Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Hey, congratulations Pat.
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 23 07:18:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You are a real jackass.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 08:20:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  He may or may not be right about Chavez, but I think he just lost the right to call himself a Christian man of god.
I always thought he was a little wacko anyway.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 23 08:38:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm with you on this one, hif.
The amount of sway this guy has (and other televangelists) with the right wing of the republican party would scare me if I was a moderate republican.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 23 09:55:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's guys like this that fuck up a lot of the credibility that the Republican party has.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 10:46:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's guys like this that fuck up a lot of the credibility that the Republican party has.
>
True, but all parties have them.
The dems have Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Cynthia Kinney, Sheila Lee Jackson. Not sure about the spellings.
Both parties have their extremist wings, and both parties will claim the other has been hi-jacked by their extremist wing.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 23 10:49:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ted Kennedy doesn't openly call for deaths.

The other day Pat Robertson (99% sure it was him), on his show was praying for the death of a Supreme Court Justice.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 10:56:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Ted Kennedy doesn't openly call for deaths.
>
True, he just causes them.




 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 23 11:19:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>Ted Kennedy doesn't openly call for deaths.
>>
>True, he just causes them.
>
>

LOL


And it would have been nice if you put Hillary Clinton in that list. *shudder*


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 23 11:32:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>Ted Kennedy doesn't openly call for deaths.
>>
>True, he just causes them.

Sorry, forgot what side I'm on.

Damn chowda-eatin fatty.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 11:38:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Meshuggah said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Zacq said:
>>>Ted Kennedy doesn't openly call for deaths.
>>>
>>True, he just causes them.
>>
>>
>
>LOL
>
>
>And it would have been nice if you put Hillary Clinton in that list. *shudder*
>
Haven't you heard, she's a moderate now !
LOL


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 23 11:41:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Haven't you heard, she's a moderate now

Getting ready three years in advance apparently.

I heard an incredibly vague rumor of McCain/Biden or Biden/McCain for '08. One can only dream.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 12:32:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Haven't you heard, she's a moderate now
>
>Getting ready three years in advance apparently.
>
>I heard an incredibly vague rumor of McCain/Biden or Biden/McCain for '08. One can only dream.
>
I'm hoping for the Cheney/Rice ticket, but I don't think it will happen.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 23 13:12:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A McCain with Rice sounds tasty. No Cheney though. Gives me Heartburn.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 23 13:21:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I'm hoping for the Cheney/Rice ticket, but I don't think it will happen.

So am I (assured victory for the dems)
: )

Actually it won't really matter who runs on the republican ticket in 08. The republican party is digging their own grave now for the next presidential election. We'll actually start seeing that come true in the upcoming mid-term elections. The country has already handed them the keys for 5 years and they've made a fine mess of things.

ifihadahif said:
>True, he just causes them.

You must be referring to Bush with that statement. I can give you over 1700 names of Americans he's ultimately responsible for killing. How many specific names can you give me for Kennedy? Mary Jo Kopechne? I'll concede that..but that's only one, and it was an accident. There was nothing accidental about the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq...which grows longer day by day.

And I'd take Cynthia McKinney any day over Pat Robertson and all the other nut cases associated with the right wing of your party. She has some far left opinions, but at least she attempts to use some rational thought backing them up. Your right wing moralists are just plain loony.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 23 13:48:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I'm hoping for the Cheney/Rice ticket, but I don't think it will happen.
>
>So am I (assured victory for the dems)
>: )

I don't think Cheney/Rice could win, because Cheney has too many health problems and a little too scary seeming for president (though the right amount for vice), and I doubt, as horrible as it is, that a black woman could get elected right now, especially with a running mate who I don't feel would be particularly strong.

>We'll actually start seeing that come true in the upcoming mid-term elections. The country has already handed them the keys for 5 years and they've made a fine mess of things.

I personally think that the population's votes for mid-term elections aren't affected by administrations because frankly most people don't pay attention to politics enough to make a connection. And the incumbency rate is ninetey whatever percent anyway.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 23 14:08:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:

>I personally think that the population's votes for mid-term elections aren't affected by administrations because frankly most people don't pay attention to politics enough to make a connection. And the incumbency rate is ninetey whatever percent anyway.

Valid points my friend. Let me amend my statement. Since 2000 the voting pendulum has been swinging to the right here. I think the next elections will demonstrate that the right momentum has come to a halt. By 2008 it will demonstrate a swing back to the left.

Of course, being the student of history that I am, after a few years of peace, prosperity, and sanity in the White House Americans will once again get a taste for blood and ignorance in their system and we'll have deja vu all over again : )


 
beetlebum Posted: Tue Aug 23 14:41:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Addi said:
>Of course, being the student of history that I am, after a few years of peace, prosperity, and sanity in the White House Americans will once again get a taste for blood and ignorance in their system and we'll have deja vu all over again : )

Aint that the sorry truth.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 14:59:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I'm hoping for the Cheney/Rice ticket, but I don't think it will happen.
>
>So am I (assured victory for the dems)
>: )
>
>Actually it won't really matter who runs on the republican ticket in 08. The republican party is digging their own grave now for the next presidential election.
>
What logic is that?
Does that mean that Clinton dug the grave for the Dems ?
>
>ifihadahif said:
>>True, he just causes them.
>
>You must be referring to Bush with that statement. I can give you over 1700 names of Americans he's ultimately responsible for killing. How many specific names can you give me for Kennedy? Mary Jo Kopechne? I'll concede that..but that's only one, and it was an accident. There was nothing accidental about the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq...which grows longer day by day.
>
He supported this war dude.
And no one really believes it was an accident.

>And I'd take Cynthia McKinney any day over Pat Robertson and all the other nut cases associated with the right wing of your party. She has some far left opinions, but at least she attempts to use some rational thought backing them up. Your right wing moralists are just plain loony.
>
I wouldn't give you a nickel for either one of them, but Pat Robertson is not a member of congress.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 23 15:20:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Does that mean that Clinton dug the grave for the Dems ?

Ofcourse it does.

I mean, which president gets a blowjob and lives to tell the tale!

Christ himself would be turning in his grave if he heard it!

Or rising from it. Or whatever.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 23 15:39:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>What logic is that?
Does that mean that Clinton dug the grave for the Dems ?

His shannigans in the oval office certaintly didn't help the democrats, bless his little heart and needy dick.

>I wouldn't give you a nickel for either one of them, but Pat Robertson is not a member of congress.

And who do you think has more of the voting populace under his/her spell? Mr. Robertson influences and reaches ten times more people than a black district congresswoman from Georgia does.

*I'm trying hard not to be bitchy. How am I doing?




 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 23 16:09:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>*I'm trying hard not to be bitchy. How am I doing?
>
>


Pretty good.



And now, in case I don't make it another day, I bid farewell.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 16:31:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>And who do you think has more of the voting populace under his/her spell? Mr. Robertson influences and reaches ten times more people than a black district congresswoman from Georgia does.
>
>*I'm trying hard not to be bitchy. How am I doing?
>
Umm, Mr. Robertson doesn't sit on any congressional committees and has no power to enact legislation. He has maybe 1/10th the power of any black district congresswoman from Georgia.
And after this last episode, I'm pretty sure that his "power" is fading, not that I believed he ever had that much in the first place.
I don't think the "evangelical vote" counted for as much as you might think.


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 23 17:34:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I don't think the "evangelical vote" counted for as much as you might think.

Ahem...take a look at the breakdowns of both the 2000 and 2004 elections and look at the results on the voting of millions of evangelicals at the polls. Without their ardent support in those elections he would have lost both races.

Pardon the pun, but it made a HELL of a lot of difference.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 23 22:26:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think you're equating evangelicals with the average churchgoer.
I know a helluva lot of folks that voted for Bush and not an evangelical among them, just some of them are average churchgoers.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Aug 24 01:03:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Republicans have lost a lottt of support on No Child Left Behind. Teachers and staff hate it. It creates unrealistic tests and goals for students. It holds special education kids up to the exact same requirements, including testing scores, as non-special ed kids. Schools are withheld funding if they to meet the requirements, but if they completely fail, they get a little more but not enough to be of use. And states and districts are being fronted with the bill. The Connecticut Board of Ed is suing the federal government over it, saying "You want us to do this all this crap, you pay for it."

The idea of it is sound, especially in states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and all the other ones that need the aid and the goals, but if they aren't doing it by themselves, telling what to do without the help isn't cutting it.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Aug 24 01:08:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And Pat Robertson is an ass.
A year or 2 ago, when Venezula had a little coup and ousted Chavez for a bit, Pat said We should step in a help his sorry ass.
Also:
"[H]e's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."

Communism does not equal Islam. Never ever never ever. And while Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World, Catholicism is damn strong and isn't going anywhere in South America.
Pat R. = Asshat.


 
HSolo216 Posted: Wed Aug 24 01:22:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>millions of evangelicals at the polls. >


I wish. I think of an evangelical as a person with so deep a relationship with God that they cannot help but to share the great news of Jesus Christ. Maybe we are thinking of different people, but in my mind an evangelical doesn't get his ideas from a televangelist, instead he/she finds inspiration from The Holy Bible.

Actually, my friends and I were flipping channels and caught the end of the 700 Club on Monday night. We were shocked. I thought he was going to say that he had a man stationed in Venezuela and to tune in tomorrow night to see if his mission was successful.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 24 01:37:29 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>The Connecticut Board of Ed is suing the federal government over it, saying "You want us to do this all this crap, you pay for it."

Darn tootin'. Normally our teachers try to be unbiased (not doing a very good job though) but they openly mock The (No) Child Left Behind Act.

My favorite part of the act is where if a school is deemed inadequate it loses funding for all the students, and ends up killing off enrichment activities and whatnot.


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 24 08:58:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  HSolo216 said:

>I wish. I think of an evangelical as a person with so deep a relationship with God that they cannot help but to share the great news of Jesus Christ. Maybe we are thinking of different people, but in my mind an evangelical doesn't get his ideas from a televangelist, instead he/she finds inspiration from The Holy Bible.

You'll have to forgive me, HSolo, I can't remember where you call home. I know that labeling yourself as an "evangelical" means different things depending on where you live in the world. I am speaking in general terms, and I am speaking of America, primarily the south and bible belt of the midwest.
I grew up in an evangelical environment. George Whitefield began the evangelical movement in america back in the early 18th century (called The Great Awakening in our history books). Since then it's taken on different doctrines depending on where you live here. I won't bore you with too many details, but the term "Fundamentalist" came from a publication printed in the 1920's (in response to the liberal "modernists" that had strayed away from biblical innerancy brought to a head by the Scopes Trial). Although there are some exceptions the majority of Evangelicals have openly embraced the tenets of fundamentalism since that time. I know it's a bit fuzzy. It's like calling yourself a Christian, it has different meanings to different people. For example, in the Evangelical Free church I grew up in it was debated whether Catholics and Episcopalians were truely "Christians". No joke.

Today, for all pracical purposes, the distinction between Evangelical believers and Fundamentalists is practically non-exisistant. They adhere to the basic doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, Christ's atonement and resurrection, the authenticity of miracles, and dispensationalism.

Soooooooo, my origonal point was that election break down studies done on the past two elections shows without question that those calling themselves Evangelicals supported the Republican ticket...and because both elections were so close I feel justified in stating that without the support of this large block of voters Bush would not have won either election.
If anyone here has any data suggesting otherwise I would love to see it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 12:56:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Soooooooo, my origonal point was that election break down studies done on the past two elections shows without question that those calling themselves Evangelicals supported the Republican ticket...and because both elections were so close I feel justified in stating that without the support of this large block of voters Bush would not have won either election.
>
Those elections were so close that you could break out almost any block of voters and it would have been different, not just evangelicals.
How bout Black Republicans or Hispanic Republicans, or voters who are left-handed, or NRA members, etc.


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 24 14:49:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This is very true, hif. Point taken.

However (you knew that was coming, didn't you) if you take a look at the thread topic and posts following it's about Pat Robertson and the Christian right, and in particular I was writing about the effects of the Christian coalition on the elections. So my comments were focused on this group.
No one doubts that there are other blocks or groups of voters here that could have had an impact on the results.
I still believe today that Bush's outspoken evangelical beliefs are what ultimately got him in the White House.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 15:42:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>This is very true, hif. Point taken.
>
>I still believe today that Bush's outspoken evangelical beliefs are what ultimately got him in the White House.
>
I think that John Kerry's 3 purple hearts (that he didn't earn) and the swiftvets are what got Bush into the White House more than anything else.

In the first election, no one really knew much about Bush, but Mr. Gore didn't help himself at all.


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 24 16:27:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I think that John Kerry's 3 purple hearts (that he didn't earn) and the swiftvets are what got Bush into the White House more than anything else.


Mr. Rove would be smiling if he read this, and thinking...
"Yes, my swiftboat propaganda worked on yet another gullible voter."




 
Mesh Posted: Wed Aug 24 16:30:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not knowledgeable on the whole Kerry in Vietnam thing. How does one receive a purple heart without being injured?

I'm being serious too, not trying to be an ass.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 16:41:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Meshuggah said:
>I'm not knowledgeable on the whole Kerry in Vietnam thing. How does one receive a purple heart without being injured?
>
>I'm being serious too, not trying to be an ass.
>
As commander of his own swiftboat, he wrote his own recommendations.
To be fair, he did receive some medical attention but in less than 4 months he got 3 purple hearts and never had to miss a day's work.
His medical attention consisted mostly of band aids and gauze and tape, one for a superficial wound on his arm. One for actually getting shrapnel in his ass from his own grenade.
A lot of guys would have done the same thing if they had the opportunity, because you get to go home if you get 3 documented injuries, but this jackass tried to pass it off as an exemplary war record when he ran for prez.


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 24 17:40:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This is really water under the bridge at this point, but you have a lot of nerve even bringing up Kerry's service record. You're entitled to your own opinion regarding his purple hearts, but at least he was there, representing our country in combat situations. He could have wiggled his way out of serving easily.
Bush, meanwhile got a powerful friend to pull some strings and get him into the Texas National Guard, and he even managed to be abscent for part of his duty there.
The unmitigated gall of Republicans to trash Kerry on that topic and defend the valor of Bush's service record astounds me.
I remember just about puking when i saw the video of Dubya landing on the aircraft carrier in a flight uniform and saluting the troops under the banner "Mission Accomplished".




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 17:45:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>This is really water under the bridge at this point, but you have a lot of nerve even bringing up Kerry's service record. You're entitled to your own opinion regarding his purple hearts, but at least he was there, representing our country in combat situations. He could have wiggled his way out of serving easily.
>Bush, meanwhile got a powerful friend to pull some strings and get him into the Texas National Guard, and he even managed to be abscent for part of his duty there.
>The unmitigated gall of Republicans to trash Kerry on that topic and defend the valor of Bush's service record astounds me.
no one brought it up but Kerry himself, otherwise it would have been a non-issue.
But as long as we're on the topic, Kerry tried to get a waiver but couldn't, that is the only reason he was there.
Bush did volunteer for service in Nam, but was turned down because the planes he was trained on were not in use over there.
>I remember just about puking when i saw the video of Dubya landing on the aircraft carrier in a flight uniform and saluting the troops under the banner "Mission Accomplished".
Why ?
Their mission was accomplished. Their mission was to topple the current regime in Iraq and that was done and done in record time with a record few casualties.
And Dubya did fly fighters in the guard and being jet qualified is no mean feat.
Would you impugn the service of our guardsmen ?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 24 18:10:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>or voters who are left-handed,

Damn straight. S'all I'm sayin'.

No joke. We control the world. I defy you to think of a single right-handed person who verifiably controls the world.

Sorry, I was going to make a conservative point but hif got to it first. This is what we're left with. You should be ashamed. I'm not sure what of.

I haven't slept in two days.

Chorktops.


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Aug 24 18:39:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Robertson had insisted he was misquoted claiming "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out'."

This is the best laugh I've had all day. I'm sorry, "take him out." To what? coffee, tea, perhaps a mid morning danish and maybe a bowl of chili.

Excuse me I need to go change my pants...I think I just peed myself...

Not that it matters...


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Aug 24 18:49:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I didn't say assassination,'' Robertson, 75, said today on his ``700 Club'' program. ``I said our special forces should `take him out.' Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping.''



``I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."


LOL



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 18:53:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>This is the best laugh I've had all day. I'm sorry, "take him out." To what? coffee, tea, perhaps a mid morning danish and maybe a bowl of chili.
>
to the ballgame


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:03:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Would you impugn the service of our guardsmen ?


that sentence makes me laugh

Hif, you're a lovable guy, but you're crazy. I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall whenever I have any debate with you on politics. You're so brainwashed by the tripe the conservative media puts out that you have lost the ability to think objectively on Bush.
I call a spade a spade. When a democrat screws up I admit it. You've can't even admit here that this administration has done one thing wrong...told even one lie to the public regarding the war (there's so many to choose from). They're perfect in your eyes.
It's truely senseless to even discuss these matters with you. I don't know why I continue. I must be a glutton for mental anguish.
: )


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:09:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I call a spade a spade. When a democrat screws up I admit it. You've can't even admit here that this administration has done one thing wrong...told even one lie to the public regarding the war (there's so many to choose from). They're perfect in your eyes.

Though sometimes it may seem that you support one lie with the supposed fact Bush lied about something else, and you support that lie with the fact he lied about the first one. One thing is a lie because it seems to have been accepted publically untrue which isn't necessarily reality and a moment later it means nothing for the public to apparently universally believe something.

If you're going to make general statements about 'lies' based on what has been concluded about them by some of the media, you're giving credibility to that way of thinking that you immediately reject when it's against the other side.

That was supposed to come out clearer.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:10:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Would you impugn the service of our guardsmen ?
>
>
>that sentence makes me laugh
>
>Hif, you're a lovable guy, but you're crazy. I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall whenever I have any debate with you on politics. You're so brainwashed by the tripe the conservative media puts out that you have lost the ability to think objectively on Bush.
>I call a spade a spade. When a democrat screws up I admit it. You've can't even admit here that this administration has done one thing wrong...told even one lie to the public regarding the war (there's so many to choose from). They're perfect in your eyes.
>It's truely senseless to even discuss these matters with you. I don't know why I continue. I must be a glutton for mental anguish.
>: )
Then why do you choose to defend Kerry's war record ?
And if you're not defending it, instead of agreeing with me on it, you instead bring up Dubya's war record.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:12:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry I'm going to try to take a few points out of that and say something more specific. You can't say Bush is lying about this because he clearly lied about something else, when a large part of your support of the other lie is how he lied on the current issue. Wait that's not more clear.

If hif wants to argue out whether to truly see if one of them was a lie before you use it to accept them all as lies, that's not being brainwashed. And the most commonly referred to set of Bush lies - those concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs - have defense against them I have rarely seen attacked.

Maybe that helps..?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:22:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Sorry I'm going to try to take a few points out of that and say something more specific. You can't say Bush is lying about this because he clearly lied about something else, when a large part of your support of the other lie is how he lied on the current issue. Wait that's not more clear.
>
>If hif wants to argue out whether to truly see if one of them was a lie before you use it to accept them all as lies, that's not being brainwashed. And the most commonly referred to set of Bush lies - those concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs - have defense against them I have rarely seen attacked.
>
>Maybe that helps..?

So, are you a Louisville Cardinal fan or not ?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:28:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So, are you a Louisville Cardinal fan or not ?

The last few years I've usually rooted for Louisville over any non Big East teams, so I wouldn't call myself a fan, but maybe a familiar acquaintance.

You've just gotta love Pitino's hair.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Aug 25 09:48:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And now the President lost his military support.
His commission of "Let's Save Money" just closed Walter Reed in Bethesda. That's where reservists and the like are getthing prosthetics. I've seen the one armed/legged veterans outside.

(From CNN)
"The Pentagon proposed closing or consolidating a record 62 major military bases and 775 smaller installations to save $48.8 billion over 20 years, streamline the services and reposition the armed forces."


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]