NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would you vote for?

bump

only 3 votes? :confused: :confused:

W

whoever made the poll and said that kerry is the 'lesser of two evils' thereby causing us to vote reluctantly, is a fool, and probably a sad, sad repuke.

John Kerry is the only hope that the USA has, four more years of Bush and god knows what could happen.

I'd like to know what the hell you think a republican's going to do for the country anyway.

Good things only happen under democrat.

Meh, as I'm not even in the US I can't vote in the elections, but Bush isnt who I'd vote for. I'm not saying that Kerry is much better tho, I think they should have picked Dean instead.

i am a staunch ABB girl

john kerry could have spent xmas '68 in a brothel in saigon and i wouldnt hesitate to vote for him over the man who lied to get us into a war.

whoever made the poll and said that kerry is the 'lesser of two evils' thereby causing us to vote reluctantly, is a fool, and probably a sad, sad repuke.

John Kerry is the only hope that the USA has, four more years of Bush and god knows what could happen.

I'd like to know what the hell you think a republican's going to do for the country anyway.

Good things only happen under democrat.

Al contrar! You are a fool! While repuiblican is obviously the best party, Bush has served his time and done the job he needs to do, Kerry is more fiscally responsible, and therefore the "lesser of two evils". I applaud the inteligence of the creator of the poll...THANKS

If I could vote, I'd vote kerry, not old enough.

whoever made the poll and said that kerry is the 'lesser of two evils' thereby causing us to vote reluctantly, is a fool, and probably a sad, sad repuke.

John Kerry is the only hope that the USA has, four more years of Bush and god knows what could happen.

I'd like to know what the hell you think a republican's going to do for the country anyway.

Good things only happen under democrat.

I made the poll, I just feel he's the lesser of the two evils. The last good thing that benefitted a majority of people under a republican was.... Oh wait. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Al contrar! You are a fool! While repuiblican is obviously the best party, Bush has served his time and done the job he needs to do, Kerry is more fiscally responsible, and therefore the "lesser of two evils". I applaud the inteligence of the creator of the poll...THANKS
the republicans USED to be the best party
back when they were fiscal conservatives
back when they wanted to balance the budget. remember when an ammendment to require a balanced budget was always a part of the republican platform?

Kerry (although my first choice was Clark, but he lost). There hasn't been a good Republican president since Lincoln, and since then only Eisenhower and Ford have been even mediocre. Interesting fact: Since 1932, there have been 18 elections, and the Democrats won 11 of them. I don't know about before then. And have the Republicans ever won 5 in a row?

are you counting 2000?

I'm not in america either, but if i was, it might depend on which state i was in. If I actually thought my vote would make a difference (ie, in a swing state), I'd probably vote democrat. If i was in a strongly democrat/strongly republican state, I'd probably vote for a third party. not sure who though.

As a Democratic win? Yes.

Al contrar! You are a fool! While repuiblican is obviously the best party, Bush has served his time and done the job he needs to do, Kerry is more fiscally responsible, and therefore the "lesser of two evils". I applaud the inteligence of the creator of the poll...THANKS

I see Bush as the "lesser of two evils," while Kerry is a wealth-redistributing Socialist from the Northeast. If you consider him to be "fiscally responsible," you probably also think guns kill people and alcohol makes people drink.

As a Democratic win? Yes.

Get over it already. Gore lost. Even after three independent recounts, Bush was the winner.

What a bunch of babies!

Get over it already. Gore lost. Even after three independent recounts, Bush was the winner.

What a bunch of babies!

Actually, it was Gore that won.

I'm green all the way mostly because both candidates are two sides of the same coin

I see Bush as the "lesser of two evils," while Kerry is a wealth-redistributing Socialist from the Northeast. If you consider him to be "fiscally responsible," you probably also think guns kill people and alcohol makes people drink.

Well, there was a problem in the 1920's called "concentration of wealth", it lead to this thing called "The Great Depression".

And the defintion of Socialism is this

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

I dont think Kerry has advocating anything like that.

I dont see how Bush's deficits, which were a direct result of tax cuts, make him fiscally responsible. And did you benefit from the Bush tax cuts? I know for a fact my family did, as the reason my stepmom is going to vote for him again, kerry is going to roll back the tax cuts. My dad is voting for Kerry.

I'm green all the way mostly because both candidates are two sides of the same coin

People like you are the reason Bush is president. :p

I see Bush as the "lesser of two evils," while Kerry is a wealth-redistributing Socialist from the Northeast. If you consider him to be "fiscally responsible," you probably also think guns kill people and alcohol makes people drink.
Alcohol does make you drink, its called alcoholics :)

Actually Gore lost only because it wasn't a state wide recount, a state wide recount showed that Gore won by a landslide. But Bush's people wouldn't allow that so he settled for the ones he did and so you "think" he lost.
Supreme Court over confused gave it to Bush.

Alcohol does make you drink, its called alcoholics :)

Actually Gore lost only because it wasn't a state wide recount, a state wide recount showed that Gore won by a landslide. But Bush's people wouldn't allow that so he settled for the ones he did and so you "think" he lost.
Supreme Court over confused gave it to Bush.

Perfectly stated.

When has a state-wide recount ever shown that Gore "won by a landslide"?

Actually, it was Gore that won.
You know that the US is and always has been operating on the electoral college system, right?

Actually Gore lost only because it wasn't a state wide recount, a state wide recount showed that Gore won by a landslide. But Bush's people wouldn't allow that so he settled for the ones he did and so you "think" he lost.
Supreme Court over confused gave it to Bush.
No, the recounts were initially started by Gore in counties like Miami-Dade that had large democratic majorities because he thought he could milk out the maximum number of Democratic votes in a recount process while minimizing the amount of gained Republican votes.

I see Bush as the "lesser of two evils," while Kerry is a wealth-redistributing Socialist from the Northeast. If you consider him to be "fiscally responsible," you probably also think guns kill people and alcohol makes people drink.
you really think he is going to be worse than the biggest deficits in US history?
the only others who have come close have been bush 1 and mr reagan
so much for fiscally responsible republicans
they talk big but when they got their chance, they made the democrats look like amateurs.

No, the recounts were initially started by Gore in counties like Miami-Dade that had large democratic majorities because he thought he could milk out the maximum number of Democratic votes in a recount process while minimizing the amount of gained Republican votes.

True but it has been checked a statwide recount showe Gore winning, but Gore didn't get a statewide one (might be too big looking) so he only could go with democrat ones (a lttle shifty maybe).
Look it up a statewide recount gave Gore a victory: you will most likely instead check about those Miami-Dade areas but check out statewide, big difference.
Even a republican in Virginia Pilot says in a statewide recount he would win. Many other magazines even ones for Bush say Statewide recount would have given it to Gore. If both Conservatives and democrats say it would have given Gore victory, its pretty likely.

no, see, gore won, but he was a pussy and did nothing to prevent dubya from being appointed by the supreme court. A state-wide recount of florida would have made all the differnce, but that nazified theocratical freak jeb Bush is governor.

Do you guys have anything to back up the fact that Gore would have won in a normal recount state-wide?

And no, BastardSword, there was no attempt to try to not make Florida 2000 a big thing, Gore said he'd do anything to win, did he not. If he wanted a statewide recount, he should have gotten one before he decided to go only democratic counties. No matter how lame of an excuse you can come up with for Gore not going for it (Making it too big looking? How much bigger can Florida 2000 get), the fact of the matter is he didn't.

True but it has been checked a statwide recount showe Gore winning, but Gore didn't get a statewide one (might be too big looking) so he only could go with democrat ones (a lttle shifty maybe).
Look it up a statewide recount gave Gore a victory: you will most likely instead check about those Miami-Dade areas but check out statewide, big difference.
Even a republican in Virginia Pilot says in a statewide recount he would win. Many other magazines even ones for Bush say Statewide recount would have given it to Gore. If both Conservatives and democrats say it would have given Gore victory, its pretty likely.

You previously stated that a statewide recount showed that Gore would have won by a landslide. Please post a link to news of when such a recount was done and what its results were, or else kindly shut the fuck up.

Personally, I am glad Bush won. At least he DID something about 9/11, Gore would have sat on his behind and talked it to death.

I will vote Bush this year because he has proven himself able to act quickly and effectivly in a crisis situation. I don't want another 'bay of pigs', nor do I want another 'nam or korea debacle. I don't want the dems in charge when we will need decisive actions.

Besides, Kerry is a wishy-washy politician. I don't care about his stupid record, or what he actually did or did not do during 'nam. He is fundamentally incapable of staying on one side of any topic. I will not vote for anyone who cannot make a decision, and stand by it.

W

I'll vote for Kerry, despite my misgivings.

I hope the Republican Party someday realizes the danger in backing the wrong horse. They don't even LIKE Bush! The only reason they are putting him up is because he's the incumbent.

I would have voted for McCain over Kerry. Without hesitation.

I'll vote for Kerry, despite my misgivings.

I hope the Republican Party someday realizes the danger in backing the wrong horse. They don't even LIKE Bush! The only reason they are putting him up is because he's the incumbent.

I would have voted for McCain over Kerry. Without hesitation.

You speak for a lot of people when you say that Republicans don't like Bush. Either way, i'd rather have someone in office wo knows how to make decisions and get the damn job done.

i am a staunch ABB girl

john kerry could have spent xmas '68 in a brothel in saigon and i wouldnt hesitate to vote for him over the man who lied to get us into a war.


Well, according to the wisdom on this board, the majority of US presidents have conspired to drag the US into war. So Bush is, according to the wise men on this board, no different than any other US president. Funny how the anti-American logic seems to twist itself around, isn't it?


And no, I'm not voting for Bush. I didn't vote for him in 2000, either!

You speak for a lot of people when you say that Republicans don't like Bush. Either way, i'd rather have someone in office wo knows how to make decisions and get the damn job done.

Me too. :) So we're agreed that we shouldn't vote for Bush?

Me too. :) So we're agreed that we shouldn't vote for Bush?

I guess you don't have the intelligence to infer that I am staunchly for Bush. A pity, especially since I said so just a few posts ago.

I guess you don't have the intelligence to infer that I am staunchly for Bush. A pity, especially since I said so just a few posts ago.

Yeah, that's it. I'm just dense. I wasn't able to infer your choice, and I'm far too unintelligent to play around with your words.

By the way, I'm doing it again. :)

Personally, I am glad Bush won. At least he DID something about 9/11, Gore would have sat on his behind and talked it to death.

Please justify this with something that at least remotely resembles truth.

I will vote Bush this year because he has proven himself able to act quickly and effectivly in a crisis situation.

Yeah... continue reading My Pet Goat and hope that you're just having another cocaine withdrawel induced nightmare.

I don't want another 'bay of pigs', nor do I want another 'nam or korea debacle.

It doesn't matter what you want. Look at Iraq today: that's what we have, an ongoing war to "liberate" a people who do not want us there.

I don't want the dems in charge when we will need decisive actions.

Yeah if Gore had been in office like the majority of voters wanted we might have caught Osama a while back, and then where would our excuse to attack Iraq be?

Besides, Kerry is a wishy-washy politician. I don't care about his stupid record, or what he actually did or did not do during 'nam. He is fundamentally incapable of staying on one side of any topic. I will not vote for anyone who cannot make a decision, and stand by it.

Like the decision to do what it takes to bring Osama to justice, a person that Bush doesn't even think about that much anymore? Or Bush's pre-election position that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide about? See the Bush flip-flop thread for plenty more.

Personally I would rather have a leader who can change his mind than one who believes his own desicions are infallible. But apparently some "Americans" would rather have a "strong" (afraid to admit mistakes) leader (demogogue) who will "weigh" all the information (from those hand-picked to tell him what he wants to hear) before rushing into action with what he had already decided to do before being briefed.

Personally, I am glad Bush won. At least he DID something about 9/11, Gore would have sat on his behind and talked it to death.

I will vote Bush this year because he has proven himself able to act quickly and effectivly in a crisis situation. I don't want another 'bay of pigs', nor do I want another 'nam or korea debacle. I don't want the dems in charge when we will need decisive actions.

Besides, Kerry is a wishy-washy politician. I don't care about his stupid record, or what he actually did or did not do during 'nam. He is fundamentally incapable of staying on one side of any topic. I will not vote for anyone who cannot make a decision, and stand by it.


"at least Bush DId something." - Ok. Let's look at what he did. He engaged in a war on terrorism with world support (GOOD IDEA), then invaded Iraq (which had NOTHING to do with attacks on US) alienating the world support that was with us (MAJORLY BAD IDEA).

"I don't want another Bay of Pigs" - Ummmmmmm, have you seen Iraq lately???? How many people died in the bay?????? How many have died since king George declared victory???????

"Kerry is wishy washy" - And king George is not???? He has changed his mind plenty. In fact, if you actually look at the freakin issues instead of listening to propoganda, you see that the person REALLY flip-flopping is BUSH. Kerry has stood by his principles. Let me give you an example: The Iraq war. Bush said he flip flopped cause he voted to give the crimminal Bush authorization to invade (as a final course of action) and then voted against funding. This is untrue. Kerry actually supported the same bill to fund troops, he just thought it was wrong that the poorest Americans pay for it while the Rich get off scott free. He wanted the oil revenues to pay for it, but they went to Haliburton.

Check the facts. According to your own values, you should vote for Kerry.

I'll vote for Kerry, despite my misgivings.

I hope the Republican Party someday realizes the danger in backing the wrong horse. They don't even LIKE Bush! The only reason they are putting him up is because he's the incumbent.

I would have voted for McCain over Kerry. Without hesitation.

Me too. I like the man. I think he could have brought credibility to the white house, as well as strong leadership. But the republican party doesnt want that. It offends their extremist backers. If you don't believe me, check out the RNC platform.

Yes, I am a liberal, but I like McCain. I would vote for him, as would an overwhelming majority of the country.

I would rather have McCain as a choice. He would be a great president, up near Clinton, FDR, TR, and Lincoln. I know my support of clinton is going to backfire on the trolls, but it will only give me a reason to ignore them by utilizing that feature.

Personally, I am glad Bush won. At least he DID something about 9/11, Gore would have sat on his behind and talked it to death.

I will vote Bush this year because he has proven himself able to act quickly and effectivly in a crisis situation. I don't want another 'bay of pigs', nor do I want another 'nam or korea debacle. I don't want the dems in charge when we will need decisive actions.

Besides, Kerry is a wishy-washy politician. I don't care about his stupid record, or what he actually did or did not do during 'nam. He is fundamentally incapable of staying on one side of any topic. I will not vote for anyone who cannot make a decision, and stand by it.

that would be much more convincing if mr bush had been successful with what he has done since 9/11. he blew the hell out of afghanistan. an ugly regime for sure but one that really didnt do anything to us. they had the alqaida bases that needed to be attacked to get bin laden. if we had gotten bin laden, it would have been great. bush gave up on that and moved to another little adventure when our public enemy #1 was still at large. i still want bin laden, dont you? dont you wish he was our focus right now?

you dont want another vietnam; neither do i. how are we going to get out of iraq? is it going to be 54,000 dead soldiers from now? this war that we shouldnt have gone into alone has been mismanaged. how are we going to FIX what we have screwed up?

i understand that kerry isnt everyone's cup of tea. i respect that you have a difference of opinion as to what makes a good president. personally i would prefer a man who would change his mind when he has made a colossal mistake.

You speak for a lot of people when you say that Republicans don't like Bush. Either way, i'd rather have someone in office wo knows how to make decisions and get the damn job done.

So would I... hey! Maybe once he wins we will finally manage to capture Osama.

he blew the hell out of afghanistan. an ugly regime for sure but one that really didnt do anything to us.
The Taliban harbored and supported Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were seen together in videos talking about things like 9/11 and other acts of terrorism, they were more closely linked to Al-Qaeda than not.

So would I... hey! Maybe once he wins we will finally manage to capture Osama.

Osama is going to be "captured" close to election time.

John Kerry is on a different level than George W. Bush intellectually. I think America should REALLY stop and think hard. I am confident that if Americans just stopped and considered before choosing, they'd pick Kerry.

After all, what is the point of being decisive if most of your decisions turn out to be wrong? o.O

Well I picked Bush because he's the better choice, although my real opinion is more of Bush, because he's the lesser of two evils....

ANOTHER ONE AHHH...:headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang:


This will be my reply to all future Bush or Kerry polls

Well, there was a problem in the 1920's called "concentration of wealth", it lead to this thing called "The Great Depression".

And the defintion of Socialism is this



I dont think Kerry has advocating anything like that.

I dont see how Bush's deficits, which were a direct result of tax cuts, make him fiscally responsible. And did you benefit from the Bush tax cuts? I know for a fact my family did, as the reason my stepmom is going to vote for him again, kerry is going to roll back the tax cuts. My dad is voting for Kerry.

Ah... More revisionism... I love it. So, now you people are saying that a "concentration of wealth" lead to the Great Depression. Not quite... Try again.

That's exactly what Kerry is advocating. For "systems of social organization," they're pushing for tighter controls on corporations relegating them to social entities rather than capitalist enterprises. To some extent, they attempted to socialize our military under the Clinton regime. And, look at what these fools believe regarding "a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That's exactly what they believe. In a capitalist economy, the government actually has very little control over the economy, and that's a good thing! The government doesn't do much of anything well. To give them control over our economic institutions would infuse the mediocrity of stalemate bureaucracies into the "private sector." It doesn't work, and it wouldn't work no matter what.

It's the Democratic Socialist agenda! People are just too ignorant, apathetic and foolish to see it. That's a direct result of our Socialized educational system. Relegate the subjects to lower standards of education under the false pretense of "fairness" and "equality", and trick them into believing that the government has the answer to everything. I don't buy into that! I'm the answer to all of my problems!!! I don't want an overbearing government providing the "lowest common denominator" answer to my problems. The "lowest common denominator" answer typically isn't good enough for me anyway!

The tax cut was a jump start for the economy. Like it or not, it has worked. BooHooHoo! We have a little deficit spending. It isn't going to kill us. Don't forget that we're in the middle of some notable military action. Our spending is temporarily inflated to deal with expenses that we wouldn't ordinarily have to deal with. Eventually, we'll get back to another balanced budget.

I love the fact that jk's biggest campain issue is that he is, in fact, not George Bush

Alcohol does make you drink, its called alcoholics :)

Actually Gore lost only because it wasn't a state wide recount, a state wide recount showed that Gore won by a landslide. But Bush's people wouldn't allow that so he settled for the ones he did and so you "think" he lost.
Supreme Court over confused gave it to Bush.

Ah... another revisionist strategy. If you tell the same lie long enough, you'll eventually believe it as truth. Gore lost. There was no "landslide" as you say. The recounts in the most contended counties proved that Bush was the winner. Get over it!

And, alcohol doesn't make anyone drink. It's time people start taking on a little personal responsibility for a change rather than blame inanimate objects. Don't you think???

you really think he is going to be worse than the biggest deficits in US history?
the only others who have come close have been bush 1 and mr reagan
so much for fiscally responsible republicans
they talk big but when they got their chance, they made the democrats look like amateurs.

Another nice try... Actually, if you just look back over the last 12 years, you'll see something. Clinton campaigned as being "fiscally responsible" and claimed that there would be an end to "gridlock" between the executive and legislative branches. He took office with a Democrat majority in the House AND Senate. They still couldn't balance the budget!!! Even with all of the power, they ran up deficits UNTIL the Republicans took the majority two years into his first term. The Republicans have held Congress ever since, and most of that time, they've pushed and passed balanced and surplus budgets.

So, as I said, nice try...

There you go again...

John Kerry is a euro-centric apologist who cares more what Europe thinks about US policy then what America thinks about American Policy. His vietnam record is contestable at best and his senatorial record shows a history of constant revising of his past and his stance on issues.

His fiscal policy is going to result in more taxes, bigger government and more social programs. He's opposed to the idea of reforming welfare and social security, makes interesting comments about revamping the intelligence system while he sits on the house intelligence committee. He missed 76% of the Intelligence Committee hearings, almost all of those were the private classified meetings where the press was not allowed, however he was present for all the public meetings where the press was present.

John Kerry is a liar. John Kerry betrayed American Veterans, John Kerry accused innocent people of war crimes after the vietnam war, and now refers to these one time 'war criminals' as his 'band of brothers'. Thats something of a change for a politician thats made a career out of raging against the Vietnam war.

John Kerry does not deserve your vote.

John Kerry hates America.

Kerry (although my first choice was Clark, but he lost). There hasn't been a good Republican president since Lincoln, and since then only Eisenhower and Ford have been even mediocre. Interesting fact: Since 1932, there have been 18 elections, and the Democrats won 11 of them. I don't know about before then. And have the Republicans ever won 5 in a row?

First of all, choosing 1932 is such a biased year to choose, being that FDR won in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. four free wins. But let's look here, looking at the entire span of the Republican party:

1860: Abraham Lincoln (R)
1864: Abraham Lincoln (R)
1868: Ulysses S. Grant (R)
1872: Ulysses S. Grant (R)
1876: Rutherford B Hayes (R)<-He was in office, so I'll write him here.
1880: James Garfield (R)
1884: Grover Cleveland (D)
1888: Benjamin Harrison (R)
1892: Grover Cleveland (D)
1896: William McKinley (R)
1900: William McKinley (R)
1904: Theodore Roosevelt (R)
1908: William Howard Taft (R)
1912: Woodrow Wilson (D)
1916: Woodrow Wilson (D)
1920: Warren G Harding (R)
1924: Calvin Coolidge (R)
1928: Herbert Hoover (R)
1932: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
1936: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
1944: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
1948: Harry S Truman (D)
1952: Dwight D Eisenhower (R)
1956: Dwight D Eisenhower (R)
1960: John F Kennedy (D)
1964: Lyndon Baines Johnson (D)
1968: Richard Milhous Nixon (R)
1972: Richard Milhous Nixon (R)
1976: James Earl Carter (D)
1980: Ronald Reagan (R)
1984: Ronald Reagan (R)
1988: George H. W. Bush (R)
1992: William J Clinton (D)
1998: William J Clinton (D)
2000: George W. Bush (R) <- he's in office, so I'll write him here.

If I check, that brings it to:
without 1876 or 2000 counting in either direction:
R- 20 (22 if you properly credit those two elections)
D- 14

Paints a slightly different picture, doesn't it?

As for the five wins in a row, you're right. Republicans pulled it off SIX times in a row, 1860-1880.

Ah... More revisionism... I love it. So, now you people are saying that a "concentration of wealth" lead to the Great Depression. Not quite... Try again.

That's exactly what Kerry is advocating. For "systems of social organization," they're pushing for tighter controls on corporations relegating them to social entities rather than capitalist enterprises. To some extent, they attempted to socialize our military under the Clinton regime. And, look at what these fools believe regarding "a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That's exactly what they believe. In a capitalist economy, the government actually has very little control over the economy, and that's a good thing! The government doesn't do much of anything well. To give them control over our economic institutions would infuse the mediocrity of stalemate bureaucracies into the "private sector." It doesn't work, and it wouldn't work no matter what.

It's the Democratic Socialist agenda! People are just too ignorant, apathetic and foolish to see it. That's a direct result of our Socialized educational system. Relegate the subjects to lower standards of education under the false pretense of "fairness" and "equality", and trick them into believing that the government has the answer to everything. I don't buy into that! I'm the answer to all of my problems!!! I don't want an overbearing government providing the "lowest common denominator" answer to my problems. The "lowest common denominator" answer typically isn't good enough for me anyway!

The tax cut was a jump start for the economy. Like it or not, it has worked. BooHooHoo! We have a little deficit spending. It isn't going to kill us. Don't forget that we're in the middle of some notable military action. Our spending is temporarily inflated to deal with expenses that we wouldn't ordinarily have to deal with. Eventually, we'll get back to another balanced budget.


I wrote a report on the great depression for school.

These Polls keep disappearing, I thought I left mine open until after Nov 07-04
we need one official Poll. We cant combine these Polls because we dont know
who voted for whom.
Milatary Nazy
Weapons Weapons Santa-
INC Virus Katha Nita
!. George W Bush - Republican 07-29.17 11-42.31 30-37.50 43-31.90
2. John Kerry - Democrat 11-45.83 14-53.85 37-46.25 56-40.88
3. Ralph Nader - Independent 03-12.50 01-03.85 xx-xx.xx 19-13.87
4. Michael Badnarik - libertarian xx-xx.xx xx-xx.xx xx-xx.xx 12-08.76
5. Others, or Third Partys 03.12.50 xx-xx.xx 10-12.50 07-05.11
6. Im not telling you xx-xx.xx xx-xx.xx 03-03.75 xx-xx.xx
_________________________________________________________________7. Totals 24 26 80 137

What happend to my nice set up, I had everything lined up nice and clear,
I hit submit reply and it took it all out of line up, will keep trying, can any one
explain that, please telegram us.

I wrote a report on the great depression for school.

Where did you do your research... the Clinton Library???

:D

No. Infotrac.

What happend to my nice set up, I had everything lined up nice and clear,
I hit submit reply and it took it all out of line up, will keep trying, can any one
explain that, please telegram us.


use the code command