Thursday, March 5, 2009
Debate: Veteran's issues and Foreign Policy
Originally this was all attached as comments to the post "Why I'm voting Democrat". Unfortunately, it became 20+ pages long. For the three people who read iit (Kendall, myself, and Fluffy my imaginary monkey) this is a bit much. So, I'm moving the comments into appropriate categories so Fluffy can reach them easily. So they don't clog up the main page, the text of the debate is recorded as a comment itself. Enjoy, Fluffy, enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You may have noticed that the debate on my other post, "Why I'm voting Democrat", is now 20+ pages long. For the three people who read iit (Kendall, myself, and Fluffy my imaginary monkey) this is a bit much. So, I'm moving the comments into appropriate categories so Fluffy can reach them easily.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 11:26am on October 3rd, 2008
I'm voting democrat because, well pick any of the following points below.
• Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent
legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen.
McCain a 20% rating for his voting record on veterans' issues. Similarly,
the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D"
grade for his poor voting record on veterans' issues, including McCain's
votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional
funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.
• Mc Cain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous.
McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational
opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full
tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at
least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill
because he thinks the generous benefits would "encourage more people to
leave the military." (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08;
Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com,
5/26/08)
• McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans' Health Care.
Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans'
health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing
funding for veterans' health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville
News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R.
18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R.
1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
Report - Delete
• McCain Voted At Least 27 Times Against Veterans' Benefits, Including
Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at
least 27 times against ensuring important benefits for America's veterans,
including providing adequate healthcare. [2006 Senate Vote #7, 41, 63, 67,
98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes #55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes #40, 48,
145; 2003 Senate Votes #74, 81, 83; 1999 Se nate Vote #328; 1998 Senate Vote
#175; 1997 Senate Vote #168; 1996 Senate Votes #115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes
#76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote #306; 1992 Senate Vote #194]
• Disabled American Veterans Legislative Director Said That McCain's
Proposal Would Increase Costs For Veterans Because His Plan Relies On
Private Hospitals Which Are More Expensive Which Could Also Lead To Further
Rationing Of Care. "To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need
specialized care the VA can't provide, McCain proposed giving low-income
veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they
could use at private hospitals. The proposal is not an attempt to privatize
the VA, as critics have alleged, but rather, an effort to improve care and
access to it, he said. Joe Violante, legislative director of the Disabled
American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would
increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased
cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said." [Las Vegas Sun,
8/10/08]
• Opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans' Health Care. McCain
opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans' health care,
taking into account annual changes in veterans' population and inflation.
(S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
• McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans' Care.
McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional
$430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and
treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
• Voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health
Facilities. McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to
improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those
making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R.
4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)
• McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with
Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500
million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and
rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness,
posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634,
Vote 343, 11/17/05)
• McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to
Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-ofliving
adjustments for certain veterans' benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
• McCain Opposed Increasing Spending on TRICARE and Giving Greater Access
to National Guard and Reservists. Although his campaign website devotes a
large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for
reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against
increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to
give members of the National Guard and Reser ves and their families greater
access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a
reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy.
(www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm;
S.Amdt. 324 to S.C.R. 23,
Vote 81, 3/25/03)
• McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that
would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing
jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a
chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
• McCain Also Supported Outsourcing at Walter Reed. McCain opposed an
amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center—outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous
treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a "disgrace."
(S.Amdt. 4895 to H.R. 5631, Vote 234, 9/6/06; Speech to VFW in Kansas City,
Mo., 4/4/08)
• McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs.
McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in
fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
• McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of
five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the
conference report that provi ded $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans
Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and
emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote
269, 8/2/01)
• McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans
Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that
provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635,
Vote 272, 10/12/00)
• McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was
one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies.
(H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
• McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans
Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans
programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
• McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted
for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote
470, 9/27/95)
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 12:01pm on October 3rd, 2008
I will respond in detail in a minute...Gonna have to gather my info together. I will point on one thing: Every single point you bring up, and I do mean EVERY one, has to do with spending on veteran's issues. I'll respond to that. But first, let me ask this:
Is this the only issue you are voting on? Is it your policy to forego every other region of politics? Forget stances on abortion, civil rights, and gun ownership? Forget stances on foreign policy, war, and security? Don't worry about stances on things like the economy and free trade? It doesn't matter if our economy implodes, foreign invaders are welcome in our borders, and the people of the nation are no longer armed, as long as DoD gets plenty of cash flow?
Is it really your opinion that nothing else matters? If so, your position is fatally flawed. Do not misunderstand me. Taking care of our servicemen is vitally important to the longevity of our nation.
Do understand this: Wrong stances on the issues I mentioned above (particularly foreign policy and the economy) can lead to a disintigration of the nation as we know it. If we pursue the socialist agenda of Barrack Obama, we may end up following the path of that other Grand Socialist State, the USSR. It's hard for a government to provide for its troops at all when that government, and the nation it represents, cease to exist.
Now, to the top. You started by citing the rating of John McCain by the Disabled American Veterans as 20%. This sound awful, till you look at the ratings of Congress as a whole.
The Democrats have 282 members of congress. Of this number, only 36, or 13%, managed to fall below a rating of 100%. Of these, all but 2 had ratings of at least 80%.
Conversely, Republicans only managed to scrape together 4 members, or 1.5% of their total number, to make it to the 80% mark, and only 2 managed to get a 100% rating.
Perhaps this shows that Democrats universally favor everything veteran. I would argue that this might be difficult since they are generally the ones cutting Defense budgets.
I will most certainly agree with you that McCain's history with Veteran's spending is less than admirable. In fact, it's downright poor. The only thing to be said in his defense is that these votes are part of a larger scheme of fighting spending. Let it be known, McCain is not my favorite candidate. In fact, given the entire gamut of right-leaning candidates in the primary, he was my dead last pick.
But, since you did say you were voting for Obama, however, let's take a short look at his voting record:
- On 5/24/07, Obama joined a whopping 14 senators in opposing funding for the Iraq war because the bill did not include troop withdrawl deadlines. This despite the fact that without the bill, funding would have ended only 4 days later.
- On 6/22/07, 3/15/07, 3/29/07, 4/26/07, Obama supported bills that placed arbitrary timetables on withrdrawls, restrictions on troops on the ground, and funding for men in combat that was conditional upon the actions of the Iraqi government. This demonstrates a consistent behavior that constrains the American fighting man's ability to successfully wage a war that has now, no thanks to Sen. Obama, been largely won.
I wish I had more to draw on here, but since Sen. Obama has served for less than one term, there's not a whole lot else to go on. He does have a much better record than McCain on spending on Veteran's issues. He also has a record of spending on just about anything else.
When it comes to supporting troops in the field, actually conducting the business of warfare, the story changes. He has also said, on many occasions, that he would support speaking to Iran without preconditions (Iran, as you may know, frequently has called for the destruction of the corrupt West. That's us.) He believes that our nation is less secure today than it was seven years ago. This in spite of the fact that there has not been a single attack on US soil since 9/11, something no one on 9/12 would have believed possible...
Left up to him, he would confine the fight against those who seek to harm us to Afghanistan.
I cannot refute McCain's voting record on spending on Veteran's. I agree that I wish it could be better. What I can say is that the race is more important than that one issue. McCain is by no means a great candidate. Barrack Obama is a deadly one.
A quick example, then I have to go back to work. Barrack Obama's energy policy of conservation and tire inflation does not produce any more resources. He restricts our abilities to produce our own domestic sources. For example, he has stated he is against increased drilling ("It's a stop-gap measure"). He doesn't support going after Oil Shale in the Midwest, which can provide our oil needs for decades if developed. If the trend continues, we will become even more dependent on foreigners to provide this. His mantra has been to develop "alternatives" without any plan for the right now.
How does this all relate to you and I, the military man? Imagine how it would be if suddenly Iran moves against the Saudi Oil fields and disrupts our supply. If Hugo Chavez acts on his displeasure and cuts us off. If any number of people from any number of places act against our energy supplies, it will mean war. You think Iraq was bloody? Imagine invading Iran in order to secure energy so that we can continue to survive.
Like it or not, our way of life is based on oil. That may change in the next century, but it's not going to happen today, and tomorrow ain't looking good either. The bloodiest and most bitter battles in history have been fought over resources. Oil would be no different.
And now, I really do need to get back to work. :)
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:53am on October 4th, 2008
The points above are about veterans issues because it was put together to fight McCain's, "I love Veterans, they love me" rant at the end of the first debate.
No, veterans issues are not the only reason why I am voting for Obama.
What is so wrong with talking to people? It may not accomplish anything but how can it hurt? (The Bush Administration has already switched its stance on this)
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:58am on October 4th, 2008
As for Iraq, they have a 400,000 man army. They can take care of their country by themselves. There is no reason that we can't stop combat operations right now, pull back to a few major FOB's and just train Iraqi's. Thats my opinion.... Obama's, is that it will take 16 months to do this.
Torture - America does not torture. PERIOD. Us not torturing our prisoners is exactly what makes us better than the people we fight.
And finally, John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time. The only place he has taken a different stance was on immigration. That is the only place he has been a "maverick". He has since flip-flopped and runs a truly far right, conservative platform.
I used to consider myself a republican. George Bush and the evangelicals drove me away from that party. This has been the worst administration in the history of the United States. To see our country fall even more into the abyss over the next four years like it has over the last eight would be unacceptable.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:54am on October 6th, 2008
Talking to people is not necessarily, in and of itself, a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when that is ALL you will do. It also can become bad if you go about it the wrong way. We are the world's one and only Superpower. That gives us a unique position to grant legitimacy. If we recognize someone, the world does. That's the way things work right now. Let's take a look at Obama’s pal, President Tom (of Iran):
" Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." (And then, in response to criticism) “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." (Conference, World without Zionism,source: Guardian.co.uk)
"[There is] no significant need for the United States."
“Israel must be wiped off the map … “ October 26, 2005 (In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, ‘The World Without Zionism’)
“The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.” April 14, 2006 (Speech at the opening of the “Support for the Palestinian Intifada” conference on April 14-16 in Tehran)
“Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces…. Although we don’t accept this claim…” December 8, 2005 (Speaking to journalists at an Islamic summit in Mecca)
“We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”
This is a man who denies the holocaust, is vehement in his insistence that Israel and the Jews must be purged from the Earth, and is less than positive towards the United States. He also is a leader (I do not say THE leader, due to the Imam) of a totalitarian Theocracy. And to top it off there are many reports of his nation aiding the resistance in Iraq. This is the man Obama wants to sit down and have a friendly chat with, without any preconditions? This is the man he wants included in talks in Iraq to further the cause of peace? I think that this speaks for itself.
This novel I have written covers most of your points. In closing, I too used to be a Republican. I was driven away by the insipid spread of creeping socialism into my party. Instead of a choice between the liberal and the conservative, I now have a choice of the liberal and the socialist. I stand by the values of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government that have made this country great.
John Thompson (Appalachian State) wrote
at 12:43pm on October 9th, 2008
Get 'em Jordan.
It's easy for Obama-ites to bash McCain's voting record on Veteran's issues. One thing - he has EARNED the right to vote one way or another, because he knows what the hell he's talking about on said issue.
Send the community organizer to go do some community organizing in Baghdad and then he can come back and bring up Vet. issues.
PS - I'm stealing this :)
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 5:27pm on October 13th, 2008
Yes, its very, very easy bash McCain's record on veteran's issues. Being a military retiree doesn't give him the right to forget about veterans.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 10:21am on October 14th, 2008
McCain's record on veteran spending issues speaks for itself. It's not good. Kendall's plethora of bills demonstrate's this clearly. There can be no doubt. Obama spends more when it comes to veterans than McCain does.
Two points: Obama spends more on everything else too. Veterans are not special to him in this regard. Second, there is more to troop welfare than money (though I definitely like getting money). The effects that policies in other areas have on soldiers that are still serving can be profound. It is here that I take issue with Senator Obama.
My vote: Obama wins the veterans spending issue...He's still a socialist.
Delete
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 2:02pm on October 14th, 2008
I was in a conference call with a former head of the Department of Veterans Administration. I can't leave his name because he is a high ranking member of the USO and can't openly campaign for Obama because of the Hatch Act. According to him, senator's don't talk about veterans issues because there are no big lobbyists paying them to support veterans issues. He also said that McCain considers himself a military retiree not a veteran. This means he does not get VA benefits. And finally, Obama volunteered for the veterans senate commitee as soon as he became a Senator. That speaks for itself.
And finally, this will be the last thing I say about this. John McCain is an American hero, nobody can deny that. But General Wesley Clark was right; being a POW does not qualify you to be president.
And if Obama is a socialist, then I guess I am one too.
Vicki Salmon wrote
at 9:37am on October 18th, 2008
Eric, Vets for Freedom has come out with a scorecard for how the Senators have voted on key war-related bills. McCain got an A-, supporting vets and the war 93.5% of the time. Biden and Obama each got Fs (Biden had 0%, Obama 0.5%).
Which would you rather have as Commander in Chief while we fight this war?
http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/documents/2007SenateAnalysis.pdf
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 4:58pm on October 18th, 2008
"McCain got an A-, supporting the war 93.5% of the time."
That's what your comment should have said. Vets for Freedom only cares about the war, not veterans.
Look at the Veterans Organizations that are out there for veterans:
Disabled American Veterans
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Vietnam Veterans of America
Vicki Salmon wrote
at 5:05pm on October 18th, 2008
Ok, you're right, I should have said "the war" and not "vets and the war". My question still stands. Who would you rather have as Commander in Chief while we fight this war? The one who got the A+ or the one who failed?
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 5:15pm on October 19th, 2008
The one who is not trying to win Vietnam by winning Iraq; Perhaps Colin Powell.
I am behind Obama's Iraq plan 100%. In my humble opinion, it is the only realizable solution.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 7:04am on October 20th, 2008
The only reason any withdrawl plan is feasible without total defeat is due in a large part to the surge which you and I were a part of. This surge, while unpopular at the get go, has now been almost universally acknowledged as a success. Even Obama admits that.
At the time he was against the surge. Of course, now that he knows it was a success, he'd be for it if he had it to do over again?
Strangely, no. When asked in an ABC interview that, if he had it to do over again, would he have supported it, his answer was no.
This begs the question: What would his goal have been in Iraq, if not victory?A strategy that has produced very positive results and has paved the way to a reasonable, victorious exodus from Iraq, is not a strategy that Obama would support, even knowing it would work? He has offered no alternative he thinks would have worked better...So he would have done none at all?
Obama's plan of pulling out is the same plan of ignoble defeat he has espoused from the beginning. The only difference is now, thanks to the wisdom and courage of others, the situation has changed to make it possible without surrender.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 9:32am on October 20th, 2008
I don't agree that the surge has worked the way it was intended. It only worked because of the Sunni awakening and the Mahdi army cease fire. If it weren't for those two events, the surge would have just produced more dead bodies.
You can't conquer a people not willing to be conquered; You can't win a war if the enemy is not willing to surrender. We beat the British, the South, the Germans, The Japanese, The Iraqis the first time, all because they were willing to submit to surrender. We didn't win Vietnam and we won't win Iraq militarily either. Iraq must be won politically.
You can read Obama's plan here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
But I'm just an E-4, what do I know.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 10:49am on October 20th, 2008
It seems to me that usually, if you want to know what's really going on, you ask the E-4 mafia.
Ask any business man or diplomat about negotiations. Chances are it won't be long before they tell you that you must negotiate from a position of strength in order to be successful. You must have something the other people want, or you must be able to cause something harmful or helpful to the other party. If you don't have this, you aren't negotiating; you're capitulating.
The same holds true here. What power do you hold if the message you broadcast is "Just hang on a while and we'll be out of your hair." To break the will of the enemy, you must take away their hope. To do that, you have to show them that we are going to stay and destroy them however long it takes. You also have to convince the people of Iraq that you aren't just going to cut and run, and leave them to the wolves if things get too tough. The surge sent those messages.
We are now able to negotiate and speak with Iraqi diplomats and get them in line. We were able to get the Sunni's on our side and a Mahdi army cease fire. We sent the message that we were serious about this war, and that we weren't going to just go away.
Obama's plan is now, for the most part, the correct one (I still don't agree with allowing a homicidal holocaust-denying dictator in on peace talks, for instance). I say "now", because for the past 7 years, it hasn't been. Wanting to talk and negotiate is fine, but only if you are willing to invest the boots-on-ground to make that possible. Obama is not.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 2:40pm on October 20th, 2008
you are right, and making a time table is exactly that kind of leverage. It says to the Iraqi government, "get it together, or we're out"
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 3:36pm on October 20th, 2008
If this were foreign aid we were speaking about...If perhaps this was a dictator oppressing his people, or we were maneuvering for trade concessions...If it were any other act than one that would cause rejoicing and renew the hope of our enemies, then I would be there with you.
The Iraqi government could be doing a better job. Before we completely discredit them, however, remember our own birth. Winning our own war against the British did not usher us immediately into a golden age. It took decades for us to forge a stable government, find a system that worked here, and implement it. Granted, they have a system to follow and teachers to guide them, but the principle remains.
Prior to the surge, the statement you propose might have "shocked" the Iraqis into good action. One thing it certainly would have done is emboldened our enemies, by giving them a date they could circle on their calenders. If they could just hold out to this date, America would surrender and they would be victorious. Post surge, given its amazing success (or a lucky convergence of independent coincidences, if you prefer), such an ultimatum is not necessary. We are already negotiating troop drawdowns, because the occupation period is nearly over.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of priorities. I don't believe in losing wars. Doing so sets a bad precedent and weakens your position in the long run, causing more bloodshed down the road. For me, the idea of a willing retreat in the face of the enemy is repugnant. And so, the idea of setting a timetable for defeat is equally repugnant.
Whatever your opinion, though, I believe it is clear: Whether Obama or McCain gets elected, we will not be in Iraq as a fighting front for much longer (presuming no foreign powers get involved, *coughIrancough*).
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 5:00pm on October 20th, 2008
I don't believe in losing wars either. But how will you win this, please tell me.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:37am on October 21st, 2008
Heres my plan:
All you guys from Real-America, stay and fight in Iraq for 100 years.
Since Bin Laden attacked Fake-America and not Real-America, we will take all the people in the military from Fake-America, and go after the Real-Enemy in Afghanistan.
I wonder if Bin Laden is pissed that he messed up and attacked Anti-America and not Real-America.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 10:46am on October 21st, 2008
I'm kinda swamped at work, but I'll respond when I can...I might also go ahead and move this debate to a new note. This one with comments is now like 10 pages long. :)
Scratch that...Just put in in Word. 29 pages long. *laugh*
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:52am on October 21st, 2008
You don't have to respond. Theres no point for me to respond either. Since I have apparently become the punching bag of the democratic party for all your conservative friends, and have no hope of changing their minds, I will get back to work and focus on those that are undecided.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:06am on October 21st, 2008
*shrug* I can't vouch for them. For me, it's nice to be able to debate with someone who is reasonably informed, reasonably intelligent, and is willing to talk reasonably.
If we must confine ourselves to those who are too uninformed to have an opinion, then where are we? The conflict of ideas, the melee of words, is the fire that forges a strong mind.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 11:27am on October 21st, 2008
I am happy to debate, lets just postpone this debate to 14 days from now.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:34am on October 21st, 2008
Alrighty. Until then, Comrade!
Post a Comment