Here are the advantages of having *any* Democrat as President

[CT_Progressive]

1. Congress no longer needs veto-proof support for bills. Squeaking by with a simple majority becomes just fine. And if we ever lose control of congress, we gain the power of the Veto.
2. Cabinet Secretaries & Appointments (DOD, DHS, Dept of State, etc.)
3. Judicial Branch Appointments, including SCOTUS and U.S. Judiciary. We know how important that is.
4. Regulatory Agency appointments (DEA, FCC, FEC, FEMA, FTC, FDA, SEC, etc)
5. Being in control of "Executive Privilege." Now, we get to wiretap them. (or, you know, stop breaking the law - either way, we win this one)
6. Set National Policy. We all know that its not just the President that sets policy. There is a lot of party politics that influences this.

And lets not forget the last one:
7. We stop Republicans from destroying our country and others.

You may not like the nominee we end up with, but to forego these solid advantages is simply foolish. My mom would call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Old people have such funny sayings.

[JMDEM]

1. I will support the nominee, whoever he/she is...

But until the primaries are over, I'm gonna fight like hell for the one(s) I want and fight like hell against the one(s) I don't want.

I've already influenced at least 10 people to change their opinion about a certain candidate. Not bad considering the primaries haven't even started. And I think each of those 10 will have an influence on at least 2 or 3 other people they talk to, etc... ripple effect.

[raccoon]

2. Let's get this on greatest, c'mon.

One of the candidates I'd have to hold my nose to vote for, but CT has some good points. Especially the first one.

Oh, and of course, K&R.

Edited for last paragraph.

[...of J.Temperance]

4. Yeah, it needs one more vote, I reckon it'll get it as well! n/t

.

[...of J.Temperance]

3. I've just given you another vote....an excellant OP

Everything you comment is both true and just plain common sense.

As you can see, I'm supporting Senator Clinton....but whoever our Presidential nominee is, I'll be supporting them and I'll vote for them.

[DU9598]

5. #1 Priority is replacing justices to the SCOTUS

and the the various courts of appeal. We have an entrenched conservative judiciary. One more republican president and any chance at progressive change in America is gone for the next two generations.

[racaulk]

6. Stop making so much sense!

:hi:

K&R

[Pool Hall Ace]

7. I get it.

:kick:

[Deep13]

8. 8. Less vomiting while watching SOTU addresses. n/t

[unpossibles]

9. ha! We can still play SOTU drinking games

they just won't revolve around how inept and predictable the President is.

[AnnInLa]

10. "Holding One's Nose" to vote

My preferred Dem Choice will probably not receive the presidential nomination.

However, when I go to vote in the general presidential election, not only will I NOT hold my nose to vote, I will PROUDLY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for the Dem nominee, whoever that is. And, if that Dem wins the presidential election, I will support (most) of his/her actions in office, while trying to change him/her actions which I don't support.

For all of the reasons listed in the OP, I would never sit out an election. That is the same as voting for the Republic nominee.

Many years ago, Hillary Clinton said there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy," and she was right about that. I will do anything in my power to counter that conspiracy, including voting for a nominee that was not my first choice.

I don't see the main issue as ENDING THE WAR, or MAINTAINING FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR WOMEN, or MAINTAINING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I see the main issue as "Taking Back America." Once the Dems Take Back America, the other issues will fall into place.

So, no holding the nose for me! I will proudly vote for the Democratic Party to take back our country.

[CTyankee]

11. Welcome to DU, fellow nutmegger!

And thanks for the message. Let's go all out for our candidates in the primaries but vote for the DEMOCRAT on Election Day.

I know some people are so truly disappointed that they can't see how they can vote for whomever they dislike so much. Your post may give them some real incentive to go vote for our party's candidate despite our genuinely felt differences.

Where are you in CT? I am in New Haven...

:hi:

[CT_Progressive]

26. I am in Seymour.

:hi:

[kickysnana]

12. "Anybody" but Hillary. So they better not give her the nomination.

Everyone I know feels the same way. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. I have voted for the Democratic nominee for President since I was 21. I will write in or not vote if she is the nominee!

Cheney in a pantsuit is over the top but her ambition is every bit as fierce and her progressive performance has been nonexistent. She will be too easily manipulated by those around her because her focus is politics not substance. We need a leader now more than ever and she is a politician.

There is no sense trying to talk me out of this because I have been through the trenches since 1999. GIVE ME A CANDIDATE I CAN VOTE FOR, not one I have to settle for. It is too important.

[cali]

14. Cheney in a pantsuit. What a crock of

shit. Oh, and speaking of shit, I couldn't give one whether you vote for her or not, but I will call you on calling her a Cheney clone. That's just stupid.

[MadBadger]

15. Reread the post. It said that Cheney in a pants suit is over the top. Lighten up.

[cali]

18. Oops, I apologize.

but I gotta say, who cares if her ambitions is equal to his? That's bound to be true of anyone seriously seeking the Presidency.

[MadBadger]

16. Your damn right its too Important! This election is too important to NOT vote for the democrat.

[AnnInLa]

25. Just my humble opinion, but if everyone thought as you do,

then you will have to "settle for" another Republic....no change, the country continues in the crapper, maybe worse than now.

[CT_Progressive]

27. I wish I could convince you otherwise.

I just hope your sentiment isn't widespread, and hope it doesn't give us an (R) for 4 more years.

[Orsino]

91. And if we find that she loses to Giuliani by a few hundred votes?

Are you willing to take the same abuse that Nader supporters have over the years? Are you really willing to risk four more years of Republican vetos, corrupt secrecy and one bogus pretext for war after another?

I mean, Hillary's my least favorite Dem, but I still think she's a few miles better than any Republican running. Then there's the first-female-president thing, a worthy goal in itself. While I can't agree with you, please understand that I can see your position from here, so to speak, and support your right to throw away your vote in whatever vain protest your conscience demands. Truly. I'll be holding my nose when I vote for Hillary, but I simply can't ignore the far greater dangers Republican control of the White House will mean. I'll do my best to tip the White House toward the least corrupt party (given the meager field of two), even if it's to the most corrupt of the Democratic candidates.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Yes, well, thanks so much

for pointing all this out to us because, you see, we're all very very stupid and we've never heard those argument before. :sarcasm:

[NavyDavy]

17. hey sometimes you have to keep pointing these things out because some

here can't get it thru there thick skulls if they don't vote or write in a candidate you are letting the repukes have the WH for at least 4 more yrs....

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Hon, if I voted for Hillary

I AM letting the repukes have the WH for 4 more years.

[skipos]

47. I first heard the "Gore=Bush" arguments from you people in 2000

but it took me a few years to realize just how painfully wrong you were. The good news is that most people who bought the "Gore=Bush" lie learned their lesson by 2004 as Nader lost 85% of his support. It will be interesting to see how many people buy the "Clinton=Thompson" or whoever lie in 2008.

I couldn't live with myself if I let President Huckabee, McCain, etc happen. I don't think America could survive it, and I couldn't have that on my conscience. But hey, that's me. :shrug:
Hillary is my last choice in 08 by the way.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. Huh?

I'm not sure who "you people" are. You'll need to clarify -- I'm recategorized on this board at least once a week, (never accurately), but I need to know exactly which "you people" I am for this post.

[skipos]

56. You aren't claiming that a Democratic candidate is a Republican?

I thought you were one of those "Democratic candidate X is a Republican" people. I must have misunderstood.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. I am a Hillary is a real good friend

to the corporations kind of person including the MIC. Really, this isn't news. Do-or-die party wonks are willing to overlook her willingness to keep our troops in Iraq, her IWR vote, and advocacy for a possible invasion of Iran -- all undeniably Republican positions. All I'm saying is that I don't happen to be one of them.

[skipos]

63. Some people can sit on their hands and let a Republican win

and sleep well at night. I don't happen to be one of them. I couldn't live with myself if I aided the election of a Republican president in any way. The amount of damage done to the supreme court alone would weigh too much on my conscience. I am the least enthusiastic about Kucinich and Clinton, but they would each be leagues better than the best Republican.

[TahitiNut]

21. Every over-indulged infant thinks they've discovered the world for the first time.

Most of us have grown out of it. :shrug: It's part of the narcissism of youth.

"The new telephone books are here! The new telephone books are here!" :rofl:

[Le Taz Hot]

23. I know.

I need to keep reminding myself of that.

. . . We're SOMEbody!!!! ;-)

[TahitiNut]

24. Well ... you know ... it's all in how they look at things.

:rofl:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

20. I wholeheartedly agree

I don't want to say who's my definite choice but if s/he doesn't get the nom and one of the others do, I will vote for him/her. I did exactly the same in 2004, I didn't like Kerry as a nominee but I voted for him anyway. Even campaigned for him because I felt it was so important for him to win the presidency.

Then I read on DU that certain issues (such as gun-control) made people not vote for Kerry at all... that really let me down as I worked so hard for Kerry (a candidate I didn't even want in the first place, as I had passionately campaigned for Dean). If the choice of the nominee didn't clarify his stance on gun-control (or didn't even mention it), I'd still vote for him/her. Kerry was also somewhat death-penalty (only for terrorists) and I'm anti-DP, yet, I still voted for him.

Sure, there'll always be camps on DU bashing each other's candidates, but in the end we are all Dems.

[tblue37]

22. K&R

[Cha]

28. Oh, I'm sure they are a ton of

advantages of having a dem over a fascist..the dem better not be fascist.

But, this is the fooking primaries so we get to support who we fooking want..and I want someone who isn't Business as Fookin' Usual.

Were you bummed that lieman won over Ned Lamont? Cause, I sure was.

[CT_Progressive]

29. Me, too. Read my .sig

[Cha]

30. I added an edit to my post

that you didn't see..:)

[CT_Progressive]

31. Yes, I worked pretty hard for Lamont.

Did hours and hours of phone and door-to-door.
I was seriously bummed.

[Cha]

32. Thank you, thank you,

Thank you!

[CTyankee]

34. So did I! I did some canvassing in my neighborhood to get Dem signatures

so Ned could be on the ballot challenging Joe. Then during the campaign I called for Ned from his hq downtown NH. From the responses I was hearing, I knew Ned was going to lose. I did an absentee ballot since I was slated to be in Rome on Election Day. It was kind of a relief, actually. By the time I got to Siena we had finally won the Senate and I did a little victory dance in the Campo. But I missed all the excitement and I won't let that happen again in 2008!

[uppityperson]

79. If I don't agree to vote Kucinich in primary I don't belong on DU?

:eyes:

[CT_Progressive]

81. No, that applies to the second part.

If you don't agree to vote (D) in the general.

[uppityperson]

82. Didn't you already post a topic on that? Anyone who doesn't vote dem banned from DU?

To paraphrase: Some people see things as they are and say "why". Some people see things as they are and say "why not".

[CT_Progressive]

86. I believe thats a JFK quote, and it goes:

"Some people see things as they are and ask 'Why?'
I dream of things that never were and ask 'Why not?'"

Great quote.

[abq e streeter]

33. Some of these are stronger arguments than others, but I still agree...

for instance #7; from what I've seen,most Democrats seem unable or unwilling to stop repubs from destroying the country, and often join right in...but #'s 1 and 3 are enough right there, and I'll be one of the hold my nose types (and probably a long cleansing shower afterwards) if HRC is the nominee, but will still vote for whoever our candidate is...and encourage others who, like me, have MAJOR reservations re: HRC , to do the same. Lesser of 2 evils is still evil? Yes, but sometimes the larger evil is too dangerous to not side with the lesser evil.

[CT_Progressive]

35. The lesser of two evils is also easier to defeat.

:)

[joe_sixpack]

36. Here is one downside...

Yes, what you post is a true and positive outcome, but one downside will be that it will become harder in the future for a democrat to get the nomination who doesn't raise the most money, or get the support of the media and corporate interests.

[CT_Progressive]

40. Your issue is one of campaign finance, not difference in candidates.

Its a valid issue, but not applicable to this situation.

[joe_sixpack]

53. Actually, I think it is applicable

The media in this country has gotten to the point where they consider the amount of money a candidate raises as a proxy for the support they have. Sadly, most Americans seem to be buying into this. It explains why a well qualified and experienced candidate such as Biden is polling so poorly compared to Hillary. Even if money weren't such a big issue, a majority of voters will still let the media decide who is "electable". We aid and abet this process when we conclude that it's not as important what qualities our nominee has as long as a Dem is elected in November. Yes, it may be true that "anyone as long as it's a Democrat" will suffice for the second straight election, but eventually we need to go back to pushing for a nominee who better reflects the attitudes and concerns of the people who make up the Democratic Party.

[bettyellen]

58. you're right, it's very applicable. the OP just doesn't care to address it

he's going along to get along. dry powder.. all that.

[Romulox]

37. So a free trade bill signed by a Clinton is less harmful to workers than one signed by Bush?

Huh?

:wtf:

[CT_Progressive]

39. Yes.

Because Clintons Free Trade bill comes with the 7 things above. Bush's doesn't.

pwned.

[Romulox]

42. OK, well that makes no sense. Bill Clinton appointed a corporatist as his Sec. of Labor

And then enacted MFN for China (sans any human right requirements) based on Reich's council.

So a corporatist Democrat will appoint corporatists to cabinet positions, just like a Republican would.

The only argument I will accept w/r/t a corporatist Dem being better than a Repub is the Iraq war. Oops, wait a minute! HRC and JE both were big supporters...

[CT_Progressive]

43. Clinton had a Republican Congress.

The Dem in 2008 will have a Dem Congress.

[Romulox]

44. Clinton had a Republican CABINET. nt

[ClassWarrior]

60. Lincoln had a Cabinet well populated by his opponents too.

Without a diversity of voices you get... Bush**.

NGU.

[Romulox]

89. You realize I was being facetious? Though a neo-liberal, Robert Reich is nominally a Democrat. nt

[Romulox]

45. BTW, Clinton extend the unqualified MFN to China via EXECUTIVE ORDER

That means the Republican Congress had no say.

[CT_Progressive]

46. So, if Bill Clinton was allowed to run again, you would not vote for him?

Seriously?

[Romulox]

48. Nope. Seriously. nt

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

50. Well that is a well thought out argument! nt

[CT_Progressive]

71. Well, the other 99.99999% of America would.

Just sayin'.

[ourbluenation]

38. THANK YOU! There's so much more to the office of POTUS than people realize. Any Dem is better.

any day.

[Eric J in MN]

41. Good list. I will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. NT

NT

[NewHampster]

51. Who you calling old?

Excellent list and since I've never voted for anyone but a Dem I don't think I'd start now.

And you don't think, "just saying" isn't weird? Just Saying.

[mmonk]

52. Depends on their political stands and conections and always will.

George Wallace was a democrat for example but I'd never vote for anyone like him. Then there's Joe Lieberman. And I don't want any president to have extra constitutional powers no matter what party.

[ileus]

55. The military will be ours again, fighting for freedom again.

[HughBeaumont]

57. I LOVE the smell of "loyalty oaths" in the evenin'!

And just who, pray tell, are you referring to with these statements? Someone who hasn't even won the damned nomination yet despite the world over convincing you and everyone else it's a . . . Done Deal?

Want a cure for this?

* ahem * . . . and this is for everyone . . .

WORK TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE THAT'S NOT GOING TO DIVIDE THE LEFT AND CENTER!!! DAMN!

Oh yeah, I belong on this site regardless of who I choose not to vote for. In the general I will vote, and not for the Republican. And that's all you need to know.

[MrSlayer]

67. We're in a terrible position.

Either vote for the DLC candidate who is not even close to what we are looking for as an ideal candidate or allow the GOP's nutjob to appoint three more SCJ's that will take us back to a point in time before the country itself ever existed. It's no real choice at all. I just hope that at some point in my life I get to vote for somebody instead of just against an even bigger asshole.

[HughBeaumont]

68. Our choice truly is "who sucks LESS". Thanks for the big menu.

I voted for Gore and Kerry, who both had great ideas and plans, but were bad campaigners who had even worse advisors. Of course, neither man could have been armed enough when corporations stack the media with an anti-progressive, pro-Bewsh message and the voting process with paid operatives like Ken Blackwell, Kathy Harris and the president's chumley brother.

[ecstatic]

59. you should post this every week. hell, every day

to get through to the most stubborn among us.

[calimary]

65. No. I'd say more like every hour on the hour.

This. Is. Priority. ONE.

At this point I don't even care who wins the White House, as long as it's one of OURS.

[CT_Progressive]

69. Ill try.

:)

[calimary]

76. I know... sometimes it just feels like a little too much swimming upstream

doesn't it?

I am BEYOND pissed at that spineless bush-blower dianne feinstein. What a frickin' traitor. She caves more reliably than robert murray's coal mines.

[ulysses]

61. eight years of straight up shit sandwich makes most anything look good.

I won't bother listing the "howevers" to your list, but will simply note that, while any Democrat will be better than any Repuke, Bill Clinton looked pretty good after Reagan/Bush I.

[saracat]

64. Zell Miller looks okay to you? Weird.

[ulysses]

70. LOL!

No. I suspect we have the same pov.

[Romulox]

90. Let's not forget that running weak candidates/campaigns got us 8 years of W...

"Anybody but Bush" ring any bells?

[MrSlayer]

66. Correct. This why I will vote for any Democrat over the Republican nominee.

Some of our guys I like and others I can barely stomach but for these reasons listed I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is. We really have no choice unless we want the country as we knew it to disappear completely. We simply can't afford to lose the Supreme Court to a nutcase majority.

[MUSTANG_2004]

72. #1 isn't always a good thing

I've always thought that we get better bills and less pork when the President and Congress are from different parties. Just my opinion, but I think Clinton was a better President after 1994, and Bush would have been better had Republicans not retaken the Senate in 2004.

This is coming from the assumption that having to get a bill past both parties eliminates much of the big-wig bribery and favoritism.

[CT_Progressive]

73. I think conservatives are patently wrong, and liberals patently right.

Therefore, I disagree with your opinion.

All branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) should be controlled by Democrats. Then this country would finally become as great as it can possibly be.

[MUSTANG_2004]

75. It's good to have them at each other's throats

It's another one of Madison's "checks and balances". When one party has too much power, they start to abuse it. The Republican pork during Bush's years (like the wonderful Bridge to Nowhere) and the House's check-kiting scandal in the early Bill Clinton years are just two examples of getting too comfortable with power.

However, maybe I see it this way since I'm in the middle and don't see a problem with a mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints (on those internet ideology tests I come out slightly to the left on the left/right axis, and pretty far down the libertarian axis).

[Generator]

74. Kinda like having any Democrat in congress heh?

I don't buy this bullshit anymore. Not anymore. They continue to support evil, vote after fucking vote. They just are better at playing games and pretending to be something they are not. At least with the Republicans you know you have evil. The Democrats are not Democrats. It's that simple. Nothing I read here convinces me of anything anymore.

The proof is in their votes. They lie to us and you continue to cling to the corpse of the dead Democratic party.

[CT_Progressive]

77. How do you not "buy the bullshit" ? Explain your reasons.

Because I listed 7 things I consider irrefutable advantages.

Do you have anything to say other than rhetoric?

[JackRiddler]

78. No one doubts there are advantages to having a Democrat or a tin can instead of Bush.

So what.

Your points get really vague in 6 and 7. Set what national policy? WTO and CAFTA and NAFTA and IMF and World Bank remain as is and keep health care privatized and maintain the "War on Terror" as a pretext for a slightly lower $450 bn warmaking budget and a slightly higher "intel"/spook world budget? Keep up the drug war and keep two million people in prison working for dirt wages to compete with the workers on the outside? Let's stay in Iraq another 10 years, but deliver friendlier rhetoric about it? Feel good about hope and change, without ever defining the latter? Do nothing to change the dominance of money in politics, or to assure the integrity of the vote count, or to change the good cop/bad cop party duopoly? Pretend that shoving food into fuel tanks is going to change the disastrous energy equation? Retain billions a year to Israel so there's a stick to wag at the Arabs? No disclosure about government crime, because that would make us dwell on the past, but keep delivering the message to the likes of Bush Co. and their successors that crime pays? Keep hundreds of bases around the world because we are the "indispensable nation"? Crush as much of the world as possible under the debt and threat system for handling the poor countries? Find a "humanitarian" war we can "win"? Because these are some of the highlights of Clinton policy, past and future.

Point 7: Are Republicans the only ones "destroying our country and others"? Sing us a song about that.

[CT_Progressive]

80. So, you agree there are lots of advantages. Great.

Guess you'll be voting (D) in the General Election no matter what, right?

[JackRiddler]

83. What effect are you striving for here: spambot or hall monitor?

Because the evidence that you read what I wrote is thin.

I'll be voting or not voting as I please and making the decision in fall 2008, dig?

[OzarkDem]

84. We need to change the POV of our Dem nominees

Many of them, particularly those serving in the Senate, are not fighting the Bush/GOP agenda and appear to have adapted it into their way of thinking.

Through their inaction, they continue to show us that they don't support the priorities of the majority of Americans on the most crucial issues, but have become convinced a GOP-lite agenda is preferable.

Those are not the Democrats we want in the WH. They will govern with an "inferiority complex" and will continue to respond in knee jerk fashion to GOP criticism. We need a Dem in the WH who isn't afraid to support a popular agenda.

Just as we were mistaken in assuming they would support the mandate they were given by voters in 06, we need to resist the temptation to assume they will do the same if one of them wins in '08. The odds are very much against it.

[Mme. Defarge]

85. These are very compelling reasons ...

They applied to the elections in '00 and '04 as well. I worked on both of those campaigns and attended an outdoor rally for John Kerry with 30,000 other Kerry supporters, while on the same day the president was in town holding an "invitation only", heavily guarded event behind closed doors in a suburban high school. Kerry, on that day, exhorted "Everything's at stake in this election!" And thirty thousand people cheered their hearts out. He also made the promise, "I've got your back." We all believed he was throwing us a lifeline.

Is there anyone hear who doubts that Al Gore and John Kerry, actually won their respective elections? Gore did fight for his win, while Kerry caved early the next day. Where the hell was the Democratic Party leadership in both of these instances? Why the hell has election reform been deferred to 2012? Why the hell are our Democratic congressmen/women caving on all of the issues they were put into office to fight for? Why the hell is impeachment off the table? And why the hell will they not even try to enforce subpoenas?!

Why do I have the overwhelming sense that Hillary is the anointed one; that her candidacy is a done deal and that if she does happen to win the general election the third time will be the charm? (And, of course, if she really and truly loses the election, well, that's ok too for the corporate powers that have successfully stacked the deck in their favor; for the rest of us, well, c'est la guerre, n'est pas?) Why should I have any faith that if a candidate like Gore or Kucinich should become the party's nominee, and win the election, that the Democratic leadership will go to bat for him when the inevitable election fraud occurs?

I ask you, in the name of all the people who have sacrificed their lives and their limbs to protect and defend our form of government -- the precious, shining, and oh so fragile gift that has been given to us and that we have given to the world -- IS THIS DEMOCRACY? IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO TO HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE SACRIFICED SO MUCH, AND GIVE ANY KIND OF A FUTURE TO GENERATIONS TO COME?

Admittedly, I am an idealist. I also recognize that pragmatism has its place. But there comes a time to take a stand. Like when laws have been broken and are being broken. Like when hundreds of thousands of people are being slaughtered and maimed because of an administration's lies. If our Democratic leaders in congress are not willing to uphold our laws, then don't we, in effect, have a one-party system? How can I endorse that?

Maybe the strategy of simply trying to buy time until a Democrat inevitably holds the office of president makes sense from a practical standpoint. After all, Bush's record and the Republican candidates are all so dismal how could a Republican possibly win in the next election? On the other hand, if the Democratic party does not stand up to this administration of lawbreakers, if, through passivity, it becomes complicit in the destruction of our government of laws, if it fails to at least express loud and unrelenting outrage over the abuses of the Bush regime, as opposed to censuring those among their ranks whose legitimate anger has reached the boiling point, and thus speak to the white-hot outrage of so many voters, how are Americans likely to vote if and when the "terror card" is played before the next election?

Unless the magnitude of the damage that this administration has done to our country and the rest of the world is addressed by Democrats in deeds, as well as words in a tone that reflects what is truly at stake in this election, I fear that folks will vote for the party that they think will protect them over the party that equivocates, and that goes along to get along.

[CT_Progressive]

87. Thanks, great post.

[L. Coyote]

88. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[CT_Progressive]

92. Heh, thanks for the effort !

It's the idea that counts ! :)