November 15, 2007

  • Debate

    I am watching the debate and the question has just been asked, “Is human rights more important than security?” 

    Are human rights more important than security?

                                                                  

    Question # 2  Are we winning the war in Iraq?

    Question # 3  Was NAFTA a mistake?

    Question # 4 Is Hillary playing the gender card?

    Question # 5  Is Wolf Blitzer an idiot?

    Question # 6   Why do we always take questions from undecided voters?  Are they deeper than the rest of us for taking so long to back a candidate?

    Question # 7 Since no 9/11 terrorists came through the southern border, is the closing of the Mexican/American border important to the fight against terrorism?

    Question # 8 If you were running for president, would you require Supreme Court nominees to be pro-choice?

    Question # 9  Is Hillary Clinton too polarizing to bring our country together?

     

Comments (78)

  • Tough question to answer. But I’d say yes.

  • ‘Are human rights more important than national security?’

    I think there should be a balance. However, what US citizens consider ‘rights’
    are privileges for people in every other country (late term abortions, freedom
    of speech at the cost of everyone elses’ comfort, &c.).

  • watching the debate too.  funny how many times “the american people want…” is mentioned.  are we that schizophrenic?  and as to the question, it’s scary what the answers have been.   

  • Yes. Full security will never be achieved, and so we are slowly losing our liberties because of a fruitless effort of complete protection.

  • I’m not sure I understand the question. Human rights such as no torture, or human rights as in civil rights such as freedom of speech?
    For both cases, I believe human rights are more important than security. Torture is in no way justified. And for the latter, I’m not sure. It’s a lose-lose scenario when the situations become tough – either fear your government and police lest you say something politically incorrect and are arrested and executed, or fear terrorists.
    -David

  • yes. I’d rather have my freedom.

  • One cannot be at the cost of the other. We can have security without taking away our rights.

  • Isn’t security part of human rights?

  • OUCH… yes and no… is it really black and white? can it be black and white?

  • i need my medicine.

  • yes, no.

  • Si. はい. Aye. YES.

  • #1 I think that if the United States paid more attention to human
    rights and stopped trying so hard to convince the rest of the world
    that they’re the bad guys, they would have far fewer enemies and hence
    better security. 
    #2 The war in Iraq is a hopeless quagmire, so no.
    #3 I’m not familiar enough with the pros and cons of NAFTA to answer the question.
    #4 Of course she is; she’s smart.

  • #1 no, but some temporary suspension of a right is acceptable. example: the right to a speedy trial would be absurd in the case of a saboteur in time war, hence the only right that constitutionally can be suspended is habeas corpus. And only by congress

    #2 for those few actually paying any atention, yes we are and it is rather sudden and dramatic. strangely it not making the news

    #3 I am not sure

  • #4  hell yes

  • I blame creationists and those who share their same logic for all the problems in the world. 

  • I must be the only one watching the debate tonight.

  • Evveryone knows athe debates are a sham…Let the fireworks begin!

  • #3 Hell yes.

  • You are the only one watching… at this point…I just don’t care!! 

  • Hillary is wearing too much lipstick.

  • She is wearing too much lipstick.

    >.<

    Ack.

  • The most important question is: “Will I Am Legend be a good movie?”

  • The democratic debate is a waste of time. It is between two people and only two people. And i know everything both of them stand for. Why waste my time. Now the Republican race is just that, a race.  Five different candidates could take it. They have very different views from each other and speak in terms of real issues and solutions to issues. As opposed to the carfull and controlled “don’t lose it Hillery” and the feel good say nothing Obama

  • #6  just like the supposed moderates, what they really are the ignorant. 

  • # 6 I don’t know why we take their questions.  I think they take so long to decide because they want to really know what a candidate thinks or (in my case) they don’t like any of the candidates and are still determining the lesser of two evils.

    And for some previous commenters: being a moderate does in no way make you ignorant.  I for instance agree with Republicans on certain issues and Democrats on other issues; I don’t think one party is 100% right. 

  • Politics are for smart people

  • *coughs* Do you mean “Are human rights…” ?

    Okay, I’ll leave and stop being a grammar freak now. :)

  • Don’t forget the one about driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

  • K_Dean

    They all say that but I have yet to meet a self described moderate who was very well educated on the issues. I suspect you are the same.

  • #7  no but there are a lot of other good reasons to do so.

  • You suspect wrong.  Like I said, no one party has it 100% right.

  • Security is part of human rights.

    #2) It’s not a conventional war, so when politicians stop treating it like it is, and let the generals do their work, it’ll be even shorter. But yes, I think the surge is helping.

    #3) I don’t like it too much. I think it should be modified.

    #4) Probably so, because she happens to be a woman and a female President would be – suffice to say – historical. I wouldn’t see any reason why she wouldn’t use that to her advantage.

    #5) I haven’t followed him that close lately, so I don’t know.

    #6) We take questions from them in the hopes of convincing them to join our side.

    #7) It’s not the MOST important thing, but yes, it is important that we try and seal up our borders. It’s a good preventive measure.

  • I have my own question. Isn’t that first question in need of the grammer police? Since “rights” is plural, shouldn’t the sentence start with “Are”?

    Regarding the last question, the terrorists have now been made very aware that we are vulnerable at the southern border. They’ve probably already sent several terror cells over through all borders. I’m certain the cells are just sitting around waiting for their next assignment.  

  • #8) No.

  • # no I would require that he know how to read and know what his job is. That is to interpret the law as it is written and not make say what you want it to.

    Among these idiots they would call such a judge a radical

  • # 9 duh

  • If national security was breached and it took away human rights then I would say national security is important. But who’s human rights are we talking about? Our citizen’s human rights or other countries citizens?

  • 1 makes my head hurt, 2 is a no, and 4 is an emphatic yes.

  • Interesting questions. 

  • I think they are both equally important, but if I had to choose one…it would be human rights. how can we live longer but no enjoy the life? that is my concept.

  • Our human and civil rights should never be compromised for increased security.  I believe there is always a way to guarantee both.  Claiming that rights should be sacrificed under the guise of being patriotic or providing for national security is just an excuse for the powers that be to break down obstacles to their power and import fascism. 

    good night

  • #9) I haven’t really paid attention. Anyways, people, especially politicians, can change.

  • Thing is, if we lose our security, then we most likely will lose our human rights to whoever we lose our security to. So I would have to say our security would trump human rights. As someone I think already said, you pretty much can’t have one without the other.

  • Question # 1 Are human rights more important than security?

    Well, I think I would rather be secure than have all my rights. I have a right to go do whatever I want because I am 18, but I like the security (and the cheapness!) of living at home, so I have sacrificed some of my rights for security. Not sure what I think about it on a national level, tho.

    Question # 2  Are we winning the war in Iraq?
    Sure, we have accomplished a lot, but I think we’ve failed in that we’ve not gotten the Iraqi government to the point where it can function on it’s own. And that is sad.

    Question # 3  Was NAFTA a mistake?
    I don’t think I am familiar enough with what exactly NAFTA is and does to answer that.

    Question # 4 Is Hillary playing the gender card?
    Oh yeah.

    Question # 5  Is Wolf Blitzer an idiot?
    Oh, probably. I don’t watch enough CNN to really make a good judgement on that.

    Question
    # 6   Why do we always take questions from undecided voters?  Are they
    deeper than the rest of us for taking so long to back a candidate?
    Some are, some are just dumb and indecisive.

    Question
    # 7 Since no 9/11 terrorists came through the southern border, is the
    closing of the Mexican/American border important to the fight against
    terrorism?
    Not important for the fight against terrorism, per se, but important for other reasons.

    Question # 8 If you were running for president, would you require Supreme Court nominees to be pro-choice?
    More like the exact opposite.

    Question # 9  Is Hillary Clinton too polarizing to bring our country together?
    Pretty much.

  • Are human rights more important than security?

    Yes. The basic human rights are more important no matter what. Freedom of speech and such? Yes, most (as in 99.99%) of the time. Right now, there is no reason for them to be suspended. But under very limited and extreme circumstances, for a very short period of time, it may be unavoidably necessary.

    Question # 2  Are we winning the war in Iraq?

     No, and we probably never will. Iraq is this generations Vietnam, except without the freedoms the press had during Vietnam. At least the government learned something, although that isn’t really a good thing, is it?

  • Lower than normal coments yep not much interest in the debates

    Dodd and Kucinich came out looking good as opposed to the rest who did not. But no one is really watching there poll numbers will not rise a bit

    If you had run this story you would have had a lot more coments

  • Question 9 Is a yes.

  • 1.  Usually. 

    2.  It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.   Kidding.  Victory = stability.  And we aren’t there yet. 

    3.  No. 

    4.  Yes. 

    5.  No idea. 

    6.  Candidates need their votes. / No.

    7.  Yes. 

    8.  No.   

    9.  Who cares?  She’s gonna wreck this country; that’s what she’s gonna do. 

  • #1 yes, #2 I think it has turned for the better #3 Hell yes #4 yes, #5 yes, #6 who knows #7 could be, #8 yes, #9 no.

  • Answers given by an uneducated dum-dum:

    Are human rights more important than security? Which human rights are we talking about? “I have the human right to drink cappucino instead of coffee!” or something more substantial? Humans are too whiney.

    Question # 2  Are we winning the war in Iraq? You’ll never know until years later. Some will say yes, some will say no. Honestly, I’m not the one fighting the war, so *shrugs*.

    Question # 3  Was NAFTA a mistake? NAFTA sounds like a food product.

    Question # 4 Is Hillary playing the gender card? Hahahahahaha.. what woman wouldn’t at least try to play that once?

    Question # 5  Is Wolf Blitzer an idiot? Who’s he? If you have to ask if he is one….there is a good chance he is.

    Question # 6   Why do we always take questions from undecided voters?  Are they deeper than the rest of us for taking so long to back a candidate? Deeper, no, they’re just the new ‘customer’ that the candidate hasn’t won over yet.

    Question # 7 Since no 9/11 terrorists came through the southern border, is the closing of the Mexican/American border important to the fight against terrorism? LOL… good point. Probably not. It’s more in the american interest of not being taken over by Mexico. I can say that because I live in a border state.

    Question # 8 If you were running for president, would you require Supreme Court nominees to be pro-choice? No. I’d require them to have morals. Oh wait… that’s impossible.

    Question # 9  Is Hillary Clinton too polarizing to bring our country together? South pole or north pole?

  • I didn’t watch the debate, but I’m happy to share some opinions anyway.
    1. They are equally important.
    2. We must be; we aren’t being constantly bombarded with casualty reports and other bad news.
    3. As far as Michigan is concerned, yes.
    4. Yes.
    5. Not only an idiot, but a boring idiot.
    6. They really aren’t undecided – they just want to get their question answered on national television.
    7. Closing – no. They should make it more secure, though.
    8. I’m not dumb enough to want to be president.
    9. She is polarizing, but our country is already too polarized for any of the candidates from either party to unify it, so I don’t think it really hurts her chances that much.
    And just to make you feel better – huge props instead of number 11!

  • Go JOHN EDWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 1. Are human rights more important than security?

    *Don’t the two go hand in hand? We must honor the one to truly have the other.                                                               

    2.  Are we winning the war in Iraq?

    *Ha!

    3.  Was NAFTA a mistake?

    *I do not have a solid answer on this one.

    4. Is Hillary playing the gender card?

    *She certainly tried to openly…and backed down rather quickly. In any event, she has the card to play, and of course, she will play it–or try. This is they way of politics. (She must think in terms of receiving votes and half of the voters are women. How can she make women trust her as a candidate without being so soft that a man doesn’t?) She has to figure a way to make her gender work to her advantage much in the same way that Barack Obama will make race work to his. It is inevitable that both will be an issue–even if behind the scenes–during the presidential race when one of them officially receives the nomination from the Democratic party.

    Question # 5  Is Wolf Blitzer an idiot?

    *Nah. He’s just annoying at times.

    Question # 6   Why do we always take questions from undecided voters?  Are they deeper than the rest of us for taking so long to back a candidate?

    *Perhaps the undecided voter is planted? Now that Clinton was busted planting people to ask questions, don’t you have to question all of the political debates where an “undecided” voter asks a question?

    Question # 7 Since no 9/11 terrorists came through the southern border, is the closing of the Mexican/American border important to the fight against terrorism?

    *Too much here to debate.

    Question # 8 If you were running for president, would you require Supreme Court nominees to be pro-choice?

    *Nope. Nor would I require them to be pro-life. There are more urgent issues out there. (We can commence with the stoning now…)

    Question # 9  Is Hillary Clinton too polarizing to bring our country together?

    *I don’t think so. She could be just the thing we need to help our international relations in any event. We could see soon enough…

  • Well, security is partially a human right.  There’s a balance here, as always– there is no black-and-white answer.

    I also think the thing with the Mexican border is a scapegoat for the immigration debate.  MANY of the illegal immigrants in this country got here not by sneaking across the border, but by coming over legally with a temporary visa and then staying longer.  But no one wants to really get rid of them (it would be devastating to the US economy) so instead they focus on the border, which won’t really resolve a whole lot.

    Is Hillary any more polarizing than Bush has been?  Or is she worse than other potential candidates?  I have to say, I’m honestly a bit baffled by the utter hatred and contempt people have for her.  I’m not sure where it comes from.

  • Human rights are above everything.

  • And my question: Is writting “grammer” in stead of “grammar” some kind of joke?

  • 1. Human rights is no more important than national security, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

    2. Depends on what you believe we went there for. If you believe it was to free the Iraqis – sort of, they’re still vulnerable, I’d guess, or we’d be gone, if that were what we went for. If you believe it was for oil – no, we’re not winning, because the Middle East still supplies much of America’s oil. If you believe we went to search for WMDs – we apparently lost, since I don’t know that anything has been found, just massive amounts of weapons and ammunition and such, but I haven’t heard anything about the “nuclear weapons” stuff.

    3. NAFTA, I believe, will just make the immigration issue that much worse. Since, if they go through – unchecked, which is what I’ve heard – then they could just truck in immigrants and drugs, instead of products and stuff. I’m not saying ALL of them would do it, but I bet a good majority would, if – supposedly – 12 million illegals are already here.

    4. I’m pretty sure she is, since she got upset that Russert asked her questions that were too hard, apparently. I like how she was joking around about not being able to make a decision… and then she simply couldn’t decide between diamonds and pearls. How hard can it be? Yes or no to driver’s licenses to illegals, diamonds or pearls to which ever you prefer. No & pearls. End of story. I seriously hope she doesn’t get party nomination, I will cry. Oh man, off topic of her – I don’t know why, but Barack Obama sort of, in an off-beat way, reminds me of Denzel Washington. :] How exciting, right?

    5. I actually don’t know much of anything about him. :]

    6. So that the candidates can hope to sway them. It’s all about votes!

    7. I think so, just because the 9/11 terrorists didn’t come from there doesn’t mean that no one will.

    8. I probably wouldn’t require it, but pro-choice for abortion is kind of a big deal to me. That and being pro-gay marriage, it makes it hard to pin point a Republican to vote for if Clinton gets the party nomination. Because I will absolutely not vote for her if she’s more indecisive than I am.

    9. As long as it’s a change for the good, I don’t care who gets office. I just don’t think she’s the right woman to do it, I never really have, it’s just something about her that screams she’s wrong for that job. :/ Maybe it’s the fact that some of her unofficial advisors or whatever get caught doing incredibly bad things, or the fact that she plays the fence on that drivers’ license issue. Eek.

  • Wow, I’m dumb.
    “Human rights is…” way to be Southern. I swear I meant “are no  more…” I’m just weird. Or whatever. :| Or just dumb. ;]

  • i think that first question is worded unfairly. by not allowing people into our country, we’re not taking away their human rights.

  • 1. Yes

    2. Yes

    3. Yes

    4. Yes

    5. Don’t know who that is.

    6. Attempt at unbiased??? No idea

    7. Yes. If you only seal half the boat, guess where the next leak will be.

    8. Yes

    9. Yes

  • Are human rights more important than security? YES

    Question # 2  Are we winning the war in Iraq? NO

    Question # 3  Was NAFTA a mistake? yes

    Question # 4 Is Hillary playing the gender card? yes

    Question # 5  Is Wolf Blitzer an idiot? probably

    Question
    # 6   Why do we always take questions from undecided voters?  Are they
    deeper than the rest of us for taking so long to back a candidate? because they are the ones who count in our fucked up political system

    Question
    # 7 Since no 9/11 terrorists came through the southern border, is the
    closing of the Mexican/American border important to the fight against
    terrorism? yes.

    Question # 8 If you were running for president, would you require Supreme Court nominees to be pro-choice? idk. probably, because I see it as an issue of property rights in the first trimester

    Question # 9  Is Hillary Clinton too polarizing to bring our country together? yes.

  • 1. Yes, but there’s a right to life, man.

    2. Yes.

    3. Dunno. I like free trade. But I dunno the facts.

    4. Yes.

    5. Dun remember who he is.

    6. No. But they might not be biased towards one candidate or another. But I agree that it’s kinda silly.

    7. I know that evidence of this has been found, but regardless, you don’t wait till someone breaches a hole in the system to patch it up.

    8. I would prefer it.

    9. Yes.

  • Didn’t watch the debate. 

    As for #1, there has to be a balance.

  • 1. no
    2. no
    3. NAFTA is a contradiction in terms. It isn’t even a free trade agreement – as the name would imply.
    4. yes, and why shouldn’t she?
    5. Wolf Blitzer is a complete idiot and his name is worse.
    6. No; undecided voters are just as dumb as your average american, but they have partisan writers working on their side.
    7. Yes
    8. I would require them to have their head outside of their ass.
    9. It’s possible.

  • And more importantly?

    Do the chickens have large talons?

    Have you ever been in a Turkish Prision?

    Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

    Do you like movies about gladiators?

  • Yes!  A governent cannot create security.

    #2 No.

    #3 Probably.

    #4 I don’t know.  If she wins, it’ll probably be more about being the most appealing candidate, not about being a woman.  Personally, I find her very easy to listen to (well, I say that.  I haven’t seen her speak in a LONG time.), but I wouldn’t vote for her, because I disagree with her fundamentally on so many of the issues.  I don’t, however, think that she is evil incarnate as so many in my party seem to think.  A socialist, yes.  But she probably thinks that she’s trying to do the right thing.

  • Did the person actually say “IS human rights…”? Wow, subject-verb agreement ftw!

  • Oh, and #8. Opposite:  I’d require that they be pro-life.  And it’s interesting.  I heard Ron Paul (who is passionately pro-life) express frustration with the pro-life movement, because they only work toward striking down Roe v. Wade and ammending the constitution. . .good things, yes.  But Paul was saying in the mean time, that we should be working in individual states, so that they could put their own restrictions on abortion.  That would decrease the number of abortions.   And people could work to have no abortions done in their communities.  It makes sense, you know.  I believe that life begins at conception (absolutely), but eliminating abortion all in one blow seems unlikely; there are still many Americans who believe that it’s a right.  I think they’re wrong, but I think we need to work to change people’s minds.  And in the meantime, do what we can at the state level.

    #9.  We shall see.

    Ron Paul y’all.  Google him! 

  • Question #1 Are human rights more important than security? – What a vague question!  On a more personal level, I would give up some rights for more safety/security.                                                              

    Question # 2  Are we winning the war in Iraq? - I hope so!

    Question # 4 Is Hillary playing the gender card? – I’m sure she is, to an extent.  Even if she isn’t, simply being a woman makes her stand out from other candidates.

    Question # 6   Why do we always take questions from undecided voters?  Are they deeper than the rest of us for taking so long to back a candidate? - Questions from decided voters matter less.  If they have already decided on an issue, why do they need more information?  Hopefully the undecided voters are really taking the time and energy to fully understand as many aspects of an issue as possible before jumping into a hasty decision.  This would be good.  But if they are undecided because they don’t know what they believe or they’re just plain ol’ dumb, this is unfortunate and their questions don’t mean so much anymore. 

    Question # 7 Since no 9/11 terrorists came through the southern border, is the closing of the Mexican/American border important to the fight against terrorism? - Nope.  Unless you’re going for “better safe than sorry!”

    Question # 8 If you were running for president, would you require Supreme Court nominees to be pro-choice? - I would not simply because I would need to know their stance on all other issues.  I would actually prefer that they be pro-life. 

    Question # 9  Is Hillary Clinton too polarizing to bring our country together? - Hillary Clinton has other things she should work on…like her lack of a smile!  When she can show those pearly whites more often than that scowl, I will at least consider her candidacy for a moment.

  • Trying to be neutral and listen to each of the candidates answers, I felt that there were saying alot without actually answering some of the questions.

    If the question could have been answered ”yes or no” they couldnt do that, they had to go on and on about the current administration or what they will do as president, but I didnt hear a lot confirmed answers…

    I watched it, was entertained by a few, (I loved Kunich’s reply to the “patriot act” question”) but I still am not persauded by any.

  • 1: Yes
    2: No
    3: No
    4: Yes
    5: Probably, most journalists are at some point.
    6: Because they’ll bitch if we don’t take their questions.
    7: No, but it’s important to me, they’re taking all the good jobs! DX
    8: Pfft, no, we’d be losing out on perfectly good judges if we specified that.
    9: Yes, we are doomed if she wins the presidency. x_x

  • If there is not a balance between human rights and national security than big brother has the upper hand .

     Our government is out of control on some issues and we must be able to rebalance the scales.

  • 2.The american news rarely reports anything except death and dismemberment in Iraq they dont alway tell us if we have made any strides against terrorists

    3.I truely believe NAFTA was a huge mistake.. it opened doors that never should of been opened.. and the american workforce is paying a huge price for it.

    4. I think she is… I think her hubby had too much fun in the white house and wants to go back..

    5.Wolf who????

    6.I think undecided voters are ones who know that their votes are the decision votes and use the leverage to change the results to their candidates…

    7.I honestly feel that after 9.11..01 that all borders should be closed… permentently… business travel is fine.. but total immigration no way..

    and the ones who are here illegally either detain em  or just deport em

    8. No 

    I feel that I would leave them just the way they are….

    9.yea

  • Interesting answeres.

  • 1. Depends on what security we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the security of straight marriage because gays may get married, then yeah, they are more important. If it’s to protect people by not allowing people to carry hidden weapons, then yes. If it’s to protect a country by not allowing you to carry shampoo on an airplane, tough cookies. Security wins there.

    2. It isn’t our war to be in. Right now, we’re in the middle of the wars in the middle east and passing “Iraqi Freedom” off as an excuse to gain control of the area for oil and to force the values of democracy (notice the oxymoron?) So there is no win or lose, there’s get fucked and get fucked in the ass.

    3. Well, it eliminates alot of tariffs. Which cuts the taxes we pay on items. I think parts of it were incomplete, especially the NAAEC bit of NAFTA. And it really put the government in charge of alot of trade rather than the deceptive “free trade” title. I really don’t know where I stand on this one.

    4. Yes. I lost any respect I had for her. I don’t respect anyone who plays a card- be it race, gender, sexuality, or anything else. It’s fucking stupid. And unless someone says, “This is because you’re black/gay/female”, YOU’RE MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOUR OWN INCOMPETENCE.

    5. A half-idiot. He tries to make mountains out of molehills and parse every sentence. I’d hate to be interviewed by him. In the same regard, it probably makes him an effective journalist, if he’d put it to good use.

    6. Because voters don’t vote for the president. The electoral college does. We make voting seem really important as an illusion that Americans’ opinions matter and that the president is elected by popular vote. And because we’re idiots for thinking it matters.

    7. No, it’s important for winning the fight against beaners. This was a distraction Bush pulled because he was sick of being criticized for the war. It’s like every other distraction he’s tried. These things aren’t issues- they’re massively blown out of proportion by the government and the media.

    8. If it was a dictatorship. They’d have to fit specific qualifications. I’d want pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-peace justices. Under my regime, things would be great. Freedom for all.

    9. The bigger question is, why does the country need to be united? Who says a little animosity among a nation is a bad thing? I think it’s healthy. Americans will always differ on issues. A united country would be boring and I would never have anything to write about in my opinion column or blog.

  • #4 yes
    #8 no
    #9 perhaps – leaning towards yes

  • > 1. define ‘human rights’ within the context of the question. ….according to the Justice department, we will have to give up anonimity as a price for security…. Anonimity is a gift, not a right, so….

     
    > 2. ….too black and white and vague…. there is no clear ‘win’ in any war. You lose something in every war.
     
    > 3. ….have to research it a bit; to my unsure knowledge, no, haven’t heard anything to the contrary.
     
    > 4. ….to a degree, about 75%, yup, But the Name Clinton says everything to me…. as in no thanks…
     
    > 5. ….since he first got fired, so long ago…. Him and Geraldo, knudnicks, both….
     
    > 6. ….deeper, as in more contemplative? As to why we do take questions, I think it has to so with curiosity about others and see whether we agree with someone on whatever…. Kindred spirits in our travels thru the great unknown?
     
    > 7. ….waste of money, to some degree…. Make it look like our vigilance is unending, for the home crowd who get there info through a sensationalizing medium and who believe most of that drivel…. If you believe the border Patrol, they’ve got it all under control and surveillance. O.K……
     
    > 8. ….require? Nah, I’m pro-choice….
     
    > 9. …. uh, Yah!
     
    Peace

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *