Zell Miller's Speech

[JK1150]

Zell Miller later that night challenged Chris Mathews to a dual... the guy has lost it

you shouldn't blow things out of proportion. Mathews kept cutting him off and Miller got angry and said "why did I even do this interview." Then he said, "i wish we still lived in the time of duels."

[b3ta]

you shouldn't blow things out of proportion. Mathews kept cutting him off and Miller got angry and said "why did I even do this interview." Then he said, "i wish we still lived in the time of duels."

Was there any glove action? Would be cool to watch a duel.

[JK1150]

the interview was not done in person. Zell was on the floor, Mathews was at the studio. It would be funny if they were next to each other, zell would have taken him down ahah.

Edited September 2, 2004 by JK1150

[Bearded Kirklander]

So you guys are ripping Zell Miller and you did not even watch the exchange???

It was good natured with a tinge of Miller telling Mathews to "back off" and chill out. I think he sent the message that Mathews needs to stop acting like a freakin' pit bull and treating guests like doormats. He basically told him "Hey, if I was right in front of you instead of via satellite, you would not dare talk to me like this." I feel he was right.

Do yourselves a favor, just watch the exchange. It was good natured but it had one hell of a good point - that Chris Mathews is letting his bias over-ride his judgement in interviews. Mathews feels so strongly Against GWB that he is not able to do his job properly and he is going far, far over the line and even intentionally distorting the facts and pushing a viewpoint, something he never used to do. It's not his job to be a paid political assasin for the Democrats. It's his job to be an interviewer. He is as bad as that over-bearing puss-bag Bill O' Reilly at this point! Dorkwad... :p

[Dashel]

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

I'm sorry but this just doesn't sit right with me. While I understand and respect the need for a national military force and a strong defense, I do not think this idea of freedom is what Jefferson had in mind because honestly, we are all soldiers when our personal freedoms are in jeopardy. We the people guarantee these rights, not just a special group of men consigned by the government. All citizens are soldiers of freedom.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

Again, quite a bit of disinformation here. First, Cheney agreed with these as well and most importantly, was how Kerry voted against these. The examples used here were the result of Kerry's vote on bill S. 3189, the "Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act." It was one vote on one bill, that like many of the supposed 'flip' issues, was just a really bad bill that tries to include too much.

Lets get real here, the very way that we pass bills creates this trait in politicians because bills, frankly, carry too much baggage. They do not vote on one issue, but a multitude.

Other than that it is just the usual political babble.

[Bearded Kirklander]

I'm sorry but this just doesn't sit right with me. While I understand and respect the need for a national military force and a strong defense, I do not think this idea of freedom is what Jefferson had in mind because honestly, we are all soldiers when our personal freedoms are in jeopardy. We the people guarantee these rights, not just a special group of men consigned by the government. All citizens are soldiers of freedom.

I guess you can look at it either way.

It was the MILITARY that fought the British to allow us to be an independent nation and establish these rights in the first place, so that is a possible point. It really was not until the Bill of Rights was passed that we actually got some of those protections in writing, however.

The Civil War could be used as another example, perhaps. Certainly part of the fight was over Slavery and the basic rights of freedom, don't you think?

I think your line that all citizens are soldiers of freedom is a good one, and I wish it were true. I think I'd just change it to "All citizens CAN be soldiers of freedom" simply because some choose not to participate and some choose to deny the right of freedom to others.

:)

[Bearded Kirklander]

Again, quite a bit of disinformation here.  First, Cheney agreed with these as well and most importantly, was how Kerry voted against these.  The examples used here were the result of Kerry's vote on bill S. 3189, the "Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act." It was one vote on one bill, that like many of the supposed 'flip' issues, was just a really bad bill that tries to include too much.

Lets get real here, the very way that we pass bills creates this trait in politicians because bills, frankly, carry too much baggage.  They do not vote on one issue, but a multitude.

Other than that it is just the usual political babble.

Disinformation in your opinion. It looks like you, as many others do (sometimes including myself) try to find what we want to see in speeches and debates instead of what the person may actually be trying to convey.

Your statement of "First, Cheney agreed with these as well and most importantly was how Kerry voted against these" is a bit confusing. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Cheney agreed with these? Can you elaborate?

As to your point of "it was one vote, one bill" that is not what he was saying. Kerry has a LONG history of voting against almost all military appropriations, including the $87 billion that would have supplied the troops in Iraq. That, of course, after he voted for the war itself.

I think trying to intimate that Kerry is not a flip-flopper and has a long record of anti-military votes is simply not true. :)

If he did in fact vote against ONLY that one bill, your point might be valid, but he has a 20 or so year history of doing the same thing and a clear pattern has been established.

My feeling is that if Kerry is Anti-War and Anti-Military, he should stick to his guns and not try to pretend he is not. He went to Vietnam and served, but it was after the war that he turned his back on the Military and became a devout anti-war believer, and I can respect that. His entire term in public office has been anti-war - until he was faced with 9/11 combined with his desire to run for office. That is when some of the biggest "flip-flopping" began to take place, it seems.

I would hope you would try not to distort the truth or intent of the speech to fit your own biases. There is no need for that. Let each stand on their own and see who you wish to vote for. The truth is important here, because there is a trust issue.

If you feel Bush is a liar, do not vote for him, but there is no need to try to say he was a war-monger and that his motivation had nothing to do with defending America after 9/11.

If you feel Kerry is a liar, do not vote for him, but don't try to disregard his service in Vietnam as unimportant and make it look unseemly. He served his country. He did what he was told to do and what he felt he had to do during that service. It's just that for whatever reason, maybe the horror of war, he came back and was totally anti-war from that point forward.

[Dashel]

That is not a rebuttal to my post as it appears the facts are on my side, or at least they aren't on either side. Either way Zell and anyone who uses these brash characterizations are the ones that must bear the burden, not I. Do you have specific data that proves that 1) Cheney did not agree with Kerry on the articles mentioned and 2) that it is in fact you that chooses to see what you want to see. I have no investment in either candidate so I am objective and unbiased. And from the facts I've seen I fail to see how you can defend such statements. The fact is that on the issue in question, there is no clear pattern. If there is, I'm still waiting to see it and it isn't for lack of trying.

I never said either were liars so I fail to see the pertinence.

[Bearded Kirklander]

That is not a rebuttal to my post as it appears the facts are on my side, or at least they aren't on either side.

Either way Zell and anyone who uses these brash characterizations are the ones that must bear the burden, not I.  Do you have specific data that proves that 1) Cheney did not agree with Kerry on the articles mentioned and 2) that it is in fact you that chooses to see what you want to see.  I have no investment in either candidate so I am objective and unbiased.  And from the facts I've seen I fail to see how you can defend such statements.  The fact is that on the issue in question, there is no clear pattern.  If there is, I'm still waiting to see it and it isn't for lack of trying.

I never said either were liars so I fail to see the pertinence.

The facts are not on your side. :) Do you have specific, credible data that proves that Cheney did in fact agree with Kerry on all of those weapon systems? You, after all, were the one who made the claim and should not try to deflect attention from the fact that the burden of proof is yours. The criticism on Kerry was not limited to one specific bill, so why should you choose to limit your argument to that one specific bill? Isn't that a bit disingenuous?

As for stating that people see what they want to see, I actually did include myself in that group. Please check the post above to confirm it, especially before making such claims. It looks as though you saw what you wanted to see and missed that part, eh? :p

Your bias is clearly, clearly documented in your posting history, which can easily be found through a search, if you would like to take the time to confirm.

You can't try to whip out a thesaurus and sound intelligent to mask your lack of effort in seeking out the truth. All you need do is provide substantial and true evidence to backup your statements and you can prove your point in a way that we cannot refute. If you want to profess that you are right, all you have to do is the lay the foundation and do the work. :)

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Lol, dude first off the B-2 is already obsolete, granted we used it, it was a plane and it could drop bombs, but it wasn't really needed. The military has been getting ready to face most of them out because they're overrated and too specific of a plane and many others can serve the same role.

Second Cheney was against the Apache in the first place, and the Apache is a very important weapon ATM. No we can squable over how many we need, whether the longbow modification was necessary, and stuff like that but Cheney didn't want the thing at all, if it were up to Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense we would still have nothing but Vietnam era Cobra helicopters(ok maybe the Super Cobra Mod).

Lastly again Bills are voted against for alot of reasons, Kerry voted against the 87billion dollar bill because:

a) He supported one he himself made that actually included a way to fund it.

b) It was going to pass anyways so he was making a statement.

c) He did not agree with it ALL. It doesn't mean that e was specifically for not giving troops body armor or anything like that it just means as a whole he thought the Bill sucked.

[Bearded Kirklander]

Lol, dude first off the B-2 is already obsolete, granted we used it, it was a plane and it could drop bombs, but it wasn't really needed.? The military has been getting ready to face most of them out because they're overrated and too specific of a plane and many others can serve the same role.

Second Cheney was against the Apache in the first place, and the Apache is a very important weapon ATM.? No we can squable over how many we need, whether the longbow modification was necessary, and stuff like that but Cheney didn't want the thing at all, if it were up to Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense we would still have nothing but Vietnam era Cobra helicopters(ok maybe the Super Cobra Mod).

Lastly again Bills are voted against for alot of reasons, Kerry voted against the 87billion dollar bill because:

a) He supported one he himself made that actually included a way to fund it.

b) It was going to pass anyways so he was making a statement.

c) He did not agree with it ALL.? It doesn't mean that e was specifically for not giving troops body armor or anything like that it just means as a whole he thought the Bill sucked.

Face most of them out?

Errr - o:p :p

The B-2 debate can rage, but the Military wanted it at the time and Kerry voted against it.

I thought that the Military was not in support fully of the COMANCHE, not the Apache. If you could provide some links to Cheney statements where he says he does not support the Apache, I would like to read them. I'm just asking for a foundation for your statements so I can educate myself.

It may well be true that Cheney did not support certain programs, but surely you can't compare Kerry's consistent record of voting against virtually every single military weapons program to Cheney not favoring a few over the years, can you?

You can state the reasons you believe that Kerry voted against it, but the fact is he did vote against it. If he had voted AGAINST the war authorization, athen/i> against the Military Funding, at least that would be consistent. As it was, it seems that Kerry chose to put his personal priorities ahead of those of the nation, and I think that may have been one of the things Miller was trying to convey.

If you happen to have links to the information where Kerry has given specific reasons for voting against the bill, I would also appreciate those. Again, to educate myself.

Thanks,

BK

[Dashel]

I have already provided many facts. The burden is yours. And I did see your 'grouping' which is why I do know I am more objective and unbiased on these matters. My bias? Please. I fight for liberty, not political parties, and have never been an apologist for any of our worthless candidates.

Per Cheney, here are some facts for you:

"The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years."

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s ? all great systems . . . but we have enough of them."

"Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles."

I have tried several times to approach these issues objectively and have failed. I do not have the time nor energy to further study the points in question rationally. Kerry is a boob and so is Bush. I'll leave it at that.

[Bearded Kirklander]

I have already provided many facts. The burden is yours. And I did see your 'grouping' which is why I do know I am more objective and unbiased on these matters. My bias? Please. I fight for liberty, not political parties, and have never been an apologist for any of our worthless candidates.

The burden is not mine, it is yours and you are shirking it. Sounds like you are getting a bit too defensive. Your emotions are getting the best of you. If you don't want to do the work, don't make the claims. If you can't back up your claims, you should not be surprised to have them challenged and have people ask you to back them up.

Please provide specific links to specific items so that we can verify your posts and see the information in context.

Also, you do know that Congress appropriates the money for such things, do you not? And if Congress limits your budget, you have to provide different scenarios so that people can make informed choices on what the best options may be? You understand that is the way it works in the US, I would think, right?

[Dashel]

Meh, I really don't care. Believe what you want. If Bush or Kerry and their false rhetoric gives you a boner so be it.

If you don't want to do the work then you should not make the claim either.

*Dash is done with all this petty, childish posturing and politics in general.*

"Sitting on a sofa

On a Sunday afternoon,

Going to the candidates' debate,

Laugh about it,

Shout about it,

When you've got to choose,

Every way you look at it you lose."

[Bearded Kirklander]

Meh, I really don't care.? Believe what you want.? If Bush or Kerry and their false rhetoric gives you a boner so be it.

If you don't want to do the work then you should not make the claim either.

Rather crude post, don't you think?

To insinuate that I have not done the work is rather immature, given that it was you, not I, that profferred these apparently false statements.

The way it works in the real world, such as debate clubs, courts of law, things like that, is that if you make a claim, you have to back it up. It is not incumbent upon the "defense" to disprove your claims, it is incumbent upon the "accuser" to prove them.

I'm disappointed that you are so much in denial that you can't realize that. You can accuse all you want, but if you don't have the facts and data to back them up, then you simply do not have any credibility. It is just that simple:):)

If you made general statements that were widely accepted facts, then that would be one thing. But that is not what you are doing. It's not like you said "The US Civil War was fought in part because of Slavery" or "Saddam was left in power after the Gulf War". Your statements were far from established.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore, I can be down with that. We can simply agree to disagree and move on:):)

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

But you are not agreeing to disagree, you're ignoring the other argument. You obviousely want nothing less than a link to the full trasncript of each of these speaches but they don't exist because they we're pre-internet. So you have the sources but I can't link them.

So apparently the best I can really do for you is this article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

Here's a much bigger one: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29360

Now notice that obviousely I can not link to each source because they are all before 1991, the digital age wasn't here yet, the government didn't put up all transcripts on-line, and newspapers and magazines did not have on-line access.

So obviousely the only way to make you happy would be to got to congress myself and go through all the microfiche and post it here but ofcourse isnce that wouldn't be on the official congress website than you'd discredit that as well.

It is all there however, the fact I can't link you straight to you doesn't make it any less true, if you really want to see for yourself you will have to go to a livrary and see what they have in microfiche because I can't do it for you.

But I do however find it amusing how you will believe everything from the RNC when even they can't get you a link to all of the bills themselves due to the same problem of being pre-internet. So you instantly believe everything from the Republican National Commitee as 100% true without the original true source yet you do not believe anything else with the same level of info. Interesting.

[Bearded Kirklander]

But you are not agreeing to disagree, you're ignoring the other argument.  You obviousely want nothing less than a link to the full trasncript of each of these speaches but they don't exist because they we're pre-internet.  So you have the sources but I can't link them.

You know about the Congressional Archives and the Library of Congress and things like that, right? :rolleyes:

You did graduate high school or college and know about looking things up, I would hope...

The fact that you are simply in denial is becoming more obvious all the time. :(

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

You know about the Congressional Archives and the Library of Congress and things like that, right?  :rolleyes:

You did graduate high school or college and know about looking things up, I would hope...

You know that they only go back to 1991 on the internet in thier entirety and to get the rest you will need to find them in print right? You did graduate high school yourself right? You do understand looking things up and the fact that not all media from before the digital age has been converted right?

:rolleyes:

Edit: Anyways the articles do list thier sources but they can not be hotlinked to. The Boston Globe's website does not go back to 91 or before, Newsweek's website does not go back to pre-91, I can not hotlink you to any source is what I'm saying how do you not understand this? If they are not hosted on the internet than I can't hotlink to it!

[Bearded Kirklander]

But I do however find it amusing how you will believe everything from the RNC when even they can't get you a link to all of the bills themselves due to the same problem of being pre-internet. So you instantly believe everything from the Republican National Commitee as 100% true without the original true source yet you do not believe anything else with the same level of info. Interesting.

I did not say that I believed them, and I certainly did not state that I did not investigate points of interest. It should be clear to you and just about anyone that I look into things, shouldn't it? After all, how do you find the truth if you do not research all angles for yourself and do some critical thinking?

If you care to take a look at one of my earlier posts, it may help you understand just how wrong you are to make groundless accusations that I simply regurgitate talking points from the Right:

It was a shockingly strong speech, and while I can respect and actually appreciate what he said, it was a bit out of character for a convention. The attacks were pretty harsh, but I certainly cannot fault him for having conviction and for feeling as strongly as he does. Mainly, because his comments, however strong, had the right of Truth and Reason to them. I simply can't find fault with his individual points, but I'm still going to re-read them all and see if I can find a point that may not be fully justifiable, out of an interest to be fair. But certainly, as I watched the speech, I was impressed by his passion and the fact that it was so well bound to reasonable arguments. It did not sound like "hate for the sake of hate", but passion based upon true, honest, core beliefs and observations. That part was impressive, to say the least.

Now does that sound like I'm not capable of critical thinking and am only a talking parrot for the Right? At least if you are going to make accusations, try not to be so obvious about the fact that you didn't bother to base them on anything but your own preconceptions and biases, ok?

Puhhh - Freakin' - Leeeaaassseeee

[Bearded Kirklander]

You know that they only go back to 1991 on the internet in thier entirety and to get the rest you will need to find them in print right?? You did graduate high school yourself right?? You do understand looking things up and the fact that not all media from before the digital age has been converted right?

Edit:? Anyways the articles do list thier sources but they can not be hotlinked to.? The Boston Globe's website does not go back to 91 or before, Newsweek's website does not go back to pre-91, I can not hotlink you to any source is what I'm saying how do you not understand this?? If they are not hosted on the internet than I can't hotlink to it!

You do know that the National Archives and the Library of Congress has scanned millions of pages into a digital format, right? You realize that these bills and votes that you are referring to are in fact available for access on the internet, don't you? That the Congressional Record is available digitally?

You are only showing your own immaturity here. You cannot even look things up on your own and you are making pathetic excuses to justify not doing it.

You may not be able to HOT link to some pictures or articles, but are you trying to tell me that you are not able to post even basic links to their sites at all? That you are not able to, in any single case, provide links to the data you are trying to reference? Even though there are THOUSANDS of places out there where you can look?

You expect us to believe that line of bull?

For you to attack me and question my intelligence seems very desperate and childish given the fact that it is you who is incapable of being able to actually provide any foundation for your claims.

Hate to be harsh here, but dude, you need to grow up. You're not even in the same league as most of your ilk. You just don't have the mental chops for this sort of thing, it would seem. Even Al Franken would be disappointed by your meager effor:).. :)

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Haha so since you're changing the subject I am free to assume that you have looked yourself and indeed see that as far as transcripts go you wont get much further than '91 right? I guess you've started to realize that this whole notion of instant hot-linking we've grown accustom too over the past 5 years is still worthless when looking into the past huh?

Lol. Look the ball is in your court the articles I listed and Dashel listed both use the acedemia accepted method of listing thier sources, you have the sources that you desire, if you truly want to see the truth than go to your public library, hell go to congress if you're close enough, and look it up yourself.

But the argument was not about you being a talking parrot as a whole I was attacking you on one issue, and that's that you believe the memo about everything Kerry voted against(which has never been denied by anyone including Kerry although there have been attempted clarifications) yet you completely ignore and demand further proof from Kerry's side. This is a completely biased platform you've taken and showing that you can "think critically" about his speech doesn't change the fact that in this issue, which is voting record and support of military equipment, you are essentially a talking parrot.

Out of curiosity how old where you when the internet, not AOL, Compuserve or any other closed network , but the ineternet became big? How old where you when they started finally having everything on-line as far as news articles and such? How old where you when they started making plans to digitize the Library of Congress? I'm really asking because I want to know where the hell you get off trying to even bring them up when they damn well can't be.

[Bearded Kirklander]

Haha so since you're changing the subject I am free to assume that you have looked yourself and indeed see that as far as transcripts go you wont get much further than '91 right?? I guess you've started to realize that this whole notion of instant hot-linking we've grown accustom too over the past 5 years is still worthless when looking into the past huh?

Actually, no. I would not try to point him in the right direction if I was unsure of what was there. In law school they teach you "Don't ask a question of a witness on the stand if you don't know what the answer is going to be."

I certaily would not open myself up to embarrassment from that poster. All I'm asking him to do is provide support for his claims. I don't think that is unreasonable, do you?

Just because you share his viewpoint and want to try to push the burden of proof on me to save him further embarrassment, doesn't make your claims correct.:))

Also, the reason I'm challenging is because he made claims. I was not espousing a particular viewpoint, only commenting on the speech. I did not claim all things in the speech were accurate, nor did I claim they were not.

If I was up here trying to challenge things in the speech or push a certain position as irrefutable fact, I would certainly have provided supporting data.

As I said before, some things that are widely accepted can be stated without challenge, such as there was a Gulf War in the early 90's, or that Saddam was in violation of UN Sanctions. If he was saying things like that, there would be no need to challenge him.

Hope that makes sense. Besides, even you seem to display a great deal more "brain" than that other dude...:pp

heh...

[Bearded Kirklander]

How old where you when they started making plans to digitize the Library of Congress?  I'm really asking because I want to know where the hell you get off trying to even bring them up when they damn well can't be.

Just out of fairness and fun, I thought I'd provide you this link and quoted text. Hard to believe I'm throwing you a bone, but you have been fairly nice and not too vulgar and hate-filled. :p

http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/tfaq13.html

Q12. How often are Bill Text, the Congressional Record, and Committee Reports updated in THOMAS?

The text of bills, the Congressional Record and Committee Reports are first processed by the Government Printing Office (GPO) before they are transmitted electronically to the Library of Congress, which makes them available for online retrieval on THOMAS. Data received by the Library from GPO must also be processed for use by THOMAS' underlying vendor-supplied retrieval engine, called InQuery.

The Congressional Record is updated the most rapidly of the three. GPO processes a day's proceedings from the Senate and House overnight and usually transmits them to THOMAS by 9 a.m. (or earlier) the next day. The text is normally available online about one hour later.

The processing of bill text takes a little longer. GPO usually needs one or more days to process the official bill text and to digitize it for transmission. Early in the session, when a very large number of bills are introduced, the process may take longer. When the text is lengthy, the process may also take longer. Once the Library of Congress receives the text from GPO, and processes it for InQuery, it becomes available online within a few hours.

The time line for the availability of Committee Reports is less predictable. Reports released by the Committees are sent first to GPO, which may take several days to properly format them. Reports are generally available online in THOMAS about an hour after they have been received from GPO, but can be delayed when there is the need for manual adjustments to the text.

While GPO is very efficient in processing large volumes of information day after day, technical problems can sometimes delay delivery to the Library. Also, on occasion, THOMAS may not receive a particular item due to an electronic transfer failure. In such instances you may be able to find the missing data by directly checking GPO's web site at GPO Access.

The notation "Last Updated" followed by a particular date that appears near the bottom of some THOMAS web pages, does not reflect the currency of the data displayed. Rather, it indicates the last time that the particular web page itself was changed, e.g. the text modified or reformatted, links added, etc.

Thoughts on THOMAS? We invite you to E-Mail (thomas@loc.gov) the Library of Congress THOMAS Team.

Happy reading. :D

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

You do know that the National Archives and the Library of Congress has scanned millions of pages into a digital format, right?  You realize that these bills and votes that you are referring to are in fact available for access on the internet,  don't you?  That the Congressional Record is available digitally?

You are only showing your own immaturity here.  You cannot even look things up on your own and you are making pathetic excuses to justify not doing it.

You may not be able to HOT link to some pictures or articles, but are you trying to tell me that you are not able to post even basic links to their sites at all?  That you are not able to, in any single case, provide links to the data you are trying to reference?  Even though there are THOUSANDS of places out there where you can look?

You expect us to believe that line of bull?

For you to attack me and question my intelligence seems very desperate and childish given the fact that it is you who is incapable of being able to actually provide any foundation for your claims.

Hate to be harsh here, but dude, you need to grow up.  You're not even in the same league as most of your ilk.  You just don't have the mental chops for this sort of thing, it would seem.  Even Al Franken would be disappointed by your meager effort... :)

Lol ok I guess I was wrong and you didn't look for yourself.

here's how far back the House Armed Service Commitee goes back in thier on-line archives:

http://armedservices.house.gov/schedules/ - 1997 not old enough for what I need.

The Senate Congressional Record goes back to 1989 in thier entirety while they've been steadily adding more, I'd bet by the end of the year I'll be able to find what I want on thier site. However most of the juicy stuff is infront of the House Amred Service Commitee so it doesn't really matter how far back that the Senat's records go because they're too different entities.

I won't even comment again on individual magazines and newspapers and the state of thier online archives, I'm wasting my breath on that. The obviouse fact is you're so young that the mere fact that something that is in print but isn't on the internet just totally evades you and I can do nothing to help you short of driving to your home and smacking you upside the head with that very issue you believe doesn't exist to get you to understand.

Edit: Oh you looked while I was typing, care to find the House Armed Service Comitee on thier, oh you can't, blast, maybe the Boston Globe, Newsweek? No?

[Bearded Kirklander]

Lol ok I guess I was wrong and you didn't look for yourself.

The Senate Congressional Record goes back to 1989 in thier entirety while they've been steadily adding more, I'd bet by the end of the year I'll be able to find what I want on thier site. However most of the juicy stuff is infront of the House Amred Service Commitee so it doesn't really matter how far back that the Senat's records go because they're too different entities.

I won't even comment again on individual magazines and newspapers and the state of thier online archives, I'm wasting my breath on that.

The obviouse fact is you're so young that the mere fact that something that is in print but isn't on the internet just totally evades you and I can do nothing to help you short of driving to your home and smacking you upside the head with that very issue you believe doesn't exist to get you to understand.

I was only asking the dude for some straight-up facts. I think we can now agree that he could have found them if he wanted to, don't you think?

One recommendation as long as we are at it. Immature and Young are two different things. You could claim I was immature if you want, but I can hardly believe anyone in their right mind would call me young... :D

Facts and data are all folks usually need. No need to go smacking them around. :o