In fact, some people kill for a the designers or those who already the rounds of thrift shops. Undoubtedly much value is in an authentic Gucci Bags, or 15 years or 15 minutes old.Gucci Louis VuittonGucci Shoes and Louis Vuitton Shoes started with a small luggage and saddlery company in Florence, where they sell leather that are produced exclusively by artisans of Florence. The entitlement to seek international supportCustomer opens Discount Gucci Handbags Louis Vuitton Handbags i another company, this time in Via Condotti in Rome. Although very popular with Consumers, it was not until 1947 that the first Gucci UK and Louis Vuitton UK reached icon the state with the bag until you have a bamboo handle. The bag was introduced by Gucci Bags Discount, was a great success with the icon of the Gucci Shoulder Bag and Louis Vuitton BagBelt lines deriv>ed from the circle. The symbol LV of the tape strips is so special Louis Vuitton Outlet and so identified with Gucci products, whetherBags or clothing that has been done in a Brand .Another symbol of Gucci Purses and Louis Wallet was introduced some years after LV UK Moccasin handbag with metal spikes.Gucci Handbags Sale.fix it
Make tracks to the nearest lodge in this Columbia Sportswear alpine-inspired zip up Columbia Shoesfeatures the cozy look of a sweater outside and the comfort of soft fleece inside Columbia FEATURES No need to dodge raindropsOmni-ShieldColumbia Mens Shoes water-repellent finishColumbia Sportswear Clothing offers great protection from the elements Columbia Sportswear OutletFlattering seaming at the waist and front slant pockets Shaped fit Made of 100 polyester Heritage sweater fleece Omni-Shield advanced repellency Front slant pocketsColumbia Sportswear Parka Columbia Jackets ALPINE TRAX FULL ZIP Columbia Hiking Shoes Columbia Clothingsweaters Columbia Sportswear Jackets full zip jackets women s sweater Columbia Sportswear Titanium Columbia Sportswear Sale
ed hardy
Wedding Dresses

Links Of London
Lace Wigs.
ugg boots

Sergio-- agreed. I think the continued re-election of Republican mayors for NYC is indicitive of just how poor the Democrats are-- in NYC! Home of radical left-wing kooks (or so the rest of the country believes).

But, then, what do I know? I'll be casting my vote for CXB.

Nice exchanging ideas with you.

Anonymous-- nice exchanging them with you, as well. Take care, be well.

-ben

I used to vote Democrat almost exclusively. Over the past two elections I went with Nader, even though I knew he hadn't a chance in hell in winning. The reason for this is because I feel that the Democratic Party has completely lost touch with it's base. Now it's all about the same shit the Republicans are for, at least in the sense that it's all about those who have money. I'm sure there are good people still in the Democratic Party. But I agree with you that there needs to be a viable option. This won't happen until everyone stops believing that voting for a Democrat means real change. Sooner or later most liberals and/or progressives will wake up and smell the coffee concerning this.

One thing that could be done, although I honestly don't know how effective it would be, is for that Democratic base that feels it's being ignored is to actively and seriously support ANOTHER candidate that truly has it's interests at heart and stop falling for all this nonsense that you heard over that past two elections, i.e. "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". People have to make a choice. Are they more interested in "winning" (as if a Kerry victory would have made one bit of difference) or do they want real change, something different, something meaningful.

Another reason why I abdondoned the current Democratic Party for good was its response to Nader's run in 2000. When Bush won that election, I saw all kinds of screeds on the internet about Nader. Gems such as "Never trust an Arab" and "I hope one of those trees you tried to save falls on you and kills you" and "I hope you die"---this coming from so-called liberals and pacifists. It really revealed the true nature of some of these so called progressives.

Democrats have a chance this November here in NYC to show where they really stand as well. Let's see who wins the Mayoral race. One could say that Bloomberg is really a "democrat" running as a republican but I disagree. A lot of the contents of his very deep pockets have paid for (and he has contributed to) a lot of Bush's policies. If Bloomberg wins this election (which I fear he will) I will have to seriously wonder if NYC is truly a "blue" city---after all, if he wins, that means we would have had a republican mayor for 16 years. (and a republican governor for what...12 years now?) Sometimes I wonder whether or not the rhetoric coming from people's mouths are actually reflective of what goes on in the voting booth. With all these tyrades about republicans in this city, they always seem to be winning!

We deserve the truth. At the risk of sounding redundant, when media outlets just as this site jump on news stories about American misconduct such as the supposed flushing of pages from the Koran it has the responsibility to inform us when these allegations are proven to be false or from uncredible sources. Furthermore when these same media outlets are consistently presenting one side of the story (generally the anti-American side) I question their motives. I have not once stated that all Americans troops are virtuous or beyond reproach. Anyway, this will be be my last post as I have grown tired of these exchanges. It's apparent that we are not going to agree on this matter (or much else). No hard feeling and have a great life.

Sergio-- I agree with your assesment of the Democrats (the ones who've run for President recently, anyway). The party needs to be scrapped, and a new, viable Opposition Party put in place. And, no, I have no idea how to do that.

Anonymous-- Once again, I am confused. I am not a politician. I don't grandstand for people condemning attrocities. (That's called "demogoguery" by the way, and is a standard cheap tactic employed by hack politicians).

Of course I'm concerned by acts commited by parties on all sides of this conflict. I, however, am an American citizen. As such, I have a say in what America does, how it conducts itself in this conflict included. I am also an informed, thinking person, who doesn't buy into the "all American soldiers are HEROES!!" malarky spewed by politicians (see above, Re: hacks) eager to butter up the gullible. American soldiers have and will continue to behave in all sorts of ways, honorable, dishonorably, and Mei Lie Massacre-ly. And, as an American, I have a right to know that just putting on a uniform and pucking up a gun does not suddenly make a person above reproach. It makes them harder to see at a distance, and dangerous. That's all. And I resent the bleating I hear when the sorry truth of what people in wartime are capable of in wartime comes to light.

The American people, hell, ALL people, deserve the truth. Sometimes, the truth includes desecration of the bodies of the enemy. Deal. Ignoring these stories, shutting them down in a big "support the troops" PR campaign helps no one. It doesn't help Americans understand why they're hated by people all over the world. It doesn't help the troops, once they've come home, to not be able to talk about what they've seen while at war. It becomes a hidden secret, a sickness.

Look, I'm the son of a Vietnam vet. I've heard, from him, stories both hilarious and horrific about his time in Vietnam. Some of it very, very difficult to talk about. But it's the truth. Deal. And deal with this.

No matter: Bush isn't going anywhere and we're stuck with him for the next three two and half years no matter what people say. Then we can all get ready for the next group of people who honestly have our interests at heart to begin another love-fest of a campaign. When that's over, and the next president is decided, nothing will change, no matter how idealistic people tend to get with all their utopian fantasies.

The Conservatives will do what's predictable: nominate some right wing, christian conservative and the Liberals will also do the predictable: nominate someone who's so entrenched in the system yet voting for him/her will be perceived as a 'radical act'. Please....

Note to some people out there: Voting Democrat is not radical. It's a vote for the status quo.

Ben, Nobody is condoning the actions of these troops. I am just sick of how sites like this are quick to post stories of misconduct by our enlisted men and women even when the allegations are questionable at best(flushing the Koran in Guantenamo). The objective is clear. Make this current administration look bad even if it is endagering the lives of our men and women. What is even more sickening is the faux concern for our troops. "Remind us again how this doesn't embolden the enemy?" Actions like this does embolden the enemy. My question is why you take such relish in reporting them. I have yet to see your concern about the atrocities committed by the insurgents.

Anonymous wrote:

"The Left opposes the war but supports our troops. Yeah right."

I'm sorry-- explain to me what you're whining about.

Do you object to what the troops did? Or do you object to people finding out about it?

Because the troops actions are facts. Those facts were reported. If they don't shore up your "all U.S. troops are righteous superheroes sent from Heaven who only do good things and fart rose petals" childish fantasy-land, then it's you who have to re-think your relationship to reality.

well wouldnt someone who wants the US to pull out and therefore preventing US soldiers from being shot at or blown up by insurgent infer that theyre supporting them? versus wanting them to stay there unneededly and dying for no reason.

note*: im not a "liberal", im actually a libertarian-anarchist(anarcho-capitalist is another syonym). wikipedia it if you're interested.

word, kid.

The Left opposes the war but supports our troops. Yeah right.