On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:19:49 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:24:00 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
heavy snippage throughout
That still doesn't explain why they won't release the raw exit poll
data. And you fail to realize the simple fact that 'mainstream media'
is predominately owned and operated by huge corporations that strongly
favor the Republicans. If they slant in any direction it's going to be
towards the conservatives.
You obviously know little about the industry of journalism. It's a
known given to all, but the most liberal people, that the mainstream
media (with the exception of Fox) leans very much to the left.
No, that's not a "given". In fact it's quite the opposite.
Not according to some very well written accounts of these operations
by people who used to work in them.
Since the
invention of mass media it has been manipulated by the powers that be,
whether that power is the people, a government, the corporation that
owns the media, or whatever. And there is a very simple and obvious
proof to this: One of the first objectives of an army that invades
another country is to shut down or take over the media.
I would think that securing command and control centers would come
first.
This is
because if they don't the media can be used against them by the
defenders, AND the invaders can use the media to their advantage by
discouraging resistance.
Lies work both ways.
The fact is that there has never been a better source of false
information than the mass media. The only question is where that false
information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the
media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's
controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government
that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get
from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact!
This is a perfect example of the affirmation of the consequent
fallacy. You claim that since the media can been used as a source of
false information, that it automatically IS.
There
have been several articles and books written on the subject. Dan
Rather's latest embarrassing escapades should serve as a beacon of
illumination to the subject.
And you joined him in the hall of shame when you cited that web page
with documents that were also forged.
You have solid proof that those documents were forged? Maybe you used
empirical observation? Careful here Frank.....
You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable
discharge until 2001?
Exactly. It's interesting and telling that you would discard that out
of hand, yet embrace other articles, which share your ideology, with
no more credibility.
Who says I "discarded" it? On the contrary, I proved that your
accusation was not just lame, but also quite ignorant.
By doing what? Citing claims from Kerry's own website? Surely you can
see the slant there.
I proved that
sheople like you take the word of others instead of checking the facts
for yourself, which you claimed you did.
But if you did you would have
seen that there is nothing sinister at all about Kerry's discharge.
The story was nothing more than propoganda invented to discredit Kerry
and you drove that car without even checking the tires.
snip
Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers?
People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts
for themselves.
The problem is that what you consider as "fact" is often little more
than a different, but equally questionable, source.
snip
Frank, when are you going to realize that you "facts" are nothing more
than YOUR biased opinions. Telling me that my bias is wrong based on
your bias is laughable.
"..........Ohio's GOP Supreme Court Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, has
refused to recuse himself, even though allegations of vote switching –
where votes cast for one candidate are assigned to another in the
computerized tabulation stage – involve his own re-election campaign.
Why should he step down? Because someone accused him of something?
Prove there is a conflict of interest or lay down.
LOL! Conflict of interest is a simple concept. Are you telling me that
you don't understand it?
I understand that a public elected official is supposed to be able to
remain impartial. To suggest otherwise is an accusation of
impropriety, and without evidence to suggest the presence of
impropriety, then the elected people should be allowed to do the jobs
that we elect them to do. There are many cases where elected officials
come across situations where there may be a conflict of interests.
Should that official recuse himself every time this happens?
Ohio's official recount was conducted by GOP Secretary of State
Kenneth Blackwell, despite widespread protests that his role as
co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign constituted an serious
conflict of interest. Blackwell has refused to testify in the election
challenge lawsuit alleging massive voter fraud, as have a number of
GOP county election supervisors. Blackwell also refuses to explain why
he has left more than 106,000 machine-rejected and provisional ballots
entirely uncounted.
Who's to say that that number of ballots are really there and that
they are valid? We all know that the vote count exceeded the
registered voters.
Another classic case of inventing an issue and then implying a
nefarious agenda when the party responsible refuses to acknowledge the
bogus issue, thereby casting doubt and suspicion over his integrity.
Yet another simple concept that you don't understand. Suspicion
naturally falls on the person or persons who benefited from the
problems. Kinda like some guy's wife is murdered right after he took
out a huge insurance policy and he doesn't have an alibi. This
warrants a justifiable suspicion (unless, of course, you are the guy
being implicated, then you make up your own justifications).
But you are automatically assuming that those "illegal" ballots were
done for the benefit of Republicans. That is a poor assumption to
make.
The final recount tested roughly 3% of the roughly 5.7 million votes
cast in the state. But contrary to the law governing the recount, many
precincts tested were selected not at random, but by Blackwell's
personal designation. Experts with the election challenge suit have
noted many of the precincts selected were mostly free of the
irregularities they are seeking to investigate, while many contested
precincts were left unrecounted.
And when you are determined to find a flaw, the fact that there aren't
any automatically means that this was "planted"? Gee, maybe the main
issue is that the allegations of fraud have been greatly overstated.
In Miami County's Concord South West precinct, Blackwell certified a
voter turnout of 98.55 percent, requiring that all but 10 voters in
the precinct cast ballots. But a freepress.org canvas easily found 25
voters who said they did not vote. In the nearby Concord South
precinct, Blackwell certified an apparently impossible voter turnout
of 94.27 percent. Both Concord precincts went heavily for Bush.
It's a shame that those extra votes for Kerry might have to be
removed.........
You assume that any extra votes mean that the were Bush plants. What
if they were Kerry plants?
What if you are ignoring the fact that there were more votes than
voters?
I'm not, but you seem to think that any fraud is automatically the
fault of, and benefitted republicans.
In Warren County, Bush was credited with 68,035 votes to Kerry’s
26,043 votes. But just as the county's votes were about to be counted
after the polls closed on November 2, the Board of Elections claimed a
Homeland Security alert authorized them to throw out all Democratic
and independent observers, including the media. The vote count was
thus conducted entirely by Republicans.........."
Those are facts, Dave. Not left-wing propoganda, "editorial opinions"
or "MY biased opinions". Facts.
Yes, the overall articles are facts, but the underlying reasons and
the suspicions generated or implied are the result of bias.
Ok, here are the facts:
First, it's statistically impossible that all the errors were
accidental.
It's statistically IMPROBABLE, not impossible.
Second, the errors that resulted in extra votes were in predominantly
Bush areas.
But that does not mean that those extra votes were for Bush. It's
equally likely that Kerry operatives planted extra votes in those
heavy Bush areas to make the vote look more "balanced", and therefore
less suspicious.
Third, the errors that resulted in supressed votes were almost always
in districts that favored Kerry.
And those districts were run by democrats. So what does that say?
Those are the facts.
You are still wording the facts as to imply a conclusion which is not
supported by the known evidence.
Now it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reach the
conclusion that there was voting fraud perpetrated by Bush and/or his
supporters.
Only if you deny that "the other side" is equally capable and has a
history of doing it as well.
And neither do you need to be a genius to figure out who
perpetrated this fraud, since many of the decisions that resulted in
these errors were made by Blackwell (co-chair of Ohio's Bush/Cheney
campaign -- remember "conflict of interest"?).
Can you put the puzzle together yet? How much simpler can I make it
for you?
But it's still speculation. It's another affirmation of the consequent
logical fallacy to arrive at a conclusion without considering other
possibilities.
Liberalism is destined to fail, as nothing positive has even come from
a socialistic paradigm. I just don't want to see this country dragged
through the muck to before they realize it.
You are confusing liberalism with socialism. They are not the same.
Far from it.
If you take the line of political idealogy, and start at the middle,
as you head further right, you become more conservative. At the
extreme end of the "right wing", is fascism. Now take the same journey
toward the liberal left, and when you reach the extreme " left wing",
you have socialism and finally anarchy.
Perhaps you need a refresher course in political ideologies.
Here's an interesting link:
http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/ide_over.htm
snip
First off, it was -HARDLY- a "clear republican victory". The first
count was done by machine and gave Rossi a lead so slim that it
triggered an -automatic- recount. That recount narrowed the lead to a
few dozen votes. It would have been foolish of any opponent -not- to
request a hand recount, which put Gregoire in the lead by 139 votes.
Votes that were "suddenly" found......
Which were later verified and the total favored Gregoire, which begs
the question: were they were lost accidently or intentionally? If they
were lost intentionally I don't think the Democrats were responsible.
Why not? You assume that these votes were originally lost and then
found. They could have also been planted.
The rules were followed and Gregoire won. Now the Republicans are
whining up a storm and begging for a second election. Also, there have
been allegations that King County counted unconfirmed provisional
ballots. If that's true then it would be foolish for Rossi -not- to
contest the election. So far he hasn't.
Usually republicans are not as baby-ish when it comes to conceding a
close election.
ROTFLMMFAO! That's a good one, Dave! It's clear you didn't see Rossi's
press conference where he begged the public to ask for a second
election. It was pathetic! Now he's contesting the election -not-
because of fraud, but because he says the system didn't work in his
favor...... what a weiner!
Your's right, I didn't see it. It doesn't sound very typical of
republicans.
But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida,
New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a
transparent process.
The only thing transparent are the operations of those trying to stuff
the ballot box with enough extra votes to overturn an election
Where did that happen, Dave? In Washington? Cite your source.
It's a possibility you refuse to consider. Voter fraud has been here
for many decades and has been used by both sides.
And to return from your spin, how about answering the question: Are
you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial
opinion"?
I'm suggesting that you shouldn't automatically assume that the
republicans were the major perpetrators in the fraud.
There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and
fraudulent counting. One was trying to cancel the effects of the
other.
snip
I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry. Which way am I slanted?
To the left. That much is obvious. You're a liberal. I guess the
democratic party isn't pink enough yet.
So I'm liberal because I happen to be concerned about free and open
elections?
No, you're a liberal because you support Nader.
The only people who -wouldn't- be concerned about voting
fraud are facists. Are you a facist, Dave? (And notice that I didn't
slap you with the label -- I have enough respect to ask first!)
Are you denying that you are a liberal? And no, I'm not a fascist,
simply a conservative.
snip
How does that proverb go..... "Never put off until tomorrow what you
can do today". They tried to repair the faults of the 2000 election
with band-aids and it didn't work; the wound got bigger. If we don't
fix it now the same problems will be bigger and more widespread in
2008, or perhaps even sooner.
Why didn't they fix it in say, ohhhh, 1944?
Try 1876.
Whatever works for you. I just picked a date when the big "political
machines" were coming of age.
snip
Official military records are "leftist propoganda"?
Which records? Kerry's military records? Oh that 's right, he refused
to release them all.
You mean the records that say his other records (the records that
-were- released) are all phoney? Or maybe you are referring to his
medical records? The man was an officer in a war zone, so he must have
had a security clearance -- should he release classified documents
that are part of his military record?
You are making an assumption again. You assume that this missing
records have some sort of security issue. That may not be the case.
They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a
not so favorable light.
Just what do you think is on those documents? Now before you stick
your foot in your mouth and answer that, remember that you don't have
those records and therefore have no evidence, empirical or not, as to
their nature.
Neither do you. But I tend to believe that if you have nothing to
hide, you have nothing to fear. The fact that he refused to release
his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his,
suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them,
then he could just say that, but he didn't.
So the only clue you have as to what they are (other
than the obvious, as I stated above) is purely conjecture. Ok, feel
free to answer the question -- let 'er rip!
The fact that they remain sealed says more.
snip
By what factual (not op-ed opinion) information do you base this
claim? How do you determine total voter fraud?
When the race is so close that voting fraud could have been the
determining factor.
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that the degree of
fraud this year was any greater than that in years past?
How do you know it was not a factor in years past?
Unless you have a time machine and can travel back to correct any
occurance where it -did- make a difference, the question is moot:
The same thing can be said for this past election. It doesn't matter
if it was 2 months ago, or two decades ago.
The issue is happening NOW and can be addressed NOW.
That's a far different statement than the one where you claimed that
fraud is more rampant today than ever before. A statement that you
have no factual information to back up.
Nor to the
extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government
of the most powerful country in the world.
Mayor Daily of Chicago certainly knew that.......
I don't live in Chicago.
But you do live in the U.S. Mayor Daily epitomized the democratic
"machine" that exists in many large cities. The fact that most cities
vote heavily democratic may have much more than voter "demographics"
to attribute to it.
Ok, so how does his opinion justify voting fraud in Ohio?
There is no "justification", only the notion that fraud has happened
before, and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines
pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on
this issue.
Ohio is under the microscope now, for much the same reason as Florida
was 4 years ago. There are 49 other states, which may have had an even
greater degree of fraud than what is alleged in Ohio. But what should
be plainly obvious is that the whole thrust of this Ohio fraud issue
is not to correct the problems in fraud, but to give the liberals
another reason to claim that Bush didn't actually WIN the election.
There may be (and likely is) cases of fraud in large metro areas in
states like New York and Pa., which favored the democrats. If someone
were motivated to dig deep enough, it MAY be found that Bush could
have won in Pa. (Which would make Ohio a moot point) as well. If
identifying and solving voter fraud were the true motivational factor,
then ALL states (at least the ones with close percentages) should be
subjected to some scrutiny. As I said before, the percentage of
victory for Kerry in Pa. was less than Bush's victory in Ohio. I stood
in line for almost 3 hours to vote and I didn't find on person who was
voting for Kerry, out of the people we "informally" polled (You get
bored when you stand in line for that long). The breakdown of a county
by county vote in Pa., shows that the vast majority of the state was
red, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was radically blue
(80%), Pittsburgh, and around Erie county. Is it possible that those
heavily democratic places might have committed some sort of fraud as
well? Indeed there were stories of some Phila machines being "loaded"
with votes before the polls even opened. They explained that away as a
simple "use" counter, but it was suspicious all the same.
Why aren't you calling for an investigation in those places, if you
are truly interested in tracking down and correcting voter fraud?
You aren't suggesting that
voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter
what, are you?
Certainly not. I am for tightening the rules that regulate voting,
including several measure which make many democrats very "uneasy".
How about requiring a paper trail?
I'm fully in favor of that.
I also favor requiring all voters to show an I.D. which includes their
voting precinct.
I agree 100%. How about simply registering everyone over 18 by their
SSN? And making their votes accessible after the election to see for
themselves that their vote was counted (instead of lost, changed by a
machine, or "enhanced" by an election worker)?
I love the idea, and in fact, have suggested the exact same thing in
the past. The problem is that many people are real paranoid about
using their SSN for things like voting, and start thinking "big
brother" thoughts. For whatever reason, people think that a national
I.D. is somehow an invasion of privacy. It's the Twisty syndrome of
feeling the need to hide behind some form of relative anonymity.
But I don't think that voter fraud is any worse now than it had been
in the past. Surely you haven't forgotten about the bus loads of
illegal immigrants, the jailed felons, and the buying of votes with
cartons of cigarettes in days past?
The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed,
have they not?
I cannot make that statement. I have read stories of party workers
caught with ballots leaving a prison in Pa. I doubt if these issues
have been truly "addressed". It may have been covered over a bit more
effectively, but I believe that they're still there.
Possibly. The question is to what extent.
We may never know the answer to that. The only thing we can do is
reduce the chance that it can happen in the future.
We have -new- problems that need to be addressed, such
as a corporation that wrote the software for the voting machines and
whose CEO promised to deliver the state's electoral votes to Bush;
Hearsay. There's no proof that any such "promise" ever occured.
Once again you didn't bother to verify the facts for yourself before
spouting off your big mouth. I did a search on O'Dell's quote and got
over 15,000 hits. Here's just one:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm
I read it, but that still doesn't prove that O'Dell actually made that
statement in the context that he would use his company's voting
machines as a vehicle to that goal. It only states that the statement
was made in a fund rasing letter. So are you of the opinion that CEO's
should not promote any party affiliation?
election officials (i.e, the Secretary of State) who is also the
campaign manager for that state; the shorting of voting machines in
selected precincts; etc, etc.
Interesting that in those places were voting machines were "shorted",
were handled by democrats. They have only themselves to blame if they
were not able to accommodate their constituency.
You simply -refuse- to look at the other side of the coin, don't you?
Why should I? You're doing enough for both of us.
It was those same Democrats that lodged the complaints! They were told
a variety of different lies about how the machines were apportioned,
which is one of the issues Blackwell was supposed to address in the
deposition he evaded.
How do you know they were lies? The fact remains that in those heavily
democratic voting precincts, the distribution of voting machines was
controlled by the democrats, so they have no one but themselves to
blame if they short changed their constituents.
So is the picture coming into focus yet?
It's been for a while. You just don't see it.
snip
I really don't know, but his interests in the direction of this
country are diametrically opposed to what a free capitalist society
would want.
Really? Care to elaborate?
One word: Liberal.
Three other words: Redistribution of wealth.
That's called "collectivism", not "liberalism". It's time you learned
the difference.
They are related in that liberals are only lighter versions of
socialists. At least as defined by today's terms. Read the link I
provided, and do some searching for yourself.
It's a fact that democrats are more known for increasing taxes and
increasing "safety net" social programs. This in nothing more than
redistribution of wealth.
snip
Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors
your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right?
No, it's only relevant when it's relevant , such as past record of
voting fraud suggests that it was a problem for far longer than some
of you realize. I have never read anything on this group of you
defending Bush.
Twisty has. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention.
Then prove me wrong and provide the thread.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source
As I suspected, that post was not made here, so how could you expect
me to ever have seen it?
You said, "Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because
that would be a lie". You jumped to a faulty conclusion based on your
other faulty conclusion that I'm a liberal.
Are you denying that you are a liberal?
And don't squirm out of it
by saying I didn't voice my support in -this- newsgroup because I did,
as Twisty can attest.
Since when is Twisty your new advocate? The same nitwit that you, I
and others have spent the last several years alternately slamming into
the logic wall, and ridiculing for the fun of it, his outrageous
stances? Now he's your bastion of credibility? I would have thought
better of you Frank.
I'm curious if you still hold such a positive opinion of Cheney....
Brilliant man, but if I had known how crooked he was I would never
have said anything in his support. (You see, I -can- have both a
positive and negative opinion about the same person!)
snip
When have you ever spoken about politics on this newsgroup before
Frank? Until this past election, this newsgroup pretty much stayed the
course on radio related issues.
Yeah, right. And I've been on Usenet a lot longer than I've been in
this newsgroup.
If you make a post in another of several thousand other newsgroups,
how can you in all fairness expect the people HERE to know about it?
Very good point. And with that truth in mind, how can you "in all
fairness" say that I lied when I claimed to have supported Bush in the
past?
Because, I would have thought you understood that we are talking
within THIS venue. No one should be expected to know what goes on
outside of this group.
You jumped to your conclusion without all the facts.
Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this
newsgroup only.
And the
facts were available on google if you had the inclination to verify
the facts before you framed your indictment. But that's just not your
style, Dave -- after all, you already know the truth -despite- the
facts, right?
You made the point, you provide the evidence. I don't have the time to
sift through every post you made looking for references to GWB.
Maybe you think we keep tabs on each other? Maybe I'm the odd-ball in
that respect, as I don't.
The difference is that I, unlike you, don't make claims or accusations
unless I have the facts to back them up.
Most of which you have yet to show.
snip
I defended Kerry against your bull**** propoganda.
The truth remains that Kerry refused to release ALL of his military
records. What's he hiding?
You claimed he didn't get his honorable discharge until 2001 which was
a totally fabricated lie. And you can't even admit it. So now you
focus on records he didn't release without a shred of evidence that
they hold anything of importance to you. What was that you said
earlier about suspicion and political bias.....?
I read about his honorable discharge. That was only one element of a
number of suspicious activities that Kerry was involved in during and
post Vietnam which may have served to undermine this country's efforts
in the war, including two trips to France, to meet with the N.
Vietnamese representatives, in a capacity not authorized by our
government.
And BTW, if you don't know who the Vulcan's are then you are -WAY- out
of touch with current political issues.
Really? Then would you be so kind as to provide something that tells
me who there mysterious "Vulcans" are?
Maybe you shouldn't even be
having this conversation with me -- but what the hell, a little
ignorance never stopped you before, right?
It hasn't stopped you.
It's so much easier for you to comprehend if you tell yourself that I
voted for Kerry and that I'm a sore loser, isn't it? Well, as usual,
you're wrong. I voted for Nader.
But you defended Kerry as if you were married to him.
I defended Communism in a debate in high-school.
A skilled debater can take either side in a debate and make valid
points. But this isn't a debate for the sake of debate style points.
This is a debate driven by personal feelings.
Maybe for you. My motivation happens to be preservation of the concept
of a democratic system of government.
By undermining our efforts to wage war on the very people who threaten
those concepts?
I also suspect that you are probably a lot more open to certain
communist ideals. Most liberals are.
Again with the labels.....
And you haven't yet denied them.
FYI, this country has adopted ideals from
just about every political process ever conceived, including Marxism,
communisim, socialism and fascism. Some are good and some are bad.
No ****. No one system is "pure". There'e theory and there's practice.
Communism, in theory, is a "utopian" or perfect society. When put in
practice, it fails miserably.
But
as I tried to explain to you a while back, the Republican ideal is not
such a great concept in it's pure form -- it's a totalitarian-style
government where manipulation is the rule and freedom is an illusion.
By what piece of glowing wisdom did you glean that glaringly
ill-informed opinion?
You mean the official military records (in your words, "crap") that
were released by the Pentagon? Why yes, that's exactly where I got my
facts. Yet you, in your unbridled wisdom, want the Pentagon to release
more "crap" when you can't even accept the facts from the "crap" that
was already released (from the same source). If the first load of
"crap" was phoney, what makes you think a second load of "crap" is
going to be any more legitimate? Or if you think that second load of
"crap" is going to provide you with facts then why can't you accept
the facts from the first load of "crap"? That's a load of crap, Dave,
and you are a very confused person.
Without the entire record, the context of what is available is
compromised, and erroneous conclusions could be made.
snip
Have you ever thought for one moment that there may be people that
actually care about fundamental issues such as voting rights? Or is
that dish too liberal for your table?
Are you so idealistic that you can't understand what drives political
agendas? If there is not something to be gained strategically, then it
doesn't happen. If it was indeed a few "independents" who initiated
this action, I would bet a year's salary that they were "funded"
through the back door by the DNC or one of their "loose associates"
Like the term "follow the money", look to see who stands to benefit
the most, and that's where you will find the real source of this
latest voter fraud cry.
Are you so pessimistic that you see the political process as nothing
but a disingenuous quest for power?
That pretty much describes the political machines of today. When a
political party is willing to stand by and do nothing to help the
economy, and also wish for continued recession as a means to gain
political clout, it shows where their priorities are.
That every act is motivated by a
self-serving political agenda? If so then you don't know people half
as well as you think you do.
Cynicism is alive and well in politics. That's a fact
FYI, there are quite a few people in the
political arena that actually serve the interests of the public and
not their wallets.
Name them. And I'm not talking about small town supervisors or someone
of a school board. I'm talking about the big time.
In almost every case, when a government representative does something
seemingly altruistic, there is an underlying political motivation for
it. Finding it, is the key to understanding what greases the machine.
Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic.
What, and blind myself to reality?
snip
My political "slant" is towards the Constitution. That's my political
party, that's my religion, and that's my first concern whenever I step
into the voting booth. The Republicans may represent -your- interests
(whatever they may be, and I don't think I want to know), but -my-
interest happens to be preserving a democratic form of government.
By voting for a liberal who's core ideals contain the notion that the
government should assume a greater role as society's "nanny"?
The 'liberal' label was assigned by you, not me.
Which you STILL have not denied.
If you're such a student of the constitution, you should know that the
government was never intended to do anything more than protect ,
facilitate and represent our interests in the world market.
Oh my dear God..... where in the hell did you get your education? That
response deserves it's own thread.
What so I can prove you wrong yet again? I'm tiring of this Frank.
Dave
"Sandbagger"