obby

To view this file you will need Power Point or the free Power Point Viewer which can be downloaded here: Power Point Viewer Now here comes the good stuff. Enjoy!!!! Click Here Enjoy,

A group of us are going sky diving this weekend (weather permiting). If any of you are interested feel free to let me know. First time Jumpers : $120.00 Licensed jumpers (with your own shoot) : $30.00 Licensed Jumpers (with shoot rental) : $75.00 More details: obby@soturecords.com

I myself found this to be a lame decisions but when it comes down to it......Iraq is running Iraq now......Not America. We handed sovereignty over to the Iraqi's last month. We are only assisting in security until they can handle the job. Losing 50 people who where doing humanitarian jobs for Iraq is hardly a problem for Iraq. The symbolism looks bad but the reality is they where not doing much to begin with. Also, the Philippians has a very, very large Muslim/Terrorist population. I'm am sure that their Government is under extreme pressure.............

Right !!!!!!!

Could have fooled me chief. From what I have read you seem to favor/defend any side that is anti US. Good day,

When it comes down to it, if I had to choose a sides I would naturally choose the side that did not chant and dance in the streets,,,handing out cake and candy when the news broke about the WTC and Pentagon attack. I forgive but I don't forget!!!!!!

Great mind game!!!!!! Game of the kings (so they say)!!!!

I know...I'm a dork............(I'll let you think that) Anyway, yes I enjoy playing chess so I thought I would share this cool ass Star Wars Virtual Chess Runs on Windows 95 / 98 / 2k / Me / XP Star Wars Virtual Chess (17 mb) Enjoy, OBBY

Dimelo fiera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not trying anything!!! Just giving you my "opinion". Israeli's attack militants and terrorist Palestinians Palestinian's attack civilian(specifically women/children) The militants hide among their innocent(women/children), then cry bloody murder when there are some innocent found dead among the militant corpses. Those people have been fighting since the beginning of time. 3 religions come from the same patch of sand (Jews, Christians and Muslims). My opinion: One side has to lose before any progress can be made. Let me rephrase that. One side must be completely annihilated. Either or, makes no difference to me. In fairness, the Palestinians have shown to not want equality. They want all Jews dead. How are you supposed to deal w/ that logic? Besides, I remember Palestinians chanting and dancing in the streets,,,handing out cake and candy when the news broke about the WTC and Pentagon attack. To call that behavior uncivilized is an understatement.

...ooops

Sad but true!!!!!!! That's pretty disturbing to hear or read. I know I am not to believe everything I see and read but from what I hear and have read the Palestinians tend to attack Schools, Cyber Café's, Buses ect ect while the Israelis respond by attacking key Palestinian militants. Huuuuge difference in my books

I vote Lulamishka for one of the top hotties.

Mavi - A Tribute To M&M's (Yunus Vs Subsky Break Mix)

Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war - we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now." ABC's Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test. Koppel's findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller's suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq. Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them. "Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.' "Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle." Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way. The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq. As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts: "Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents." But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it's exactly what I would do again." Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States. But John Kerry's position on Iraq has vacillated - and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war. Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war. But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress. Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war - the way the president went to war was wrong." At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote." But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war. Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way [President Bush] went to war was a mistake." But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote. Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry's equivocating. In a speech Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes." "When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia." Good day,

I would be the second man to walk on water if I saw one of these eating machines coming towards me.

I though our music was another positive aspect

Why not. After all, everyone else is migrating here. What a classic. Thats one movie I never get tired of. Right next to "Back To The Future".

FYI The Cure Sound Advice Amphitheatre West Palm Beach Saturday, July 24, 2004

Have you heard of the "door man complex"?????? Same concept!!!!!!!!

Don't compare Australia to our coast Biz. If anything you will need some stitches if attacked here on our coast. If your attacked by a great white then that's a different story. I doubt stitches will help and expect not to be found. YOU WILL BE SHARK SHIT. That's why most who are attacked in Australia are never found. Can you say digested? Can you say shark feces? Remember, sharks like to surf too. Very rarely do you hear of attacks that end up with missing bodies here on our coast. If my memory serves me correct the last major attack we had here in SB was like 8 years ago and consisted of a 10 foot tiger shark which was eventually caught and killed right off the peer. Rarely do you hear of these attacks here. Your more likely to get frozen to death by a faulty smoke machine (Pod) than get attacked by a shark.

The 9/10 Democrats From the July 19, 2004 issue: The Bush campaign must remind Americans that the Iraq war was no mistake--that the case for the war was and is compelling, and that it used to be bipartisan. by William Kristol 07/19/2004, Volume 009, Issue 42 LAST THURSDAY, CNN's Larry King asked John Kerry whether he would want former President Bill Clinton to campaign on his behalf. Kerry said yes. "What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?" Kerry's answer is revealing. We were, in fact, at war. The Clinton administration, with the exception of a few cruise missiles, had simply chosen not to fight back. Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States, had launched attacks on our embassies and on a warship of the U.S. Navy. Saddam Hussein had defied U.N. weapons inspections, repeatedly threatened America, and attempted to assassinate former President Bush. Furthermore, where does Kerry object to young Americans' being deployed? Afghanistan? But Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for an insufficient commitment of troops there. Iraq? But Kerry voted for the war and has said he would not cut and run. So Kerry was simply indulging in demagoguery. He's not the only one. The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on pre-Iraq intelligence failures last Friday. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat, claimed that, because of the flawed intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, "Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of America in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before." Consider the extremism of Rockefeller's statement. Our global standing has never been lower? Our nation is more vulnerable than ever before? Then consider the facts. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies have deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown Saddam Hussein's Baathist despotism in Iraq. The Pakistani/Libyan international nuclear weapons bazaar has been shut down. Al Qaeda operatives not already killed or captured are on the run, with no safe base of operations remaining in the world. All this has made us more vulnerable? If that's true, then it is the position of Senator Rockefeller that the American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq not only have accomplished nothing but have been counterproductive. This is a slander the Bush administration must answer--if not for its own sake, then for the honor of those who have sacrificed so much to make this country less vulnerable than it has been for years. As for hatred of America, al Qaeda leaders were planning their attacks on New York and Washington back in those halcyon days of the Clinton era that John Kerry recalls with such nostalgia. Indeed, al Qaeda was left unmolested as it trained thousands of terrorists at camps in Afghanistan. And of course, lest we forget: On October 12, 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda struck two U.S. embassies in East Africa killing 257--including 12 Americans--and injuring 5,000. During the 1990s, numerous other attacks were planned (the Millennium attack on the Los Angeles airport) or executed (the Khobar Towers attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Those were the good old days when, by Jay Rockefeller's reckoning, America was less hated and less vulnerable. The Senate Intelligence Committee faults the U.S. intelligence community for providing flawed intelligence to policymakers. But the intelligence community is not up for reelection this fall. The policymakers are. So many Democrats, with a compliant media, will be tempted to fall in behind Rockefeller. We'll soon be hearing a lot about the Bush administration's "exaggeration" of intelligence. What the Bush campaign must do is remind Americans that the Iraq war was no mistake--that the case for the war was and is compelling, and that it used to be bipartisan. Jay Rockefeller, of all people, made that case well in an October 2002 floor speech: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." Rockefeller wasn't done. "He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against American citizens....Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam Hussein thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might think it not so irrational." Indeed. So it was right to remove him. And we are safer for having done so.

Above is a picture of Mike McNaughton of Denham Springs, LA. He stepped on a land mine in Afghanistan Christmas 2002. President Bush came to visit the wounded in the hospital. He told Mike that when he could run a mile that they would go on a run together. True to his word, he called Mike every month or so to see how he was doing. Well, last week they went on the run, 1 mile with the president. Not something you'll see in the news, but seeing the president taking the time to say thank you to the wounded and to give hope to one of my best friends was one of the greatest/best things I have seen in my life. It almost sounds like a corny email chain letter, but God bless him.

I agree I don't think it's the kind of picture you are looking for but here you go. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/11899496?version=1

CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees... John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other! In the past 48 hours, "candidate handling" has become the top buzz on the trail. News photographers have been going wild with photos of the two Johns. "I've been covering Washington and politics for 30 years. I can say I've never seen this much touching between two men, publicly," e-mailed one wire photographer. When asked if the Johns are acting out a cynical focus group series of poses -- perhaps to show warmth to the chilly Bush/Cheney -- a Kerry spokesperson explained: "I think we're just seeing genuine affection between them." But the spokesperson added, "I hope we do not see them wearing matching outfits when they ride bikes this weekend."