[Zimphire]

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/...-20/index.html

[Zimphire]

What? No liberal knee jerkers coming to the defense?

Can't blame ya.

Shame Mrs. Clinton thought there was a connection between Iraq and terrorism.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BUMP!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BUMP

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/...-20/index.html

That was hilarious! Even when the "peacnicks" get 11 points, they lose because they don't even know they should be protesting Clinton... but they are a bit late as usual.

Madeleine Albright
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Al Gore

They have all said, "Iraq was seeking Weapons of Mass Distruction", "Iraq was giving aid and harboring Terrorists such as Al Queda"

"We know he is storing WMD and Chemical and Biological Weapons throughout his country." ... Al Gore

What was Richard Clark doing back then? Writing his book?

[lil'babykitten]

They didn't invade a sovereign country though did they. Obviously, the evidence was lacking.

[Nonsuch]

Democrats and Republicans can be wrong about the same issue.

Welcome to adulthood.

[PookJP]

The question here isn't whether the beliefs were incorrect, we all know Clinton was wrong as well, the question is what we did with this incorrect information. Obviously someone in the Clinton administration listened to the fact that the information was flawed, despite their public rhetoric, and didn't send thousands of American soldiers into harm's way because of it. Bush, on the other hand, capitalized on the 911 by starting a war based on the same faulty intelligence -- intelligence clearly proved to be faulty due to Clinton's inaction.

So there's no point there at all. They both said incorrect things. Only one of them got thousands of people killed based on them.

And let's not forget the other lies Bush told to get us into Iraq (State of the Union speech, anyone? Orders to find a link between Iraq and 911? Special CIA department to fabricate information?).

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
They didn't invade a sovereign country though did they. Obviously, the evidence was lacking.

Yeah LBK, that is why no attack was made. Got any proof of that?

Fact is Clinton was getting condemned for just bombing them. And we know how Clinton likes to stand in the middle of the fence.

Attacking Iraq would have been jumping over it. Out of Character for Clinton.

Even after Clinton was out of Office and when Bush attacked, he still believed Iraq posed a threat. Why is that?

You remind me of the first guy that he "interviewed"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by PookJP:
The question here isn't whether the beliefs were incorrect, we all know Clinton was wrong as well, the question is what we did with this incorrect information. Obviously someone in the Clinton administration listened to the fact that the information was flawed, despite their public rhetoric, and didn't send thousands of American soldiers into harm's way because of it. Bush, on the other hand, capitalized on the 911 by starting a war based on the same faulty intelligence -- intelligence clearly proved to be faulty due to Clinton's inaction.

Can you please show me proof that the reason Iraq wasn't attacked because of this reason? Because I have looked, found no reason.

So there's no point there at all. They both said incorrect things. Only one of them got thousands of people killed based on them.

AHahaha how many people do you think died under Saddam's rule from 92 - 2000?

Sorry, that top doesn't spin here.

I wont go into how many MORE LIVES getting rid of Saddam and his cronies will save.

No more of his sons raping women or murdering and torturing the people of Iraq just because they can.

And let's not forget the other lies Bush told to get us into Iraq (State of the Union speech, anyone? Orders to find a link between Iraq and 911? Special CIA department to fabricate information?).

And the Dem takes baseless accusations and tries to use them as fact.

You are just like the people being made fun of in this video.

The sad part about it is, you too don't realize it.

Heck if we get more responses like this one, This thread may turn out to be funnier than the video.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That was hilarious! Even when the "peacnicks" get 11 points, they lose because they don't even know they should be protesting Clinton... but they are a bit late as usual.

Madeleine Albright
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Al Gore

They have all said, "Iraq was seeking Weapons of Mass Distruction", "Iraq was giving aid and harboring Terrorists such as Al Queda"

"We know he is storing WMD and Chemical and Biological Weapons throughout his country." ... Al Gore

What was Richard Clark doing back then? Writing his book?

That is just it, he didn't have a book then, and didn't have sour grapes.

I am right now laughing especially at the people that belittle Bush for attacking Iraq for Terrorists reasons.

Esp after what Hillary said.

She herself believed it too. Or was it just convenient to believe it at the time?

Out of both sides of their mouth.

Out of both sides.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah LBK, that is why no attack was made. Got any proof of that?

Fact is Clinton was getting condemned for just bombing them. And we know how Clinton likes to stand in the middle of the fence.

Attacking Iraq would have been jumping over it. Out of Character for Clinton.

Even after Clinton was out of Office and when Bush attacked, he still believed Iraq posed a threat. Why is that?

You remind me of the first guy that he "interviewed"

Proof of what? clearly if it had been such a threat, the Clinton administration would have attacked.

See, there is no use you trying to show me that the Democrats were worse - I don't actually care about American party politics. I'm interested in international politics.

Exactly what are you trying to show me here? That the Democrats/Clinton were worse or no better than Bush, or what?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Proof of what? clearly if it had been such a threat, the Clinton administration would have attacked.

They DID attack. They sent a few missiles over. This was the typical response from Clinton. Not too far either way. He didn't want to upset ANYONE. Even if it means keeping a ruthless dictator in power.

What I am hearing from a lot of people is, "Clinton is a better man because he really never did anything about Iraq or Saddam."

That kind of logic just amazes me.

See, there is no use you trying to show me that the Democrats were worse - I don't actually care about American party politics. I'm interested in international politics.

I am not trying to say EITHER is worse. The person in said video is poking fun of people for talking out of BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH.

And not really knowing what happened.

Exactly what are you trying to show me here? That the Democrats/Clinton were worse or no better than Bush, or what?

Read above.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Can you please show me proof that the reason Iraq wasn't attacked because of this reason? Because I have looked, found no reason.

What kind of a$$-backward logic is that ? How 'bout we figure out reasons why someone actually attacks another country rather than trying to find out the reason a country wasn't attacked. Quick .. can you tell me why we haven't yet invaded Canada ?? Please show me proof to explain your answer. I have looked, but I found no reason. Not attacking another country is default behavior ... its what you generally do unless there is compelling reason to attack. As LBK said, whatever suspicions the Clinton Administration had about Iraq/WMD/Terror, they obviously didn't consider it convincing enough to send in the troops ... or they would have. They did in Kosovo, Liberia, Somalia, etc. What reason do you propose that they didn't invade Iraq ?? What's your proof ??

As far Democrats in general ... why do people always try to equate "Peacenik" with "Democrat" ?? I don't know where you and ghost_flash get your impressions but mainstream Democrats in the US are a lot like mainstream Republicans with minor quibbles over the best way to manage the economy (who pays what percentage of taxes, minimum wage, etc) , definitions of what constitute personal freedoms (eg. Abortion Rights, Gun Rights, etc), and what constitutes "enough" reason to actually start a war. Trying to present extremely mainstream Dems like Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Kerry as some sort of never-go-to-war-hippie-flower-children is ridiculous. They just require slightly more proof than Bush II ... who seems just a little too trigger-happy and ready to send people to kill and die on dubious evidence.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They DID attack. They sent a few missiles over. This was the typical response from Clinton. Not too far either way. He didn't want to upset ANYONE. Even if it means keeping a ruthless dictator in power. What I am hearing from a lot of people is, "Clinton is a better man because he really never did anything about Iraq or Saddam."

That kind of logic just amazes me.
[/b]
I am not trying to say EITHER is worse. The person in said video is poking fun of people for talking out of BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH.
And not really knowing what happened. [/B]

Hardly the same as an all out war on Iraq followed by an occupation, followed by the seizure of Iraq's resources culminating in the US firmly placing a foothold in the Middle East now, is it? Not only that but the American public were told this was all about WMD when it clearly was not.

So I can see a difference here. Clinton's administration was flawed, no doubt, but Bush, or more correctly, the surrounding neo-conservatives, have taken the whole Iraq issue to a new level.

This comparative exercise over the administrations, IMO, is pointless and a distraction from the real, important issues, namely the future of Iraq and its peoples.

[Zimphire]

Krusty please show me evidence that is why Iraq wasn't overthrown by the Clinton Administration.

Please show me some substance instead of being dishonest by saying "It's obvious that is why"

When it is NOT obvious that is why.

I say you read this page before you reply to me again.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

BTW they didn't equate peace-nick with Democrats. I think you misunderstood the "game"

It was the peace-nicks VS Democrats.

BTW you are doing just what these people in the video did and got made fun of for.

I doubt the realized it till later.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Hardly the same as an all out war on Iraq followed by an occupation, followed by the seizure of Iraq's resources culminating in the US firmly placing a foothold in the Middle East now, is it?

Wait LBK, when did I claim it was the same thing? I didn't. So why are you even arguing this point? BTW that was such a one sided explanation of what went on it's not even funny.

Not only that but the American public were told this was all about WMD when it clearly was not.

Funny, I remember it being about more than that. Why did Clinton attack Iraq? Was it then too just about the WMD?

They were also harboring and supporting terrorists. The Clinton's thought so as well.

And they were!

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

So I can see a difference here. Clinton's administration was flawed, no doubt, but Bush, or more correctly, the surrounding neo-conservatives, have taken the whole Iraq issue to a new level.

The only flaw Clinton had in this was having NO backbone whatsoever with Iraq in the 8 years he was in office. How many innocent people died in those 8 years that could have been saved? I can play those silly heartstring games too.

This comparative exercise over the administrations, IMO, is pointless and a distraction from the real, important issues, namely the future of Iraq and its peoples.

Oh I agree, the more important issue is the future. So why do the Dems feel the need to drag out the past about what Bush did, but forget what THEY themselves have said?

They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

How many times has Kerry flip flopped on this war to suit his political agenda?

How honest is that?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/...-20/index.html

I don't know which is worse, that they KNOW that the Left's position is pure rhetoric, or that they don't.

But it's obvious that THOSE protesters are there because of something OTHER THAN actual political positions, perhaps they just hate Bush.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
I don't know which is worse, that they KNOW that the Left's position is pure rhetoric, or that they don't.

But it's obvious that THOSE protesters are there because of something OTHER THAN actual political positions, perhaps they just hate Bush.

They have been caught in the Democratic spin.

Took it hook, line and sinker.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wait LBK, when did I claim it was the same thing? I didn't. So why are you even arguing this point? BTW that was such a one sided explanation of what went on it's not even funny.

I didn't say you did. I was pointing out the difference between what the Clinton admin. did and what the Bush admin. did.
My explanation is precisely what will continue and culminate in if Bush remains in office.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I agree, the more important issue is the future. So why do the Dems feel the need to drag out the past about what Bush did, but forget what THEY themselves have said?

They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

How many times has Kerry flip flopped on this war to suit his political agenda?

How honest is that?

Unfortunately the Democrats fell in to the trap created by the Bush admin at the time. Any opposition toward the government's plans was quickly deemed 'unpatriotic'. The Democrats should have taken a stronger stand, but they didn't and many of them stupidly voted in favour of the war.

However, whilst the Dems are likely to be sticking to this issue for electoral reasons, personally I'm in favour of them doing so for a different reason. And that is about the precedence that has been set by the Bush administration's Iraq policy. The doctrine of pre-emption which I see as something extremely dangerous as well as the influence the lunatics, otherwise known as the neo-conservatives, have over American foreign policy is alarming.

If Bush stays in power that means the neo-con presence remains - and that is highly dangerous because it means that the US will undoubtedly embark on more interventionist policies in the Middle East in the future.

The Democrats have never impressed me much. In a European context they are very much a conservative party. I advocate a win for the Democrats largely because of the changes that would result in terms of American foreign policy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Unfortunately the Democrats fell in to the trap created by the Bush admin at the time.

Any opposition toward the government's plans was quickly deemed 'unpatriotic'. The Democrats should have taken a stronger stand, but they didn't and many of them stupidly voted in favour of the war.

What? Even when Clinton was in office? Most of these quotes in the video was pulled during Clinton's term.

There was no pressure, if they fell for any trap, it was their own.

More of the same type of excuses the first guy was giving.

"It wasn't the Dems fault! They were being tricked by the evil Republicans!"

However, whilst the Dems are likely to be sticking to this issue for electoral reasons, personally I'm in favour of them doing so for a different reason. And that is about the precedence that has been set by the Bush administration's Iraq policy. The doctrine of pre-emption which I see as something extremely dangerous as well as the influence the lunatics, otherwise known as the neo-conservatives, have over American foreign policy is alarming.

Repeat this over and over again. 12 years is NOT Pre-emption.

If Bush stays in power that means the neo-con presence remains - and that is highly dangerous because it means that the US will undoubtedly embark on more interventionist policies in the Middle East in the future.

Yes LBK we know you don't like the US helping Israel. No matter WHO gets in there, we will be helping Israel. You know that right?

The Democrats have never impressed me much. In a European context they are very much a conservative party. I advocate a win for the Democrats largely because of the changes that would result in terms of American foreign policy.

I think you'd be surprised on just how things would probably stay the same.

There is always big talk before the Elections.

How many times has Kerry "waffled" so far?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Repeat this over and over again. 12 years is NOT Pre-emption.

erm...even Bush referred to it as preemptive.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes LBK we know you don't like the US helping Israel. No matter WHO gets in there, we will be helping Israel. You know that right?

I see nothing wrong with pointing out perceived problems with either US or Isreali policy. Do you?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What? Even when Clinton was in office? Most of these quotes in the video was pulled during Clinton's term.

What? I was talking about the run-up to the War on Iraq.

Repeat this over and over again. 12 years is NOT Pre-emption.

1. Even the Bush admin. labelled it pre-emption
2. It's pre-emption because they stated they were going in before Iraq could do any damage. Problem is Iraq didn't have any weapons. Hence why pre-emption is a risky policy. Iraq was invaded effectively on the basis of a 'hypothesis'. You simply cannot wage Wars on such a basis, we are talking about a human cost here for the mistake.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes LBK we know you don't like the US helping Israel. No matter WHO gets in there, we will be helping Israel. You know that right?

Did I mention Israel specifically? No. I wasn't actually thinking about Israel, I was thinking about Iran, Syria etc etc.
I wouldn't actually expect policy toward Israel to change under the Democrats. There is a very strong pro-Israeli lobby in Washington.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
erm...even Bush referred to it as preemptive.

Meaning it was an attack before they attacked.

Not meaning as in rushed in.

I see nothing wrong with pointing out perceived problems with either US or Isreali policy. Do you?

I am sitting here wondering why you just asked me that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
1. Even the Bush admin. labelled it pre-emption

As in before Iraq attacked. Not as in "rushed in"

2. It's pre-emption because they stated they were going in before Iraq could do any damage.

While that was almost a clever spin, Iraq did damage when it didn't comply with UN sanctions.

It's the VERY SAME reason Clinton attacked them. Guess what, Clinton didn't even TRY to get UN approval. He claimed the the UN resolutions since the 91 war, gave him all the authorization he needed.

Bush claimed the same thing. How about that. Look at the consistency.

Problem is Iraq didn't have any weapons.

You mean you don't believe they did. If Iraq got rid of said weapons and showed proof, they wouldn't have been in this problem.

Hence why pre-emption is a risky policy. Iraq was invaded effectively on the basis of a 'hypothesis'. You simply cannot wage Wars on such a basis, we are talking about a human cost here for the mistake.

No, No, No,

It wasn't up to the Bush OR Clinton administration to provide proof that Iraq had or did not have weapons. That was up to IRAQ.

The proof was on them. They were told to get rid of said weapons, and show proof. OR face serious consequences.

They did not. And after 12 years of not doing so, serious consequences came forth, THAT is why they were attacked.

Did I mention Israel specifically? No. I wasn't actually thinking about Israel, I was thinking about Iran, Syria etc etc.

I apologize for assuming you were.

I wouldn't actually expect policy toward Israel to change under the Democrats. There is a very strong pro-Israeli lobby in Washington.

For good reason.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Meaning it was an attack before they attacked.

Not meaning as in rushed in. [/B]

say what you mean, then, it will clear up a lot of confusion.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am sitting here wondering why you just asked me that. [/B]

Because you asked LBK a loaded statement "Yes LBK we know you don't like the US helping Israel."
You seem to imply it is a bad thing to disagree with US support of Isreal. I was just saying I saw nothing wrong with expressing criticism of either US or Israeli policy. then asked if you did.

I'll be glad to help you out like this if you are confused in the future.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I apologize for assuming you were.

OK.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The proof was on them. They were told to get rid of said weapons, and show proof. OR face serious consequences.

I'm tired so I've just picked this part for now. Hans Blix himself has said he was satisfied with Iraq's compliance. The Chief Weapons Inspector! I think he would know!

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
say what you mean, then, it will clear up a lot of confusion.

Because you asked LBK a loaded statement "Yes LBK we know you don't like the US helping Israel."
You seem to imply it is a bad thing to disagree with US support of Isreal. I was just saying I saw nothing wrong with expressing criticism of either US or Israeli policy. then asked if you did.

I'll be glad to help you out like this if you are confused in the future.

There goes Lerk again. Telling people they are the confused ones.
It's you favorite dodge.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
There goes Lerk again. Telling people they are the confused ones.
It's you favorite dodge.

what am I dodging?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
say what you mean, then, it will clear up a lot of confusion.

I did, I believe "12 years is not pre-emptive" was pretty darn clear.

Because you asked LBK a loaded statement "Yes LBK we know you don't like the US helping Israel."
You seem to imply it is a bad thing to disagree with US support of Isreal. I was just saying I saw nothing wrong with expressing criticism of either US or Israeli policy. then asked if you did.

I implied no such thing You said

"I see nothing wrong with pointing out perceived problems with either US or Isreali policy. Do you"

When I never mentioned there was. Which is WHY I ASKED YOU why you brought it up.

So where you got that I thought it was a bad thing to express personal feelings toward the US's involvement with Israel is beyond me.

I'll be glad to help you out like this if you are confused in the future

How pretentiously dull.

You don't impress anyone with that type of silliness. It makes you look desperate.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

I'm tired so I've just picked this part for now. Hans Blix himself has said he was satisfied with Iraq's compliance. The Chief Weapons Inspector! I think he would know!

He didn't say that till well after the UN was being blasted for not having a backbone.

Remember, he wanted more time to send in more inspectors.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
There goes Lerk again. Telling people they are the confused ones.
It's you favorite dodge.

Not sure if it was a dodge.. it's just a self defense mechanism of Lerk's.

It makes himself feel superior when he talks down to people like that.

Such mechanisms are usually used by the insecure.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not sure if it was a dodge.. it's just a self defense mechanism of Lerk's.

It makes himself feel superior when he talks down to people like that.

Such mechanisms are usually used by the insecure.

Zim,

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I apologize for my error in characterizing.
I hope all humanity can forgive me.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by finboy:
I don't know which is worse, that they KNOW that the Left's position is pure rhetoric, or that they don't.

My vote goes for 'that they KNOW' and so they just try and ignore it, or spin everytime this is pointed out.

That video is classic!

My favorite quote:

"Bill Clinton was given the same bad information everybody else was..."

"Oh so it wasn't just George W. Bush lying?"

*deer caught in headlights pause* "No... he knew!"

LMFAO!

Classic! The exchange that follows is rather odd: Appeasnik spouts/is confronted with the facts/shuts fat yap. Nothing out of the ordinary with the first two steps, just the last one.

Often it goes: Appeasnik spouts/is confronted with the facts/spins, ducks, dodges, hems, haws, tries to take a phony high-ground, acts superior, self-backpats and keeps right on babbling the same proven-false argument!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Often it goes: Appeasnik spouts/is confronted with the facts/spins, ducks, dodges, hems, haws, tries to take a phony high-ground, acts superior, self-backpats and keeps right on babbling the same proven-false argument!

You mean like what happened in this thread?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what am I dodging?

repeated since it wasn't answered.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
repeated since it wasn't answered.

Go re-read Zim's post. He corrected me about your post and I apologized.
Don't you read? Maybe you were confused...

Here it is again just to make it easier for you, because that is the kind of
guy I am. No charge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not sure if it was a dodge.. it's just a self defense mechanism of Lerk's.

It makes himself feel superior when he talks down to people like that.

Such mechanisms are usually used by the insecure.


Zim,

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I apologize for my error in characterizing.
I hope all humanity can forgive me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Zimphire]

[Edit]

n/m, ghost beat me to it.

[ghost_flash]

cancel this one too.

[Lerkfish]

thanks, I missed it first time around...it was hard to see amongst all the character assasination of Lerkfish that has become your sole intent in posting.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks, I missed it first time around...it was hard to see amongst all the character assasination of Lerkfish that has become your sole intent in posting.

And this isn't a dodge, how?

Lerk, are you a Texan? Because, that was one fine and dandy - Two-step.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks, I missed it first time around...it was hard to see amongst all the character assasination of Lerkfish that has become your sole intent in posting.

Lerk when you go from post to post talking down to people you are going to get made fun because of it.

Don't want it happening anymore? Stop doing it.

It's silly. That is all we are saying.

At least that is what *I* am saying. It would be different if you didn't do it that often.

But this isn't the case.

Instead of knee-jerking and hitting the "report" button I am hoping you'll see it's silly too, and stop it.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks, I missed it first time around...it was hard to see amongst all the character assasination of Lerkfish that has become your sole intent in posting.

Lerk: Zim is again correct. You must really think all of us who are opposed to your
viewpoints are beneath you, because it comes out in all that you write.

Now then. What is this referring to yourself in the third person?

That's just silly.

[Zimphire]

Bob Dole wouldn't put up with that.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bob Dole wouldn't put up with that.

That would be incredibly funny if you were Bob Dole!

But, I got a chuckle.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk when you go from post to post talking down to people you are going to get made fun because of it.

Don't want it happening anymore? Stop doing it.

It's silly. That is all we are saying.

At least that is what *I* am saying. It would be different if you didn't do it that often.

But this isn't the case.

Instead of knee-jerking and hitting the "report" button I am hoping you'll see it's silly too, and stop it.

Hmmm...you're assuming I'm hitting the report button.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Hmmm...you're assuming I'm hitting the report button.

Lerk, when did I assume that? Where did I say anywhere in my post I assumed you were hitting any button?

I did not assume any such thing.

Nor did my post read like I was assuming that.

Get a grip.

[Zimphire]

[lerkfish]Oh BTW, notice we aren't talking about the topic in hand anymore [/lerkfish]

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That would be incredibly funny if you were Bob Dole!

But, I got a chuckle.

I am sure someone already had that name registered.