America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Break Natalie's stupid neck!

Charlie

Man, I'd be more than happy to take a small chunk of their W2's, this year or next.

This girl just cannot keep her feet out of the vicinity of her mouth.

The city council of Madison, WI is joining the Dixie Chicks in formulating foreign policy: LG

http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=212965

(4/9/03, 3 p.m. ET) -- The City Council in Madison, Wisconsin would like to offer the Dixie
Chicks their city as a safe haven for the award-winning trio after coming under fire for lead
singer Natalie Maines's recent anti-President Bush comment while performing in London.

City Council member Ken Golden has offered a resolution, co-sponsored by half of the council's
members, that calls for a Dixie Chicks album to be played during meeting breaks, in addition to
suggesting the mayor present the group with the keys to the city, French wine, and a "suitable
welcome" if they ever visit.

The resolution also wants to adopt the Dixie Chicks as their own, advising them to change their
name to something more geographically suitable such as the "Heartland Chicks" or "Dairyland
Chicks." Golden said: "I am urging the council to pass this resolution to make sure that the
Chicks' right to free speech is defended and they have a protected place within which to exercise
their right to dissent." Madison Mayor Sue Bauman said she's in support of the resolution.

And then they backslide, just like the Chicks, when they?re called on it: LG

http://www.channel3000.com/entertainment/2100011/detail.html

MADISON, Wis. -- An east coast company is pulling business out of Madison because of alder
Ken Golden's controversial resolution to give the Dixie Chicks a key to the city. Madisonians
have been talking about Golden's resolution and so are people thousands of miles away. Folks
caught wind of the issue online and now outsiders are letting Madisonians know what they think.

"Those idiots in Madison, Wis., are trying to do national policy again ... " alder Judy Compton
said. News 3 has learned that an east coast production company has pulled the plug on bringing
500 people to Madison for a training class this June. The production liaison writes, "Many of the
cameramen, grips, etc., were former Vietnam vets and this ridiculous city council resolution
really hit home."

But Golden said he didn't do anything wrong. "Rather than criticize them in somber serious way,
I ribbed them, for God's sake," he said. "What's wrong with that?"

So last night, the national criticism turned the resolution into a substitute "freedom of speech
resolution," which was passed. Alder Andy Olsen offered the substitute proposal, which simply
said that Madison re-affirms that right of Americans to criticize the president. "I stripped out all
mention of that country ban, which has that has touched a number of nerves, make a core point
we need to respect freedom of speech," Olsen said.

The resolution reads, "Whereas,a growing intolerance of free speech in the United States has led
to a backlash against Americans expressing even mild criticism of the president, and the City of
Madison has a strong tradition of encouraging free speech and dissent and has, in fact,
congratulated itself by calling Madison the City of Tolerance ... it is not sufficient to say we
support free speech, we must all support free speech by tolerating and engaging speech by those
with whom we disagree ... "

The resolution also makes special mention of the French. "Be it further resolved that the City of
Madison welcomes all freedom-exercising Americans (or French people) to Madison," it reads.
It passed 12-5.

BTW, gang, the Dixie Chicks appear on David Letterman tonight (4/10/03) who wants to bet
they only make things worse for themselves?

Probably because nobody really gave a **** about Clinton.

Also Clinton got elected twice, and he could have won a third term if he could have run. Whether you like him or not, people did give a $hit about him...

I don't know what the ditzy chicks are crying about. They exercised their right and the buying public exercised its right. Damn; I actually responded twice to political stuff on this board...I feel kinda dizzy...better go lie down...

Not saying I would fight people who talk bad about him, just pointing out that people obviously cared about him.

Do you honestly think Iraq would have kicked our butt? How much could GWB have changed our military in two and a half years?? Our military is incredible and even if Clinton had strangled it twice as much as he did, we could still kick Iraq's Ass!!

Please, get back to reality....

The boyscouts probably could have done it... ;-)

I don't think Clinton was a God, and I don't think GWB is a devil, but I do think that with any leader if we choose to go into action then we take care of our troops while we're fighting. I know Clinton hurt the military, but you've taken this as a dodge to my original point.

The point is, the Dixie Chicks comments are so worthless that seeing all of you get your panties bunched is hilarious. Quit whining and if you want to boycott them then do so, but by not even mentioning them you prove your point more thoroughly...

Wilhelm, how rude. We'd respect your opinions more if you weren't compelled to sprinkle your comments with swear words. Someone said, "the use of profanity is a feeble mind attempting to express itself forcefully."

lazy - say what you will, sprinkling profanity has nothing to do with intelligence, my mind is far from feeble. Nice quote though...

Robby - you have every right to mewl and whine about these celebs, and I never stated that protestors had the right to lay in the road or commit other illegal acts, try not to puts words in my mouth. (I guess I stirred the pot successfully :) )

I just don't understand why some of you people are so caught up in the lives and actions of these celebs, I pay attention to them only when they're doing what they get paid to do, ie. sing, dance or act, other than that I don't care about their lives, politics, or preferences...

CWil, as RDC stated... Clinton damn near wiped out the Military here... and the cutbacks had allot of Equipment rendered usless... it has taken Millions to get it back up to speed... and to top it all off the Humiliation (sp) of the don't ask don't tell Policy he inacted...
Ok Iraq was easy and the Boyscouts could have done it?
What are you going to say about North Korea??? I'll tell you what some of the Korean Vets Said about them just last weekend...have you been catching any of that news? they pulled out of the Treaty Talks and stated they are going to build up their military more because their going to need it for the United States... that means their Intentions are to get their Nukes Developed and press on with their Saddam Rolls... see their is another Saddam in another part of the World... and GWB and his Administration has been dealing with them as well as the War in Iraq... and Your Beloved **** Clinton couldn't deal with anything that required Force or Prevention just Open ended Promisses... as he Raped this Country!!!!!
he will go down as the Worst President to Date!!!!!
there is new developments now with the FBI Ordeal in Cali... and it has Clintons Name all over it!!!!! keep an eye on the News, he may not be getting away with this one... Ol Willy's Teflon may be wearing off....
and to Compare Myself or any other Military Member as a Boy Scout... Spifffff Here's the International "Boy Scout" Hand Salute to You!!!!!!

Hog

Chris, if you go to a grocery store and the checkout clerk calls you an ass and insults you chances are you aren't going to go back. That is what is happening here. Many people were insulted at the coments made by the chicks. So they aren't going to support them. I don't see any problem.

Hog - Regarding N. Korea I'm scared as hell, I know we have to do something, and I know it will be much messier than Iraq. I just hope we don't have to loose a lot of our incredible soldiers!! How do you see this playing out? I'm interested to see your point of view!

cwilhelmi, where do you work? I want to boycott them! :-) hehehe

Well you know how the saying goes Chris, A satisfied customer will tell 1 person a dissatsfied customer will tell 10.

Truth be told had it not been brought up on this board I wouldn't have known about it. Then again I've never nor will never buy a dixie chick anything.

If I were Iran, I would be sinking BIG money in to some silkworm missles capable of sinking an aircraft carrier... Granted they have falanx(sp) and are very well protected by the battle group, aegiss(sp) crusiers, subs, etc... I'm talking about 50, or 100, or 300 missles all launched at the carrier, simultaneously... At some point, seems you could overwhelmie their defences. And the American public wouldn't take kindly to a multi-billion dollar war ship going to the bottom with 5000 hands on-board. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way supporting this, wishing it, or otherwise, I'm just saying, "if I were running Iran, I'd be buying up a pant load of these missles now."

""""He cut spending which made many voters happy, but at the expence of our military. Those poor boys were forced to harvest parts from one airplane to keep another one flying. """"

Why do you single out Clinton? He was only continuing with the trend started by Reagan and maintained by Bush sr.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu//papers/89/111/08_1_m.html

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/issues/military/NationalDefenseBoth.gif

Didn't Regan and Bush have Democrat congresses to work with? I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure.
Yes

Can the President simply ram through whatever they want on the budget?
No, So why aren't you focusing your venom on Congress?

Or does the congress have to approve it.
A bit of an oversimplistic view of the process but basically Yes.

Not too up on this political stuff so you'll have to help me out here.
Don't sell yourself short Robby. ;-}

Enquiring minds want to know if you're honest or if you have an agenda...
Honest as the day is long. You?

Did you read the article? Clinton basically continued with the same cuts as Reagan and Bush. Military spending was being cut on their watch! Funny, how I don't hear you saying anything dispariging about them. A little disingenious dontcha think?

Humm, Spy-nee, closer anal-a-sis of your graph shows:

1. Spending was way down under Carter (moral? Dems decimate the military)

2. It increased dramatically under Regan? I see this, do you?

3. I see that spending stays relatively constant under Bush 41 and then dips toward the end of his presidency. As I recall, we had a budget crunch at the time? The democrat congress was pushing for tax increases also as I recall. Why would they be pushing to increase taxes?

4. Then during the Clinton years (early) when we had a "republican congress" and the revenues were on the up swing due to the Internet boom and the stock market (irational exuberance), I see the military spending going down? even though revenues were increasing?????????? HOW CAN THIS BE??? Surely the democrats (like yourself) care about national defense? DON'T THEY?? DON'T YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. Then finally when a republican is elected, I see the graph tending upward? Are you trying to make a point with this information? OR REINFORCE MINE!

Based on the graph, spending clearly starts to decline in 1986(Reagan) and continues to decline until 1998/99(Clinton). Are you drunk Robby, or are you looking at something else??

Ok, Regan was 80 to 88, right? What happens to the graph in 1980?

When the republicans took control of congress?

You're right Spiney, Democrates traditionally support the Military and fund it as opposed the the Republicans who traditionally do not support the miliary. Right? That's your point isn't it? Does the graph attach the other factors? the revenues, the deficit, the general/overall budget? Do you really believe that the Dem's (in general) support the military? And the Repub's (in general) do not? Do you really believe this? Because I do not, if you and the other dems would like to go to war over it, I'll research it, and you can too and we'll see who wins, for say 20 premo sticks? Go ahead, take the dare, come on, if you've got a ba!! on your a$$, go for it. Or do you just prefer to sit back and take pot shots? *(retorical question)

"There are three things in life that I have learned to never discuss with people. They are politics, religion and the Great Pumpkin!"
Linus


from "The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown"

;)

"""You're right Spiney,"""

More often then not. (Glad to see that your catching on.)

"""Democrates traditionally support the Military and fund it as opposed the the Republicans who traditionally do not support the miliary. Right?"""

Wrong. (Maybe your not catching on after all.)

"""That's your point isn't it? """

Nope. (1 for 3.)

"""Does the graph attach the other factors? the revenues, the deficit, the general/overall budget? """

No. Perhaps this will be of help to you.
http://www.planemath.com/activities/pmenterprises/airfoils/airfoils30help.html

"""Do you really believe that the Dem's (in general) support the military?"""

Yes. (I base that contention on the fact that we allways seam to have one after every Democratic adminastration.)

"""And the Repub's (in general) do not?"""

No. We've had a military after their admins as well.

"""Do you really believe this?"""

Nope. (remember what I said about making assumptions about me?)

"""Because I do not, """

Suit yourself.

"""if you and the other dems would like to go to war over it, I'll research it, and you can too and we'll see who wins, for say 20 premo sticks? Go ahead, take the dare, come on, if you've got a ba!! on your a$$, go for it. Or do you just prefer to sit back and take pot shots?*(retorical question) """

Not much point in answering "Rhetorical" questions.

"""Democrats like you are good and decent people and republicans are evil and simply try to destroy the environment, kill people by depriving them of basic human rights and services, and their sole reason for being is to try to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yeah, good thing there are democrats who's sole selfless existence is the betterment of their fellow man and peace and love to all mankind... Why do republicans hate so many people so much? Thank God for the democrats! Chairman Mao was a democrat, wasn’t he? After all, he was for the common man? He didn’t believe in wealth? He believed in redistribution? And he certainly supported the military? So he was a good democrat, right?"""

[aplause] A lovely speach, still those would be your words and not mine.

"""Is it Friday yet? :-) maybe… """

Depends on whose calendar you referance.
}:->
http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html

Now, back to the debate.......(and my words.)

Clinton along with Bush sr. and Reagan (and their respective congresses) cut back on military spending because the cold war was over. (Credit for that goes to both the inept Soviet Politburo and Reagan who simply outspent them.) There was no need for a standing army of that size and configuration.
It was generally accepted that the type of conflict we were likely to face (according to the various think tanks and strategist of the time), would be far differant from the ones we had faced in the past. I give credit to all three adminastrations for moving financial resources to other areas at the same time that they invested in R & D on weapons systems that would be better suited to these new conflicts. (The ROV's and JDAM's we have today had their programs started back then.)
Clinton didn't "gut" the military, he simply continued with what Reagan/Bush had started. That was retooling the military to better serve the needs of the United States. Jobs become obsolete, weapons systems become obsolete, bases become obsolete. Certainly the change was diffacult for many in the military. People generally don't like major changes in their lives.
I realize that it's a burning passion of yours to demonize Clinton but the facts in this case tell a differant tale