|
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
I need some help with this:
During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
Some intersting John F'ing Kerry facts-
KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts. "Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel . the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03) Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03) F-16 Fighting Falcons. "The Air Force would also play an important role in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba'ath regime. On April 4, two Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the house of Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. 'Chemical Ali,' in Basra." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The Hill, 5/21/03) B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s. "On the night of March 21 alone, the first of 'shock and awe,' coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. . Involved were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, . F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The Hill, 5/21/03) M1 Abrams. "'[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,' added Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. 'The tank was the tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.'" (Patrick O'Connor, "Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future Of Urban Warfare," The Hill, 5/21/03) Patriot Missile. "U.S. Central Command says the Patriots . have improved to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis' short-range al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict." (Andrea Stone, "Patriot Missile: Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops?" USA Today, 4/15/03) AH-64 Apache Helicopter. "Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved success directly supporting ground troops. . Whether in shaping the battle in a combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is known, or by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground commander, the Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and firepower for U.S. Army forces ." (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams, "The 'Warfighter Mindset' and the War in Iraq," Army Magazine, 7/03) Tomahawk Cruise Missile. "The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile has since been used successfully in several other conflicts . include[ing] Bosnia . in 1995 and in Iraq again . in 1996 . [and in] strikes against training camps run by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in 1998. Cruise missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in 1999." (Vivek Rai, "Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea," MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03) Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis cruiser] Bunker Hill . was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk strikes against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31 missiles during the war. Its embarked . helicopter detachment . supported the rescue of United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the Northern Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city of Umm Qasr." (S.A. Thornbloom, "USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return," NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03) During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget." ("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88) Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72) 1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no cosponsors of Kerry's bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95) 1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea) 1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated - see below) as S. Amdt. 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94) 1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. "Now that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? ." (Senator John Kerry Agreeing That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891) When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Graham, Lieberman and Braun voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay) After all the above, he has the nerve to say this, after 9/11 12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. "And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. . And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it's going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly." (CBS's "Face The Nation," 9/23/01) SEN. KERRY'S DEFENSE STRATEGY: CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion. Kerry's bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96; In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry. Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training." (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea) In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including: Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93, Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including: In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea) In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay) In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea) In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21 other Senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea) Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber. (H.R.3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea) Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay) |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
"John H" wrote: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. I don't want to become that explainer or appologist for John Kerry. I really don't have any way to know what his explanation is. But here's one that I think is about right: Bush did exaggerate the terrorist threat. He exaggerated the threat that Saddam posed. He called Saddam a terrorist - which in fact Saddam was. Saddam had terrorised his own people and some neighbors over a period of years. But then GW Bush also either directly stated or implied that Saddam was a grave threat to the US. Bush and his people talked about a nuckular program that could produce a bomb in 6 weeks or 6 months. They said there were huge stock piles of bio-weapons and that they knew pretty much exactly where they were. Bush & Co. talked about moveable trailers used to make bio weapons. They talked about drone air-planes that could reach the US and harm us. And they kept calling Saddam a terrorst (which he was) but made it sound like he was a terrorist connected to 9/11 and-or that would be a terrorist threat to America. In light of what has gone on (and not gone on) in Iraq ~ It seems these claims are much MUCH exaggerated. However, that doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat. There are other terrorist organizations (Al Quada etc.) that may be a true threat to America. Read that way, there is no contradiction (or as you call it "ambiguity") when one says, "Bush has exaggerated the terrorist threat. But we need to invest more in Homeland Security." ~ I agree on first blush is does seem slightly odd. But the point is, it's two DIFFERENT threats. Another thing, not mentioned in your Kerry quotes, is that it's one thing to think there is a threat and do everything we can to PREVENT that threat. It is quite another to go offensive and start a full scale WAR to PREEMPT what might be a threat. And that second action (preemption) looks and is very bad when it turns out your preeptive reason was not even true. Gary |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:32:38 -0500, "Gary Warner"
wrote: "John H" wrote: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. I don't want to become that explainer or appologist for John Kerry. I really don't have any way to know what his explanation is. But here's one that I think is about right: Bush did exaggerate the terrorist threat. He exaggerated the threat that Saddam posed. He called Saddam a terrorist - which in fact Saddam was. Saddam had terrorised his own people and some neighbors over a period of years. But then GW Bush also either directly stated or implied that Saddam was a grave threat to the US. Bush and his people talked about a nuckular program that could produce a bomb in 6 weeks or 6 months. They said there were huge stock piles of bio-weapons and that they knew pretty much exactly where they were. Bush & Co. talked about moveable trailers used to make bio weapons. They talked about drone air-planes that could reach the US and harm us. And they kept calling Saddam a terrorst (which he was) but made it sound like he was a terrorist connected to 9/11 and-or that would be a terrorist threat to America. In light of what has gone on (and not gone on) in Iraq ~ It seems these claims are much MUCH exaggerated. However, that doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat. There are other terrorist organizations (Al Quada etc.) that may be a true threat to America. Read that way, there is no contradiction (or as you call it "ambiguity") when one says, "Bush has exaggerated the terrorist threat. But we need to invest more in Homeland Security." ~ I agree on first blush is does seem slightly odd. But the point is, it's two DIFFERENT threats. Another thing, not mentioned in your Kerry quotes, is that it's one thing to think there is a threat and do everything we can to PREVENT that threat. It is quite another to go offensive and start a full scale WAR to PREEMPT what might be a threat. And that second action (preemption) looks and is very bad when it turns out your preeptive reason was not even true. Gary I could buy some of that, but the threat under discussion was the *current* terrorist threat, not the Saddam Hussein threat. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? So Bush ****ed up and Kerry's doing the same? Is that a good thing? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? So Bush ****ed up and Kerry's doing the same? Is that a good thing? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Checking container ships entering and in American ports promotes homeland security. Invading a country on the basis of bad intel and your own political agenda does not. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the question? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the question? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No one is saying there is no threat from terrorism, John. Surely even you must understand that. Our attacks and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with protection of United States soil, and everything to do with the agenda of a failing president. Bush exaggerated the threats from Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't understand to this day the threats from terrorism. He seems to have no idea that for the most part, modern terrorism is stateless. The man is a simpleton, and he cannot think beyond simpleton answers. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the question? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No one is saying there is no threat from terrorism, John. Surely even you must understand that. Our attacks and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with protection of United States soil, and everything to do with the agenda of a failing president. Bush exaggerated the threats from Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't understand to this day the threats from terrorism. He seems to have no idea that for the most part, modern terrorism is stateless. The man is a simpleton, and he cannot think beyond simpleton answers. Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch like Bush. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:04:49 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch like Bush. Harry, if binary thinking is bad, what is single track thinking like yours? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote: Harry, if binary thinking is bad, what is single track thinking like yours? Relevance? :-) -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch like Bush. -- Email sent to is never read. Oh, now smart is being able to spin all ways at once? |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch like Bush. -- Email sent to is never read. Oh, now smart is being able to spin all ways at once? In Bush's cash, the "smart" move would have been to put his personal agenda and bloodthirsty politics aside, and work towards a true coalition solution to the problems he figured only an invasion would cure. There were many who reported that Iraq no longer had WMD before Bush invaded. But there weren't saying what Bush thought they should. So the dumbfoch invaded. Here's an interesting site for you, Bill. It speaks volumes on how ultimately unsuccessful we are going to be in the war against Moslem terrorists. http://www.lunaville.com/warcasualties/summary.aspx -- Email sent to is never read. |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth. Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now? Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance he is lying. Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to stop it. So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from midnight. That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap. So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch like Bush. -- Email sent to is never read. Oh, now smart is being able to spin all ways at once? In Bush's cash, the "smart" move would have been to put his personal agenda and bloodthirsty politics aside, and work towards a true coalition solution to the problems he figured only an invasion would cure. There were many who reported that Iraq no longer had WMD before Bush invaded. But there weren't saying what Bush thought they should. So the dumbfoch invaded. Here's an interesting site for you, Bill. It speaks volumes on how ultimately unsuccessful we are going to be in the war against Moslem terrorists. http://www.lunaville.com/warcasualties/summary.aspx -- Email sent to is never read. Changed the subject again! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Charles
wrote: John H wrote: Harry, if binary thinking is bad, what is single track thinking like yours? Relevance? :-) -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Charlie, do you have a boat? What kind? How is it powered. Do you use it for fishing? Where do you fish? For what do you fish? Do you use natural or artificial bait, or just big nets? Can you provide any tips on the best exhaust manifolds and risers for my 5.7lL Mercruiser? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:25:13 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch like Bush. Harry, if binary thinking is bad, what is single track thinking like yours? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote: Charlie, do you have a boat? Yes. What kind? Hydra-Sports How is it powered. Outboard. Do you use it for fishing? Yes. Where do you fish? Bay, Ocean. For what do you fish? Anything that bites. Do you use natural or artificial bait, or just big nets? Natural. Can you provide any tips on the best exhaust manifolds and risers for my 5.7lL Mercruiser? No. Can we now stop this love-hate relationship, John? -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:18:12 -0500, Charles
wrote: John H wrote: Charlie, do you have a boat? Yes. What kind? Hydra-Sports How is it powered. Outboard. Do you use it for fishing? Yes. Where do you fish? Bay, Ocean. For what do you fish? Anything that bites. Do you use natural or artificial bait, or just big nets? Natural. Can you provide any tips on the best exhaust manifolds and risers for my 5.7lL Mercruiser? No. Can we now stop this love-hate relationship, John? -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- OK! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com