I enjoy visiting this forum from time to time to read opinions of those who know and those who think they know. I've been thought of as an elitist because I truly actually factually know better than most people who possess credentials from institutions of higher learning. In the 1960s, I wore a flag upside down on seat of my jeans. I spent some time in jail due to misunderstandings with the police since some of them were real s and did not even try to fathom where I was coming from. One of my friends had been a soldier in 'Nam and saw people get killed going after a fallen flag. Perhaps the one giving the order should have gone after the flag himself if keeping it out of the mud was that important. A piece of cloth got people killed! Maybe that's why I wore the flag on my fanny. It made my jeans last longer despite the fact that numerous babes seemed to be turned on by my bold anti-flag attitude. I think flying a flag is one of the most unintelligent things one can do. It tells Muslims that here is the first infidel to kill. This and other signs of patriotism is stupid. I save a lot of time by sleeping late on Sunday since I am not subject to my parents dragging me to religious meetings. Families with more than two children are raising cannon fodder and even more breeders. Owning a gun is an irresponsible act. George Bush is an idiot who finished college because of connections and lots of money. It is wrong to interfere with soverign nations by attacking them for being tyrannies. Besides,America has many, many flaws which are being corrected far too slowly. It is fundamentally evil and controlled by a few white families with a combined worth of billions. Fortunately, the knowing are almost in total control of higher education. Even the few uninlightened who get to the top in academia are being outed. The publish or perish stratagem has gotten many of these uninlightened intellectuals to reveal their flawed thinking. Their attitudes and beliefs seem to surface like garbage floating up at the beach. Students report their offensive off-topic rhetoric to the powers that be. Thus they are weeded out by being denied tenure and eventually realize that they are not wanted and leave. A few choose to fight the system but always lose. Eventually they see the folly of their resistance. It all seems so hopeless sometimes. Thank you for providing this forum for us.

Dear Sawbones (may I call you Sawbones?), You've made a lot of statements on the campaign trail of late that lead me to question whether you've decided that truth is a terrible impediment to getting elected. I don't have the knowledge to analyze everything you've said. But there are four points you've repeated as a Democratic mantra that I do know, nine ways from Sunday. On those four I conclude you have the honesty of a five-year-old who's just gotten into the chocolate chip cookies – but with a mouth smeared with chocolate, says, “I didn't do it.” In order, your four obvious lies are about President Clinton, President Bush, the Texas legislature, and the recall election of Governor Davis in California. In each case, you claim that “The Republicans are acting to thwart democracy.” Well, let's take a look at the facts and see what we have. You challenge the impeachment of President Clinton as an effort to “reverse” the previous election. Hellooo. Elections are regular; they come around every four years, rain or shine. Impeachments are extremely rare; they only apply to malfeasance while in office. Would you confuse a routine physical exam with brain surgery, for instance? I hope not. Impeachment only applies to someone who is already in office. Self-evidently, Presidents Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, the only ones subjected to impeachment and trial, had been elected the last time they ran. Otherwise, the impeachment terms of the Constitution could never have applied to them. So your attack on the use of this process is an attack on the Constitution itself. If you don't like any provision of the Constitution, your legitimate choice is to seek to change it. And if you cannot get it changed, you must abide by it. Leastwise, that's what President Washington and most other Presidents to date have thought of the Constitution. Next, you attack the Florida litigation as an effort to “reverse” the 2000 election. Hellooo. You, sir (may I call you sir?), are aware of the Electoral College, in which votes have been counted not nationwide but state by state since 1789. You, sir, are aware the College has occasionally produced “minority” Presidents. You, sir, are aware that there were multiple recounts in Florida, including a year-long unofficial one led by the New York Times, ALL of which concluded that President Bush won Florida, and therefore won the election. Again, your quarrel is not with the Republicans, but with the Constitution. You claim that the California recall is a “reversal” of an election. Hellooo. You, my friend (may I call you friend?), are aware that the recall has been part of the California Constitution since 1911, and many other states have the same process. You, friend, are aware that recall cannot apply to any Governor unless that person has first been elected. Again, your quarrel is not with the Republicans (and Democrats and independents who signed the petition there), but with the California Constitution. You claim that the Texas redistricting battle is an assault on “democracy.” You, Shorty (may I call you Shorty?), are aware that the US Constitution commands every state legislature to redistrict its state after every Census, conducted every ten years. You are aware that the Texas legislature has not yet completed any redistricting as required after 2000. You are aware that the Texas Constitution requires that two-thirds of each House of its legislature must be present, for that House to act (a provision the Democrats are using by fleeing the state while the legislature is in session). Again, your quarrel is not with the Republicans but with the Texas and US Constitutions. By the way, you apparently approve of fleeing the jurisdiction when something happens that you don't like. Please state the conditions under which you would escape to Canada, if you were elected President and something you adamantly disliked was going down in Washington. I’d love to hear that. In all this I conclude that you are a liar. I have a bunch of friends who are doctors. On occasion I've met a graduate of law school who's dumb as a post, but never a graduate of medical school. You are too smart -- in an abstract sort of way that seems common among Democrats -- not to know the facts on these four issues. You know that you're lying. Howie baby, (may I call you Howie?) you're not alone in this. I've heard and read the same set of lies from many other Democrats over the last two weeks. Is there a fax machine somewhere in Washington that cranks out the “Lie of the Week” with instructions to all true Democrats to “ride this pony ‘til it drops dead”? If there is such a central fax machine, I bet it's on the desk of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry (the $10 million man) McAuliffe. After all, Terry learned how to lie at the knee of a Grand Master, former President Bill Clinton. (Remember him? He was in all the papers. Whatever happened to him?) Are you willing to lie flat-out to the American people because you believe a sufficient number of them are dumb enough so you can fool them and win the next election? Is your goal to find an exception to Abraham Lincoln's famous comment, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.”? Is this the Dean Exception to the Lincoln admonition: “Maybe I can fool enough of the people enough of the time.”? As someone who's labored in the vineyards of constitutional law for decades, I assure you that it ain’t rocket science. Every part connects to every other. You just have to learn the parts and connect the dots. It's sort of like anatomy class in medical school. “The foot bone's connected to the ankle bone. And the ankle bone's connected to the shin bone ....” You remember that, don't you? So quit your lies about the US Constitution, and the California Constitution, and the Texas Constitution. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that constitutions as the voice of the people just don't matter, and that constitutions should be treated like silly putty whenever they interfere with the hopes and intentions of Democrats. If you genuinely believe that, by all means say it – and see how far that gets you. Oh, and by the way, stop stealing your laugh lines from other people. That line you took from a TV show starring James Carville to deliver as if it was yours, before a slavering audience in Baltimore last week, reminds me of a short, cutting review of a Broadway play. The reviewer wrote, “It was both good and original. The part that was good was not original. The part which was original was not good.” Try to speak for yourself, unless you've forgotten how to do that. I realize the risk. You may just find yourself wasting away in Dukakis-ville. Just another leftist Democrat governor from New England, whose act the American people are not about to buy. On second thought, ignore my advice. Go on lying. Go on stealing your lines from anyone who thinks and writes better than you. If the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate you with all that on your record, they and you deserve what you'll assuredly get. See you behind an asterisk in the history books. Ciao, Congressman bob(a.k.a. John Armor)

The Washington Post editorial from September 17 dismisses Mr. Arafat's latest peace offer, given the author's "history of broken promises." The editorial is right - how can anybody trust that Mr. Arafat's intentions are truly peaceful after so many lies and broken promises over the years? I could not agree more - it is difficult to believe Mr. Arafat. What the same editorial fails to note, however, is that by the same measure we should also dismiss any proposal emanating from Mr. Bush -- or have we forgotten the plethora of brazen lies about Iraq and the U.S. economy? Or the broken promises to the world -- withdrawal from numerous international commitments agreed upon by past presidents? Not to mention the rather disingenuous declaration -- unthinkable anywhere else in the world -- that Mr. Sharon is "a man of peace." The same Mr. Sharon who far from wanting peace continues to build a wall deep into Palestinian territory, scuttles every truce with helicopter launched assassinations, matching or surpassing Hamas' military wing's brutality. The same man who years ago arguably provoked the latest intifada, and has on his resume the blood of thousands of innocent civilians at Palestinian refuge camps in Lebanon and more recently in the occupied territories. Any peace initiative advanced by any of these despicable men should be dismissed on arrival. Maybe we should all demand that the three (mis)leaders be replaced in order to finally begin a successful Middle East peace process?

Do we want these ads?

Media M&A bill repealed. WTO recognizes non-Western consortium. Can't recall two such events in recent memory. Dawn breaking, perhaps? Well there's this uncanny photo (Thanks G):http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030914/161/59jhd.html&e=2

Amen to that Mike.

R.I.P. Johnny!Johnny Cash (1932 - 2003) Music Legend Johnny Cash Dies at 71 (AP) - Johnny Cash, "The Man in Black" who became a towering figure in American music with such hits as "Folsom Prison Blues," "I Walk the Line," and "A Boy Named Sue," died Friday. He was 71. Cash died of complications from diabetes that resulted in respiratory failure, his manager, Lou Robin, said in a statement issued by Baptist Hospital in Nashville. Cash died at the hospital at 3 a.m. EDT.

join the street team...it's amazing!! And don't forget to stay tuned for their upcoming album!!!Sunniehttp://www2.fanscape.com/thedistillers/signup.asp

Hey so a quick word from your web guy. The ads on the left of the bulletin board just started showing up recently which is basically the result of us using a free service to run this talk board. While I admire their ability to do 'targeted' ads and find the choices interesting, I should point out that the ads have nothing to do with us. SeñorBlowbacknp: The Bronx

In a stunning burst of illogic, several of the nine ninnies seeking the highest office in the land have chosen to attack President Bush as being soft on national security. Citing recent numerous terror attacks on our shores...what? No attacks? Tell it to the Dems. Inasmuch as President Bush's administration has been pre-empting such attacks by killing, capturing and drying up the resources of the would-be perpetrators here and around the globe, most folks would think national security is his strongest suit. But not those over at donkey headquarters. That the president's opponents continue to underestimate him comes as no surprise. It is their total lack of understanding of the American people in general and a growing population in their own party that will soon be their undoing. As many have pointed out, the mood among the electorate has been much changed since the events of September 11, 2001. This was reflected in last year's elections when, in defiance of the "gridlock rule," the good people of this country saw fit to grant control of both houses of Congress to the president's party. For many years, one's party affiliation was a birthright, handed down from generation to generation as a treasured family heirloom. And this tradition had endured, even up till the 2000 election where the narrow margin of victory closely followed party lines. But while liberals like to point out factions on the right, constantly inventing new eonholes such as neocons and paleocons, the deep and foreboding fissures are in their own camp. They are in imminent danger of losing what I call the Diaper Dems. The Democratic Party for years represented itself as a safe haven for and guardian of the average American working man and his family. This was especially true of certain ethnic groups and religions. In the Northeast where I grew up, a Republican Catholic or Jewish American was almost unheard of. This big tent also included rank-and-file union members, almost all of whom were blue-collar workers. One imagines the average Teamster a generation ago; probably a veteran, flag decal on hard hat, good to his wife, tough on the kids in a fatherly way and most definitely a Democrat because that's what his pop was before him. Today, other than his union affiliation, that man is no more representative of the "new" Democrats than Tom DeLay. Many people who were born into the Democratic Party, including yours truly, have taken a good, hard look at its course and jumped ship during a hard turn aport. Other Diaper Dems are sure to follow--the moderate leadership of Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding. The problem is, even without the lunatic ravings of the far left, they have only two things to offer; fear and loathing. The fear is packaged like this; vote Republican and old folks will be thrown into the streets, children will be deprived of an education, blacks will be returned to the plantation, and women will lose their sacred right to kill the unborn. The loathing can be summed up in three words; George W. Bush. This twin-pronged strategy was a winner with the uninformed until 9/11. Now the fear and loathing is directed at a deadly, non-partisan enemy. But it goes much deeper than that. Democrats now have too many single-issue voting blocs that conflict with each other. Abortion must be supported to keep their dwindling gender-gap alive, while blacks and Hispanics find this contradicts their religious beliefs. Big labor is asked to coexist on the same platform with environmental activists who mostly hate and despise industry of any kind. Diaper Dems who become soccer moms must deal with an ever-growing, in-your-face gay lobby that seeks to become their children's teachers, preachers and Boy Scout leaders. Middle-class Reagan Democrats who want their share of the American dream must deal with racial quotas on the job and affirmative-action when their children enter college. Add to this mix the well-founded perception that Democrats are soft on crime and national defense, stir in a recovering economy, toss gently with nine nincompoops and you have the recipe for an electoral disaster in 2004. Pull up a chair and bon apetit.