PN-G bamatex

KFDM COOP, if you don't mind, I need you to make sure that the humidity is gone by about August 3rd (start of band practice for PN-G). Yeah, that sounds good.

True, but most SETX school districts don't have the resources to keep up with districts like Cypress Fairbanks. The only ones I can think of that might even remotely be somewhere in the area would be Port Arthur, Port Neches-Groves, Beaumont, and Nederland. Cypress Fairbanks and its neighboring districts have large constituencies with a lot of commercial and industrial revenue. Most of our districts don't have that, as well as most non-urban districts. Consequently, we progress at a slower rate and end up falling behind.

Will the band be playing the new "much slower" version of Cherokee or the old one???? To answer your question, the current, slow version of Cherokee is technically the old one. The melody to Cherokee is part of a song called Caravan, and, originally, the melody was played very slowly. We took it and sped it up to make a fight song out of it, eventually adding words. Furthermore, and contrary to popular belief, the "slow" Cherokee has been played at least since the 1990's, and I've got video evidence from the 1999 Brazosport playoff game to prove it. The fast Cherokee of the 1970's is the one many people associate with PN-G's fight song, and one I hope to see returned fairly soon. Honestly, I believe it will be brought back with the changes going on at the Reservation, and I don't just mean the ones on the football field. This district is making a u-turn across the board. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I believe that we're on our way back to the top, and, accordingly, I think the fight song is going to speed up as the pride really comes back to its pinnacle. I vaguely remember my dad listening to Cherokee back in the 60's. I was thinking it was popularized back in the 40's by a Big Band group. I found this : [Hidden Content] Check out the sample clips from the song under the Listen and Compare section. Pretty cool. Thanks, but I've already heard it. In fact, I've played it. Caravan was part of our marching show this year. That's how I knew all this. Mr. Wells and Ms. Beckcom (our band directors) gave us a little history lesson before we started working on the actual show.

They've been removed. A retention pond will replace them at the old location, and new tennis courts are to be built somewhere nearby, although I'm not sure exactly where.

Will the band be playing the new "much slower" version of Cherokee or the old one???? To answer your question, the current, slow version of Cherokee is technically the old one. The melody to Cherokee is part of a song called Caravan, and, originally, the melody was played very slowly. We took it and sped it up to make a fight song out of it, eventually adding words. Furthermore, and contrary to popular belief, the "slow" Cherokee has been played at least since the 1990's, and I've got video evidence from the 1999 Brazosport playoff game to prove it. The fast Cherokee of the 1970's is the one many people associate with PN-G's fight song, and one I hope to see returned fairly soon. Honestly, I believe it will be brought back with the changes going on at the Reservation, and I don't just mean the ones on the football field. This district is making a u-turn across the board. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I believe that we're on our way back to the top, and, accordingly, I think the fight song is going to speed up as the pride really comes back to its pinnacle.

A candle scent? And where might one procure such a candle? And wouldn't that smell bad? I'm not sure that "monkey farts" is a scent I would want to burn in my home.

Please, share your meaning with us.

Yeah, Tinkerbell and Wendy. LOL.. how much are they getting paid to be "witnesses" and have they had sufficient time to rehearse their story without getting it fouled up???? That can work on both sides you know! Keyword: CAN but have you seen where LPD is bringing witnesses in who saw the officers NOT beating him??...so yeah...kinda irrelevant. If the evidence shows the LPD were not involved in anything illegal, then I can accept this ruling. But we all know there are some bad apples running around disguised as lawmen and there is nothing wrong with checks and balances. Correct. There is absolutely nothing wrong with checks and balances or asking questions in order to gain a better perspective and find the truth. However, there is something wrong with calling in a hate group, accusing men of crimes in the absence of fact, and then accusing the same men of more, absurd crimes in the absence of facts when the actual, proven facts don't look good for your case. That's what's going on here. I won't speak to the mother's motives; I have no way of knowing what her motives are. Honestly, I think she's desperate to vindicate her son because, after all, he's still her son, but I have no way of knowing that for sure. However, if that is the case, maternal instinct does not justify unreasonable actions, and these actions are most certainly unreasonable. I give my condolences to Mrs. LaDay on her loss, but I can not condone her actions. They are the epitome of blantant, unjustifiable overreactions.

If you really understand which side of the political spectrum you're on so well, then why did you make the following statement? Yea, it was Bushes fault. Funny how Obama is changing his mind on a lot of security issues...... acting a little like Bush. Bush was not as dumb as the left plays him. For a dumb guy, he sure got a lot of things done. Correction: played him. They can't play President Bush for dumb when President Obama starts doing the same things President Bush did while in office. Oh, wait, they're liberals. They don't have to make sense. Nevermind, then. .. Oh and how correct you are about Bush not being dumb...he scarily smart. Left. Right. Left. Right. Someone doesn't agree with your views and you crown them liberals or lefties. Can you say shallow? You implied that you were mad about being called liberal. I said that this is what we can infer that you are based on your posts. You sarcastically said that you already understood that you were moderately liberal. If you understand this, then why are you mad about being called a liberal?

It is still undermined. I don't think that it's as much about an apology as a true, heartfelt, compassionate suggestion that IT WAS WRONG. I just keep getting...it was bad, but it was part of history; Africans sold slaves; our forefathers did the best they could; at least it's over now. Yet, somebody gets their boxers/briefs in a wad because someone states that they don't care about car bombs and children being killed overseas. It's just the lack of empathy for what happened...the nonchalantness. All I can say is you're definitely in the right place. Give me a break......it was over a 100 years ago. There WERE white slaves.......I'm not blaming anyone or asking anyone for an apology. I was upset about the car bomb because it was in the last few days..... Find something else to be mad about......... You make Little sense. We all say its bad and we disagree.......yet we don't have a true, heartfelt, compassionate apology for you......and that's OUR fault?? : : LMAO! Sorry, but I don't need your apology. I have not said that there were not white slaves, in fact, I have stated before that my family was probably indentured. I thought that I just wrote that I don't think that it is as much a matter of apologizing as it understanding and empathizing with the fact that it just should not have been allowed to go on and that it was a horrific part of our history. It's easy for us to say because we weren't enslaved because I guarantee if we would have been...we might be a wee-bit more understanding. We don't have to agree with everything each other says, but I had at least hoped that everyone could respect the other. I've always taught my boys the same things because one of the biggest problems I see with people today is the lack or respect we have towards one another. Just because someone has a differing opinion with me or because they might affiliate themselves with someone that I choose not to, I do respect them for their opinion because we are supposed to. I am not going to suggest that you are any of the things that I seen flung on here. To whoever locked the other thread...you were certainly on top of what you are supposed to be doing. Thanks for acting on it so quickly. Keeping it respectable, huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see the reasoning behind being empathetic to someone for something that my great, great, great grandfather might have done to his great, great, great grandfather or for something that one of my buddy's great, great, great grandfathers might have done to one of his buddy's great, great, great grandfather. Slavery was a terrible, terrible thing and I believe that we should have respect for the cultures of others, but in no way am I responsible for the actions of one of my distant ancestors. I had no part in those actions and, therefore, I have no reason to be empathetic to one of the descendants of a victim of those actions. It's not my fault. I didn't do it. In addition to that, the descendant of the victim wasn't a victim. He's a descendant. To imply that I owe him something for the crimes my ancestor might have committed against his ancestor is similar to implying that I should expect compensation from the germans, italians, koreans, vietnamese, british, spanish, mexicans, and japanese for crimes that some of their ancestors might have committed against some of my ancestors. It's one of those "sins of the father" ordeals, and, I'm sorry, but, last time I checked, we'd moved beyond that particular point in history.

At this point, hypothetical questions are too late. We don't know what LaDay's intentions or reasons were, but the fact is that this man played a part in his own death. He is moreso responsible for his death than anyone else. The Lumberton police officers' part in this was unintentional. They didn't mean to kill LaDay; they were using reasonable force given the circumstances. Although LaDay's death, in part, was caused by their actions, they can't be blamed for this. They had no intention to kill LaDay and had no way of knowing that he was high on PCP. LaDay essentially killed himself when he got high on PCP and took off driving. It's noone's fault but his. Does that make his life expendable? No. But he did it to himself. We didn't do it to him, LPD didn't do it to him, society didn't do it to him, LaDay did it to LaDay. It's horrible, and, moreso for the family's sake than LaDay's, I wish it didn't have to be that way, but we're just going to have to live with the fact that he basically killed himself. Moral of the Story: Don't do drugs and you won't have these problems.

Yea, it was Bushes fault. Funny how Obama is changing his mind on a lot of security issues...... acting a little like Bush. Bush was not as dumb as the left plays him. For a dumb guy, he sure got a lot of things done. Correction: played him. They can't play President Bush for dumb when President Obama starts doing the same things President Bush did while in office. Oh, wait, they're liberals. They don't have to make sense. Nevermind, then. .. Oh and how correct you are about Bush not being dumb...he scarily smart. Left. Right. Left. Right. Someone doesn't agree with your views and you crown them liberals or lefties. Can you say shallow? Not necessarily. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are words used to describe political connotations. I have a few liberal views, but, for the most part, my point of view is a moderately conservative one. Based on your posts, I can infer that your political connotation is moderately liberal. I don't think it's very farfetched to make either of those statements. I will not call President Bush dumb, just like I will not call President Obama or Nancy Pelosi dumb. That is blatantly desrespectful, regardless of political connotation. My statement was meant to be a joke, hence the at the end of the post. If you'd like to read more about these "jokes," you may want to use the Google search engine. I'll even supply you with an example: Yes, I can. In fact, I can say it in three different languages. Take note of the at the end.

I couldn't have made it any more simple than I did. At that time, the equation was something like this: No slavery = No Ratification = No Constitution = Weak, disorganized USA = Probable British Invasion = No USA Slavery = Ratification = Constitution = Strong, centralized USA capable of beating off British invaders (which we did in the War of 1812) It's as simple as that. Sure, it was morally wrong, but sometimes things don't go as well as we'd like them to. Occasionally, we have to make a few concessions on a few issues. In the end, slavery was abolished and it's still useless to argue a 220+ year-old decision. Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it! About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. Although I did pose the question about if white people had been slaves...earlier than that, I posted that there were white people that were indentured. I believe there is a slight difference in the two. My eternal thanks to you and kid for "learning" me about slavery with all of your facts. Sadly, many facts have never been published in books, but as long as America was able to prosper and the select few were able to become profiteers at the expense and maltreatment/murder of others...hey, it's all good. I don't know what his legacy will be. Maybe that he rid the world of hussein, but at what expense? 9/11 was a test that no one could have truly been ready for. I think that we had no other choice than to go after binladen and it was the right thing to do, but I think that invading Iraq was not. I mean, in the history books, what will be said about why we invaded Iraq besides that hussein was responsible for some horrific atrocities. I just wish that he would have had the ability to either realize that he made a mistake (and not just with Iraq) and apologize for that particular decision. How about we knew he had WMDs, he had UN resolutions to answer to, he had to let our weapons inspectors see if he was indeed hiding anything (we know he was, what do you think he did, kissed those 250,000 Kurds to death?). Our inspectors were getting close and he ordered them at gun point to leave, which they did. Do you think he got rid of those weapons during that time? Hmmmmm. Sadaam Insane had scud (dud) missiles to deliver his explosives. I, to this day, don't know how we kept the Jews from all out attacking him. We kept them at bay by protecting them with our patriot anti-missile defense system. Some scuds still got through and did some damage and killed some people. Do you realize the magnitude of the situation, had he been able to hit the Jews with a WMD?????? Anyone here that doesn't think Sadaam Insane had WMDs is a fool. BTW, where were you when all of this was taking place....under a rock? One more thing. Americans did not execute Sadaam Insane. We turned him over to the Iraqis and they let him drop. I still love what the soldiers said to Insane when they found him....''Greeting from President Bush!" GREAT POST!!!!! I can't understand how some of you people let Bush and Cheney pull you off track to think Sadaam was the enemy? We had reason to believe that Sadam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction within the borders of Iraq as early as 1998. This was a clear violation of the treaty Iraq signed with the United States and the United Nations after the first Gulf War. President Bush was taking care of an issue that President Clinton refused to take care of. I support our decision to go into Iraq; however, I do believe that this war has been handled badly. Much like in Vietnam, we let politics get involved in a war that didn't need politics. We should have kept the promises we made to the Iraqi people at the beginning of the war, and I truly believe that President Bush did his best to keep those promises (i.e. infrastructure upgrades, schools, hospitals, etc.), but it's not easy to run a war when you've got some prominent members of Congress that won't cooperate and keep calling in the media every time they have a score to settle. Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it! About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. Although I did pose the question about if white people had been slaves...earlier than that, I posted that there were white people that were indentured. I believe there is a slight difference in the two. My eternal thanks to you and kid for "learning" me about slavery with all of your facts. Sadly, many facts have never been published in books, but as long as America was able to prosper and the select few were able to become profiteers at the expense and maltreatment/murder of others...hey, it's all good. I don't know what his legacy will be. Maybe that he rid the world of hussein, but at what expense? 9/11 was a test that no one could have truly been ready for. I think that we had no other choice than to go after binladen and it was the right thing to do, but I think that invading Iraq was not. I mean, in the history books, what will be said about why we invaded Iraq besides that hussein was responsible for some horrific atrocities. I just wish that he would have had the ability to either realize that he made a mistake (and not just with Iraq) and apologize for that particular decision. You truly believe that there's a 140 year-old conspiracy to cover up facts about slavery in our history books? Where's your evidence? Lumping all these agencies into one completed the communications that was missing before. Some say 9/11 could have been prevented if everyone would have communicated. It's not a perfect system, but better than we had. FEMA we could debate. Although, I agree it needs some tweaking, I think some people want FEMA to be a save all, do all, and I disagree. Local governments are in charge of disaster relief, then FEMA should step in afterwards. Agreed. DHS isn't perfect, but it increased efficiency, improved security, and played a pivotal role in keeping a post-9/11 America safe. Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it! About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. Although I did pose the question about if white people had been slaves...earlier than that, I posted that there were white people that were indentured. I believe there is a slight difference in the two. My eternal thanks to you and kid for "learning" me about slavery with all of your facts. Sadly, many facts have never been published in books, but as long as America was able to prosper and the select few were able to become profiteers at the expense and maltreatment/murder of others...hey, it's all good. I don't know what his legacy will be. Maybe that he rid the world of hussein, but at what expense? 9/11 was a test that no one could have truly been ready for. I think that we had no other choice than to go after binladen and it was the right thing to do, but I think that invading Iraq was not. I mean, in the history books, what will be said about why we invaded Iraq besides that hussein was responsible for some horrific atrocities. I just wish that he would have had the ability to either realize that he made a mistake (and not just with Iraq) and apologize for that particular decision. How about we knew he had WMDs, he had UN resolutions to answer to, he had to let our weapons inspectors see if he was indeed hiding anything (we know he was, what do you think he did, kissed those 250,000 Kurds to death?). Our inspectors were getting close and he ordered them at gun point to leave, which they did. Do you think he got rid of those weapons during that time? Hmmmmm. Sadaam Insane had scud (dud) missiles to deliver his explosives. I, to this day, don't know how we kept the Jews from all out attacking him. We kept them at bay by protecting them with our patriot anti-missile defense system. Some scuds still got through and did some damage and killed some people. Do you realize the magnitude of the situation, had he been able to hit the Jews with a WMD?????? Anyone here that doesn't think Sadaam Insane had WMDs is a fool. BTW, where were you when all of this was taking place....under a rock? One more thing. Americans did not execute Sadaam Insane. We turned him over to the Iraqis and they let him drop. I still love what the soldiers said to Insane when they found him....''Greeting from President Bush!" And the bad part about that is the fact that the world would have screamed had Israel been attacked by Iraq and we had had a chance to stop it. It's kind of funny how that works.

I couldn't agree with you more. Noone is jumping the gun or making accusations. Everyone seems to be waiting for the facts before they start doing anything controversial. This is a much better way to handle things.

Yea, it was Bushes fault. Funny how Obama is changing his mind on a lot of security issues...... acting a little like Bush. Bush was not as dumb as the left plays him. For a dumb guy, he sure got a lot of things done. Correction: played him. They can't play President Bush for dumb when President Obama starts doing the same things President Bush did while in office. Oh, wait, they're liberals. They don't have to make sense. Nevermind, then.

It is a big deal. It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands. The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free. The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one. Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents? I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far? Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word. While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this. I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views. Kind of gives a new perspective on things. No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened. The fact that slavery existed...so. Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America. The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be. We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen? How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her? Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute. Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well. No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves. Accepted you say? By who? It shouldn't matter that "it was not just in the U.S." Our U.S. was supposed to be better than that. Who cares what they did in Africa? Atrocities have happened all over the world, then and now...that does not justify (or at least should not justify) the atrocities of slavery in this country in the past. And, you are right...the more we look at both countries and others, the more we were the same...except that America was supposed to be founded on the notion that EVERYONE was guaranteed FREEDOM and EVERYONE did not include EVERYONE until not so long ago. From the initiation of the Constitution...America should have had no slaves. How would we feel if white people had been the slaves? I know I wouldn't be a happy camper...or slave. I would have a hard time believing that anyone would. Of course, I would have probably been lynched or hanging in the next tree because what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter how convenient it may be to say...well, look at that country...they were doing it. That's not very mature. The nonchalantness is kind of disturbing...almost as much as the post about not caring about car bombs and children being killed. Well, we could always justify our participation in slavery and oppression and all of the sins committed to keep it intact with the people setting off the car bombs and killing INNOCENT people. NOT! I would like to point out that no slavery would have meant no Constitution, meaning a very loose union working under the Articles of Confederation and probably an eventual breakup, meaning no United States of America and making the eastern seaboard easier for the British to take back. All of the states had to ratify the Constitution, including the southern states. Do you really think that the southern states would have ratified the Constitution if it meant giving up their slaves? Our forefathers were already under fire for not having a bill of rights in the original Constitution and had to make a promise to add them post-ratification. They couldn't afford to make another controversial move. They had to make some concessions or face the loss of our then-infant nation. I believe that slavery is morally wrong. Now, that being said, this argument is about decisions made before our great, great, great, great grandparents were even gleams in the eyes of our great, great, great, great, great grandparents. There's no use in arguing the ethics of a 220+ year-old decision. This thread is about the best decision/action President Bush made/took during his presidency. Let's get back to that. I'll start: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This action organized all of our nation's various security agencies into one functioning body, increasing efficiency. It laid down department-wide standards that had to be upheld and precautions that had to be taken. DHS played a pivotal role in protecting a post-9/11 nation. Anyone else care to offer something along these lines into the record? Remember, we're talking about the best thing President Bush did while in office.

If you quit bringing up all those points, then maybe we could agree on some things........but your the one that brought up Race! Agreed. If you (DickVitale) would stop making false accusations, we wouldn't have a problem here.

I wouldn't mind seeing PN-G take on Dayton. It'd be interesting to see how things would turn out now that we have a new coaching staff and a new system. Another good game would be PN-G vs. WO-S. Both Dayton and WO-S would be challenging teams, but I think our new coaches and players could leave those games with a lot of experience.

(A) Bullying use to be called The Manifest Destiny and ( An example? Sure, remember "Shock & Awe? In response to (A), thanks for proving one small part of my point. In response to (, Shock & Awe wasn't "bullying," it was a military operation designed to demoralize the Iraqi army by putting on, literally, a fireworks show by repeatedly bombing strategic targets or the remains thereof, causing a decline in the will to resist and ultimately saving American lives. "Bullying" suggests that the operation was pointless violence, and it most certainly was not. Virtually no lives were lost in Operation: Shock & Awe on either side. It was just a way to "soften up" Iraq, much the same way we did in Vietnam with Operations: Linebacker, Linebacker II, and Rolling Thunder and in WWII with the intense bombardments of Normandy immediately previous to Operation: Overlord and the various Pacific islands we took during our "Island Hopping" campaigns. You are characterizing me as a racist based on the area I live in, and, frankly, I find that characterization insulting and slanderous. You, sir, are the ignoramus in this situation. You make claims with absolutely no evidence to affirm them and do so based solely on emotions and hearsay. I have nothing against President Obama based on his race or questionable religous background; my only concerns are based on his political positions and agendas. The idea that I am a racist is something that you are inferring with no factual basis whatsoever.

Anyway, she's about as truthful as Cheney...... Well then that makes it ok, huh? When does one stand on one's own two feet and stop pointing fingers? She has gotten herself into the same place as Obama....between a rock and a hard place. Bush's poilicies are looking better all the time. Maybe now, the ''fickle finger of fate'' will be pointed in the right direction. Those policies in 'Not so Real America' still stink. I could care less what she knew and when she knew it. It wasn't Pelosi who said "we need to go to the dark side....." and it darn sure wasn't NP who gave the torture orders, okayed the memos---pre writing of them. All Dick 'The Penquin' Cheney---former Vice Chicken Hawk. Pelosi, as well as other Dems at the time, went along so they wouldn't seem 'soft' on terror in 'Real America' Like I said earlier, when GWB gave the orders for the CIA to go into Afganistan----teaming up with the 'Northern Alience'(which had the help of Iran btw), they did good running the Taliban(remember them? they took credit for 9/11)out of Afganistan. Then the NeoCons step in and Conned us all.... A car bomb ripped through a packed street in Pakistan's city of Peshawar TODAY and killed 11 people, including women and children, near an ice cream shop and Internet cafe Saturday, officials said. The blast exploded in the densely populated Kashkal area of Peshawar, the northwest city where people have sought shelter after escaping a Pakistani military offensive against Taliban militants in three districts further north. For those of you that think the war is over and that America is safe is living in a fantasy world. Bush has a lot to do why those car bombs are exploding in Peshawar and not in our own backyard! For some of you, it's going to take another 9/11 to make you understand that. Making excuses for Pelosi shows how far the left will go to protect it's own. You do realize she said she did not know, then she kinda knew. Do you really believe that????? Pathetic! Well you seem to be speaking for all the Chicken Hawks on this board. Get off the keyboard and do something about it. Go enlist and say you want to go to the Stands ASAP to protect 'Real America' To be honest, I sometimes wear a 7.25 inch size tin hat. Since Pakistan has no oil(that we know of), there won't be another hit here. No need for the Carlyle group and others to use the Shock Doctrine to set up shop in Pakistan..... ;D ;D Thats really your response?? I guess I messed you up when I post facts. thetragichippy, some people are just looking to blame someone else for the world's problems. It's sad that the man who protected us is taking the blame for doing his job.

Here is a link to an article about warring tribes in Africa: [Hidden Content] Most notably, the British. Here is a link to a list of indigenous Australian tribes that have fought over territory on the Australian continent for centuries: [Hidden Content] Are you suggesting that a white actress should not be allowed to play the part of Cleopatra simply because she is white?

That was a well thought out remark......... typical That generally means, "I have no other comeback against the facts so I'll have to make some silly quip". Exactly. Notice how not one of them have refuted what you posted. Why argue with the brainwashed Bush followers?....Waste of time...Thats the SE Texas way.. Once again if you folks think that the economic situation that we are in is not a DIRECT result of your boy George W., then you are dumber than I thought you were. HOW can you go back to the Clinton years and attepmt to blame THEM? Our economy was BOOMING during those years! Bush was a BULLY....Just like your forefathers were BULLIES back in their day...Thieves, liars, and backstabbers! ALL OF THEM....Sad. Wanna refute that fact? Didn't think you would. Just thought they could just TAKE what they wanted...JUST LIKE GEORGE W. Were these not your forefathers as well? Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did. Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

National Security

I don't like it, but, with a $9 Billion drop in the budget, I guess we've got no other choice.

Who did they play?