anyway? Or are you saying that Hussein wasn't a terrorist when he was the enemy of our enemy?
What about the CIA support of the terrorism all over South and Central America (most notably Guatemala)? Or do "death squads" not count when the support is given through a private operations mechanism and kept out of common political public record?
posted
Exactly my point tres. I can't stand it when either side does it, it just so happens that they do it alot.
But I am curious about Cheney's full record on things like that now. I should give it as an assignment to Tom and tell him I will vote for Kerry if he can show me that Cheney truly doesn't like people.
posted
Yeah, Chad. Big ouch. Obviously, he meant www.factcheck.org .
But the redirect should be obvious pretty quickly to anyone who looked, as the address changes -- and, FWIW, Soros has a (teeny, IMHO) disclaimer in the upper left column.
quote:In answering a question about his involvement with Halliburton, Cheney meant to direct people to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan site run by the University of Pennsylvania. He urged people watching the debate to go to the site for facts countering Edwards' statements about the corporation Cheney used to run.
But Cheney cited FactCheck.com, a for-profit advertising site based in the Cayman Islands.
The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday.
"This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said Berryhill, who spoke with the site's administrators shortly after the debate ended.
They picked Soros not only for his political views, Berryhill said, but because the billionaire could afford the costly deluge of hits the site would receive in the wake of the debate. Plus, the site administrators didn't want to point surfers to a candidate's site that was asking for money.
Web site operators typically pay fees to the companies that host their sites. The more hits a site receives, the more its operator pays.
Soros was not advised of the switch and did not know it had taken place until Wednesday, said a spokesman, Jeremy Ben-Ami.
posted
Noooo, I missed the debate, I completely forgot. Is there anywhere I can watch it online? Ugh I was looking forward to this one so much, too.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
