I am quite sure Man Without Honor™ RetiredArmyMajorRetired, that if anyone with military service announces his or her intention to run as a Democratic candidate for president of the the United States, that you and your Swift Boat smearbuddies will spring into action with your usual pastiche of lies, half-truths and outright smears.

Smearing Democratic veterans is what you do best.

________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

If waht the Swiftboat Vets said were libelous, why didn't Kerry SUE as John O'Neill invited him to.

Kerry NEVER signed his form 180 for FULL disclosure of ALL records.

So how do you know the Swift Boat vets lied, but not the "band of brothers?

Once again, you come up short.

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

Kerry signs Form 180

I would ask you to apologize for your lie, but we both know that as a Man Without Honor™ you are unable to own up to your shortcomings.

The reason Kerry didn't sue your Swiftboat smearbuddies was because the courts have held that the standard for libel regarding public figures required "actual malice" to be shown (Hustler v. Falwell, 1988). Your cowardly Swiftboat smearbuddies could have hidden behind the legal fiction that their charges were their "interpretation" of Kerry's award citations.

________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Come on banman you really didn't think you were going to get away with the www.kerry.org/DNC talking points did you.

Just like Bill Clinton's depends what the definition od "is" is, Kerry sends his request to the WRONG AGENCY!!!

- Though Kerry's spokesman said the form will be sent to the Navy, National Archives seems to suggest it should be sent to the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

deleted

Deleted

When you use the word "serve" for the armed forces you immediately eliminate people like you mentioned. They don"t "serve," they boss.
I never thought I "served" when I was in the military. It was a job with a lot of bosses. Cops don't "serve." Firemen don't "serve, they are paid and get retirement.
Howard Dean did pretty good didn't he with the election? Now he and Cheney would be "serving," since they both give up ultra millions to "serve."

Git Real, you do realize that the Drudge Report (where you seem to be pulling tonight's blog material) is the online equivalent of Fox Not-News, don't you?

And this would make Drudge different that what other networks? All Drudge offers is a quick link to some interesting stories that the other networks don't offer. Some have credibility and some don't. No different than CNN, ABC, CBS & Fox.

Matt has been caught "creating" a few things

Yes he has..... much like many of the fore mentioned.

________

You may not be at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with you!

Let's take an issue of your choosing and compare Edwards' policies to the Republican candidate of your choice. I think we'll all learn something if you add more meat to your message. Whatdoyasay?

Kevin "Hack" King

Mr. King, actually I was just kidding but if you want me to explain why I disagree with Edwards I will be more than happy to.

• Edwards is solidly pro-death uhh...excuse me, "pro-choice" and has a 100% rating from NARAL.
  
  Mr. Edwards have 100% ratings from NARAL on their abortion-related votes.
  
  From the New York Sun
  I thought that Edwards was for the little guy? Obviously he's not for the littlest and instead doesn't mind that they are killed before they are born.
• Edwards associates with vile, totally unhinged left wing bloggers like Amanda Marcotte. (Warning! Lots of language on that page!)
• He's a hypocrite about Wal-Mart and even though he has criticized them, he gets his staff member to go Christmas shopping for him there. Granted, you can't prove that Edwards knowingly sent the staff member there, but it's suspicious at best.
• He's a sleezy trial lawyer that says ridiculous things to win cases. Ridiculous things like:
  
  'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"
  
  He "feel[s] her presence"? What is he? A medium? Give me a break!
• He has a shady history of questionable campaign contributions.
• Edwards is beyond nutty about "global warming" he actually said that global warming will "make world war look like heaven." Huh? He'd rather go through World War I and World War II again rather than global warming? How unhinged is he?
• Edwards thinks that Israel is a greater threat to world peace than Iran!
• He's a politician first and definitely no statesman since he had quite a few absences from the senate. If he's truly for the little guy, he should not have missed so many votes! (And yes, I realize other politicians missed votes too. But I thought he was setting an example?)
  
• Then let's not forget his nonsense about "two Americas."
  
  Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.
  
  Typical Democratic class warfare....

I can give several more, but that's all for now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

Thanks for the Junk Science link.

Edwards . . . continues to cite one of his most lucrative legal victories as an example of how he would stand up for "the little guy" if elected president.

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies.

~ I’m concerned that the “common” man does not use critical thinking skills to evaluate all candidates (who very often are lawyers) but is easily swayed by the smooth oratorical skills of many politicians. ~

~ At least, that’s one charge that can't be used against Pres. Bush: strong oratorical skills.

"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor."

"These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift."

However, Olson [legal expert] believes trial lawyers "have been getting away with an awful lot."

“He bent the available evidence to fit what he wanted to say," [Hood].

Huber [lawyer] believes juries are typically manipulated with emotional arguments.

Many juries never even get to hear about the medical science [because cases are settled to defray legal costs].

~ I see that the same tactics are being used with many issues, including the global warming scare. We need to consider carefully ALL of the science and the motives involved and not rush to a swift “guilty” before considering all of the evidence. ~

[Olson] contends that the medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery.

~ Note the effect on healthcare. Another effect is the rising cost of medical insurance for the physicians and patients. ~

~ I am not against personal wealth, nor am I against excellent oratorical skills when used to tell the truth. I am against manipulation. ~

~ I am not against the patient's right to sue a doctor and do not support tort reform as it has been proposed. I am against the abuses inherent in the system. ~

~ There are no easy, quick solutions. ~

~ I've had personal experience with the abuses of the legal system and believe that I've seen its "dark side":

the manipulation, twisting the evidence by both sides, to tell a “story,” even if the story evolved into a fairy tale on one side and a horror story on the other. Both sides often strayed far from the truth. ~

Caveat emptor – "Let the buyer beware."

This is one of those posts I won't get emotional about. It is nteresting that vague attacks are made on John Edward's policies, but nothing specific. Here's what I know about John Edwards.

He is a very successful lawyer (seemingly a conservative plus). He donates millions to public schools. When I lived in North Carolina, my daughter's school (North Drive Elementary) had a computer lab donated by the Edwards in their son's name.

He cares about people (seems aweful Christiany).

He can speak the American language correctly.

For the spiining up Retired Army guy, I will confidently sit back and watch you defend the character og Giuliani and the judgement of McCain. Let's see what '08 brings.

Cheers guys,
and hug someone who you love today,

Kevin "Hack" King

How about evaluating [examine and judge carefully] the character of ALL candidates -- holding them up to the same standard?

_____________________________

"He cares about people" -- Maybe, maybe not as much as it appears. The assessment can be that he used people to enrich himself. I've seen it done, up close & personal.

Trial lawyers can seem soooo caring. They should be just as caring for the healthcare system that they are damaging.

How many of Edwards's cases were performed gratuitously or for a reduced rate when he definitely had the funds to finance such cases?

~ I'm not for a "free lunch" in any area. It erodes character. Charity is another thing, though. ~

Trial lawyers are very selective about the cases that they take, oftentimes not as "caring" about people as they are about $$$. Not unlike the "big corporations" that they battle as lawyers and politicians.

Also, adversarial attorneys often collaborate to get the best deal -- for themselves!

Trial lawyers receive at least 40% of the judgment before the huge amount of expenses is deducted, leaving the plaintiff with a very small percentage of the settlement. The plaintiff can actually lose money by the time he pays the lawyer & the experts & other expenses. Not very "caring," if you ask me.

~ Just a little perspective ~

_____________________________

"He donates millions to public schools." I'd like to see the back-up for that.

What percentage of his income would that be? (for a standard of comparison)

Also, when was the donation made? When he was preparing to run for political office?

~ Fair question to ask about ALL of the candidates. ~

I don't know much about Edwards but I know about lawyers and you are way off base.

Trial lawyers can seem soooo caring. They should be just as caring for the healthcare system that they are damaging.

Denise, if you've ever been prescribed a drug that the drug company studies clearly showed as having a risk of serious injury or death -- or if you ever had a surgeon screw up while addicted to prescription narcotics -- or if you had an unnecessary mastectomy because some wannabe doctor misread your mammogram, you'd want a lawyer to advocate for you. I mean, since you can't drag the schmuck out in the public square and kick his tail, the only redress you can get is through the courts, with a lawyer. And the fact that those things happen infrequently is due to the fear of a lawyer coming to sue the crap out of bad doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. So, contrary to the line of bullcrap you've been fed, lawyers improve the system. Insurance companies are destroying it by undermining the doctor-patient relationship over (come on . . . say it with me) Money.

How many of Edwards's cases were performed gratuitously or for a reduced rate when he definitely had the funds to finance such cases?

Lots of lawyers do pro bono work that never gets reported. Some of it isn't entirely voluntary. Clients always want to welch out on paying the bill once they've gotten what they came for. Then, mysteriously, the work wasn't worth what they agreed to pay back when they were desperate. And why is it incumbent on the lawyer to offset his bill? Do you go to your doctor's office and, once cured, tell him he should charge off the bill because he can afford it? I don't know about you but if I did that -- and he agreed to offset the bill -- I'd be afraid to go to that doctor again.

I'm not for a "free lunch" in any area. It erodes character. Charity is another thing, though.

Really? What, exactly, is the difference? Where is the vow of poverty in the oath attorneys take? Who will decrease the grad school loan payments when the lawyer extends "charity" to a client? Who will pay the secretary to show up and answer the phone and take the mail to the post office when the lawyer doesn't collect his full fee and can't meet his operating expenses? Who will pay the lawyer's bar dues (which, if unpaid, result in disbarment) when he doesn't collect his full fee? Who will pay the phone company, the electric company, the mortgage on the lawyer's office and the gas bill when the lawyer doesn't collect his rightfully-earned fee?

Trial lawyers are very selective about the cases that they take, oftentimes not as "caring" about people as they are about $$$. Not unlike the "big corporations" that they battle as lawyers and politicians.

Again, where was the vow of poverty you seem to think a lawyer should take? A great lawyer won't be able to help very many people if he cannot keep himself financially afloat. So, just like corporations look at their profit margin and determine how much they can reasonably donate to community causes (United Way, Boy Scouts, the Widows and Orphans fund, etc.), lawyers do the same. America is a capitalist country where free enterprise is king. So, why do lawyer haters assume that lawyers are supposed to be socialists? Keep the hospitals neck-deep in profit; make sure doctors can wipe their butts with $100 dollar bills and, for God's sake, give insurance companies every opportunity to take the premiums but reject legitimate claims. But lawyers ... well, they have to work for free and live in a van down by the river. After all, they can afford it, right?

Also, adversarial attorneys often collaborate to get the best deal -- for themselves!

If you, or anyone else, has proof of an attorney doing that, report them, immediately, to the State Bar. That is a serious offense for which they can be disbarred. Thus, if you have the stats to back up the assertion that it happens "often", I'd be glad to see them. Otherwise, it sounds like more lawyer-hating hyperbole.

Trial lawyers receive at least 40% of the judgment before the huge amount of expenses is deducted, leaving the plaintiff with a very small percentage of the settlement. The plaintiff can actually lose money by the time he pays the lawyer & the experts & other expenses. Not very "caring," if you ask me.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "A lawyer's stock in trade is his time." That is to say, a lawyer doesn't manufacture widgets or invent new machines; he sells his expertise and his time to apply that expertise on behalf of his client. The lawyer has to properly strategize his representation -- even when the client does things that undermine the case. The lawyer has to pick the right experts (you don't want someone who isn't knowledgeable and respected in their field). The lawyer has to pay salaries of their office staff and pay to keep the copier, fax and phone operating so that the client's documents are filed on time with the court and the work gets done.

Think about how long that lawyer may go without seeing a dime from the client while he is working on that case. Would you work for months or years without being paid? And woudn't you charge for the time value of that deferred compensation?

Oh, and in case you've forgotten, if you lose the case, the lawyer gets nothing and he gets to "eat" all of the litigation costs (deposition transcripts, court reporters fees, expert's fees, etc.) and operating expenses. So, when a lawyer takes a case, he is gambling on you, the client, in the expectation that he will eventually be paid for his efforts.

Just a little reality-based perspective.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

#1 -- Probably agree a lot with you. I am well acquainted with medical malpractice and have prolonged first-hand experience with the "system." Plaintiffs are at a great disadvantage, and that's why I criticize the healthcare industry's not policing itself, as well as lawyers taking advantage of vulnerable clients.

"And the fact that those things happen infrequently is due to the fear of a lawyer" coming after you. -- Wouldn't have anything to do with doctors' professionalism and trying to be the best at their profession, would it?

Who do you think gets incompetent doctors off the hook? LAWYERS!

The point with Edwards is that he made money off exaggerations and twisting the truth. The consequences of fraudulent lawsuits is higher priced insurance and medical care for all of us.

"the line of XXX you've been fed" -- No one "feeds" me anything. I find out for myself and try to see both sides of an issue.

#2 -- Edwards should back up his boasts of being an advocate for the "common" man. He's probably a lot wealthier than most doctors and certainly nurses. Trial lawyers are paid BEFORE the client sees one penny and end up receiving much more than 50% of the award that the jury believes is going to the injured party.

Doctors and nurses and healthcare employees are just as "common" as you & I. In fact, they work a lot harder than many people. It won't be your lawyer staying by your bedside when you're deathly ill.

Yes, some doctors do provide charity services. I don't like fomenting class envy.

#3 -- Where is the vow of poverty in the oath doctors & nurses take? Who will decrease the grad school loan payments when the doctors & nurses extend "charity" to a patient? Who will pay the secretary to show up and answer the phone and take the mail to the post office when the doctor doesn't collect his full fee and can't meet his operating expenses? Who will pay the doctors & nurses' CME (continuing medical education,which, if unpaid, result in losing their medical licenses) when he doesn't collect his full fee? Who will pay the phone company, the electric company, the mortgage on the doctor's office and the gas bill when the doctor doesn't collect his rightfully-earned fee?

Haven't met too many poor lawyers or poor doctors, but nurses or secretaries aren't paid sometimes as much as they're worth.

I have known doctors that work at charity clinics and provide "free" medical care to patients here and abroad. I'd say that doctors and nurses are a lot more necessary than lawyers and lot more highly respected, too.

There is room for improvement on both sides. Doctors can go into medicine just for the money or can descend to that level once they become successful.

#4 -- "So, why do lawyer haters assume that lawyers are supposed to be socialists?"

I'm not a lawyer hater -- well, I try not to be.

Socialism -- That's Edwards' politics, not mine!

"Keep the hospitals neck-deep in profit" -- Where's the back-up for that statement? All of that equipment does cost quite a lot. I believe successful trial lawyers are sky-deep in profit.

"make sure doctors can XXX with $100 dollar bills" -- And lawyers use $500?

"insurance companies every opportunity to take the premiums but reject legitimate claims" -- I know all about that very well, but praising trial lawyers does nothing to fix this problem. Guess who gets insr. co. out of paying the bills -- LAWYERS!

Doctors likely have a lot more dead-beat patients than lawyers do because lawyers get a retainer up front. Doctors don't. Also, emergency rooms are required to treat patients whether or not they can pay; lawyers aren't.

#5 -- Of course, lawyers don't let clients know about their dealings with one another. But if you're observant, you'll find out that they extend "professional courtesy" to one another to the extent of harming the client. Who's going to believe you? The judge? He's a lawyer, too.

Whenever a client is pressured to settle a case, it benefits the lawyers because then they get their money with less work than if they went to trial and they're certain to collect their fees because there's no risk of losing.

Oftentimes someone who's not guilty will settle a case just to avoid the huge financial & personal drain of a lawsuit. Who benefits? The lawyers on both sides.

#6 -- How much does a lawyer charge for his time, every second of it? $200 per hour? $500? I don't begrudge an honest living, but lawyers are not high up on the list of trusted professionals.

"He gets to "eat" all of the litigation costs (deposition transcripts, court reporters fees, expert's fees, etc.) and operating expenses." Not any lawyer I've ever heard of!!!!

Those fees are paid as the expenses are incurred, usually out of a retainer account, and lawyers have little incentive to save their clients money. The client is responsible for such fees whether he prevails or not.

"According to a recent Harris Poll measuring U.S. adults’ trust in 11 different professions to give advice that is best for them, the professionals trusted completely by the greatest number of adults are doctors (50%), dentists (47%), and nurses (46%)."

"Participants in a 2004 Gallup survey ranked nurses as having the highest honesty and ethical standards of 21 professions. . . . In 2003, physicians held the No. 2 slot -- their highest ranking since the survey was started."

You won't find nearly as many doctor joke books either!

________________________

The National Institute of Health (NIH) announced last week that they were going to start using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments. Naturally, the American Bar Association was outraged and filed suit. Yet, the NIH presented some very good reasons for the switch.

1. The lab assistants were becoming very attached to their little rats. This emotional involvement was interfering with the research being conducted. No such attachment could form for a lawyer.

2. Lawyers breed faster and are in much greater supply.

3. Lawyers are much cheaper to care for and the humanitarian societies won't jump all over you no matter what you're studying.

4. There are some things even a rat won't do.

Clean Lawyer Jokes

I guess I was right about you being a democrat. Is John Edwards your choice?

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

I am a democrat who lives very conservatively but thinks of govt in a libertarian way. I like Chuck Hagel, NC Republican Walter Jones, Democrats Brian Schwetzer, Bill Richardson, Barack, John Edwards. Iraq is my biggest issue, because I feel we are throwing away brave American lives with very little critical oversight.
I have a fondness for veterans in general. So I'm glad Murtha and Hagel have been brave enough to say that Iraq is not and was not the great idea that it was sold as (democracy spreading like wildfire and such). I started blogging here originally under my name, Kevin King, because there were very few voices from the "other side" of the aisle. Many pushed the idea that all military people supported our Iraq invasion (not true). When people began wearing their military experience on their sleeve as added credibility (not that anything is wrong with that), I changed my screen name to AF A-10. That way, I don't get the "what would you know about combat" questions.
I don't have my vote decided for Pres yet. I've got to hear them debate. I do know that my vote will go to someone who:

Speaks English clearly and intelligently
and
Has a plan for exiting Iraq and actually establishing foreign diplomatic policies that possibly attempt discussion prior to military action.

Cheers, and I'd like your take on things,

Kevin "Hack" King

"Speaks English clearly and intelligently"

Would I get your vote?

__________________

"foreign diplomatic policies that possibly attempt discussion prior to military action"

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions:

Resolution 660 -- 2 August 1990

Resolution 661 -- 6 August 1990

Resolution 678 -- 29 November 1990

Resolution 686 -- 2 March 1991

Resolution 687 -- 3 April 1991

Resolution 688 -- 5 April 1991

Resolution 707 -- 15 August 1991

Resolution 715 -- 11 October 1991

Resolution 986 -- 14 April 1995

Resolution 1284 -- 17 December 1999

_________________________

U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.

_________________________

Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.

_________________________

How were there no prior discussions?

~ Seems like some parents I've heard when pleading with dear little Susie to stop throwing a tantrum. They ask & ask & ask . . . . ~

** Disclaimer ** I am NOT a military expert, but then neither is anyone else here.

you do speak quite clearly and I've read all of your posts. Problem with UN 1441 is two fold.

1. It was a UN resolution and the UN did not back invasion of Iraq.

2. Denise..... We did not find WMDs that we used as motive for invasion. We cited aluminum artillery tubes as nuclear enrichment equipment and did not allow the US evidence against that claim to be declassified. We will, over the next year, learn many things about the shaping of released intelligence. I don't think Americans will like what we discover.

Cheers, and Good day!

Kevin "Hack" King

UN Resolution -- Maybe that's where to start working on the problem

"We did not find WMDs that we used as motive for invasion." --

But didn't we have to go in to look? To make sure?

Were there not any WMDs found?

It seems that Saddam & associates used some type of WMD on people within his own country. I've seen pictures of relatives crying over the uncovered graves.

I doubt that any war doesn't have political undertones & ramifications. I can't think of one. WWII & the Civil War did. The War for Independence did -- there were many who bitterly opposed such drastic action & many who used every opportunity to push for war.

Studying history gives a broader perspective & helps one not to be caught up in what is sometimes an "attack the messenger rather than the enemy" mindset.

"We will, over the next year, learn many things" -- It may take years for the true historical perspective.

________________________________

War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

~ Winston Churchill

I don't find anything weird about putting issues ahead of party politics. I do the same thing myself.

I have a handful of issues, that can change from time to time, that dictate what is important to me.

I then look to see who is actually supporting (not just with lip service) my view of the issues and that is who I in turn support politically. Sometimes it is a politically liberal view; sometimes it is a politically conservative view.

Check me if I am wrong, but I think that's how a Representative form of government is supposed to work.

I would say that you and I are using the system as it was intended.

By the way, I too am a veteran but that was six happy years of my life several years ago.

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

Seems you have propelled yourself forward with that 6 years. God's Speed!

Kevin "Hack" King

Seems like I remember that you do have a wife & kids?

How do they compare to a car????

Neither one of those can measure a man's success.
Neither one will be at graveside to talk about the difference we made in their lives.

I have a feeling that a couple of kids, at least one of whom was adopted, will be, God willing graveside reflecting on a life well spent. Besides Hack, aside from the fact that you help keep our nation strong, I bet there are a few more jewels in that crown than just an old Dodge.

Every nickel I put in to this selfish indulgence of a car could (should) help make my 401-k or 403-b bigger, or help those less fortunate in Darfur or elsewhere to a better life. (I am at a point where I feel a bit guilty about cashing in some of this hard earned money for self-indulgence sometimes whenever I see what's going on in the world.

I'm not sure I'm really the model of a life in balance but I bet you are.

I used to have an old mini van. Seems I slept better back then

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

My sister whom I love dearly (and who also loves and owns cool cars), my father, and I have had that discussion often. What is the balance? Should we wear potato sacks or Armani? Should we indulge in extra square footage or even running water? The truth is, some people find enjoyment in Lladro, some in classical music, and some in exhaust notes from throaty V-6s and 8s. No matter where you travel; no matter how frustrated by our politics other countries are, they love Americanism. Absolutely. They ask me how women here hold wine glasses and cigarettes. They ask about our wide open spaces. I had three Spanish flight students that called the US "land of the corvettes" because they had only seen one or two before comming here for pilot training. They ask why everyone has one or two cars. They don't understand living 50 miles from your place of work. Don't feel guilty for enjoying your commutes.
Never apologize for the gas guzzling blend of US, Japanese, German, and even Korean cars made right here in the USA which help make us the disfunctional greedy but very generous country that we are!
Remember being a kid, and pumping your arm so the big rig would honk his air horn? That's who we are. Bigger, better (we think anyway), faster, free-er. Always giving youth targets to aim for. That's what we're all about. And, the minivan does make an excellent dirty mountain bike hauller.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King