8
   

Newt Agrees With Dick; You Should Be Afraid.

 
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 05:00 pm
well, today's Meet The Press offered the fearful clucking of Cheney's fellow chickenhawk, Newt Gingrich;

Quote:
....MR. GREGORY: But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?

REP. GINGRICH: Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: Why?

....REP. GINGRICH: Let me just say, I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers, where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the two embassy bombings in east Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate. I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you weren't worried about the second-wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that, that you are out of touch with reality.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But--wait, but Speaker Gingrich, you make the point about how Vice President Cheney felt personally, personal fear. And isn't President Obama's argument that fear as a basis of national security policy is not sustainable over time? How do you come up with a sustainable legal framework, a sustainable national security policy?

REP. GINGRICH: We, we...

MR. GREGORY: Don't we elect leaders to transcend fear for lasting policies?


http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/durbin_and_gingrich_and_meet_t.html

----

dtom in response to Mr. Gingrich;

mr. speaker,

i'd like to address your comments on Meet the Press this morning regarding the level of fear that you believe americans should be experiencing in their daily lives in "the post 9/11 world".

1) to carry the requisite daily fear that you deem appropriate would mean only one thing to america; that the terrorists have been successful in their goals and the average american citizen now lives in terror. personally, i'd rather not give 'em the satisfaction.

2) having lived in los angeles for all but a couple of the last 33 years, i'll tell you we don't necessarily frighten all that easy. crips, bloods, ms, xv3, stoners, ab, ap, akp, sswc; the list goes on. you just keep your eyes open and get on with your life. my pals in new york city have a similar attitude. that, my dear sir is living in reality.

3) you again have mentioned the clinton administration dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue. you failed to mention a couple of things; a) the clinton approach yielded the result of capturing the perpetrators of the 1st wtc and imprisoning them. none have escaped by the way, so don't worry your little head about that. b) by your own words, al qaida was a known quantity in the late '90s, and was still so in march of 2001 when vice president dick cheney was named by president bush to head the anti-terrorist task force. mr. cheney apparently had, again, other priorities and did not convene the first meeting of that task force until late august of 2001.

can you, mr. gingrich explain this clear dereliction of duty? too busy rigging the energy markets? planning the war in iraq that he was intent on selling from day 1? maybe he's just a lazy, self interested jerk? bad at his job?

4) here's one that nobody has brought up though. maybe, just maybe ol' dick knows in his heart that he fucked up royal, and has a very guilty conscience? really, to know that a terrorist group is carrying out attacks, to be charged with the anti-terrorist task force, to not hold the first meeting of that group for over 6 months... living with the knowledge that you did nothing about a known threat ?

and you want me to believe he has any business telling anyone else, especially the sitting president how to protect the country? gee, i guess you're just not living in reality.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 1,339 • Replies: 49
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 07:33 pm
Last week my brother met with 400 members of the Sons of Iraq.

I wrote him an email asking is that was scary.

He wrote me back saying "No."

So.... you know.... if he can do that.... I'm not going to wander around being scared of stuff here.

DontTreadOnMe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 07:52 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

Last week my brother met with 400 members of the Sons of Iraq.

I wrote him an email asking is that was scary.

He wrote me back saying "No."

So.... you know.... if he can do that.... I'm not going to wander around being scared of stuff here.




exactly. and give your brother my best wishes.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 08:39 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
to carry the requisite daily fear that you deem appropriate would mean only one thing to america; that the terrorists have been successful in their goals and the average american citizen now lives in terror. personally, i'd rather not give 'em the satisfaction.


Amen.

Cheney and Gingrich sound as if they want alQaeda to succeed.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 01:44 am
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
to carry the requisite daily fear that you deem appropriate would mean only one thing to america; that the terrorists have been successful in their goals and the average american citizen now lives in terror. personally, i'd rather not give 'em the satisfaction.


Amen.

Cheney and Gingrich sound as if they want alQaeda to succeed.


it does, doesn't it ? as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.

i know there are self interested doinks all over, but me being an american and all... it totally bugs when they are homegrown.


0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 06:32 am
What's the appropriate reaction to a multinational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?
Merry Andrew
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 12:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
What's the appropriate reaction to a multinational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?


You are referring to Deadeye Dick Cheney and his unsavory cohorts, right, Brandon?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 01:25 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
What's the appropriate reaction to a multinational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?


You are referring to Deadeye Dick Cheney and his unsavory cohorts, right, Brandon?

Obviously, I'm referring to extreme Islam, Al Qaeda, etc. The fact that you can only answer by mocking and not on topic would seem to say something about the strength of your position.

Presumably, you believe yourself to be right. Would you care to actually respond on topic to what I said? I don't think you can.
Xenoche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 01:34 pm
I'm more afraid of pie. I mean, some of those bakery pies can be abit dodgy (especially chicken).
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 01:52 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

What's the appropriate reaction to a multinational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?


apparently invading Iraq wasn't the appropriate reaction. we'll see if there's any value to Afghanistan after ignoring it for so long.

it might be better to use smaller, faster strike teams when there's good information.

there's always organizations like Interpol. it's not like there were no terrorists untill 9/11, ya know.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 03:56 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Would you care to actually respond on topic to what I said? I don't think you can.


You're probably right. I'm not very good at the kind of in-your-face "discusions" that seem to chracterize the A2K style. Posters here seem to argue until they're blue in the face, apparently trying to convince the unconvinceable of the rightness of their own position. That's my definition of 'futility.'

I'll try to answer your question -- "What's the appropriate reaction to a multnational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?" For me, the appropriate reaction would be to engage them and destroy the nucleus which activates the actual troublemakers.

There's no need to try and scare the pants off the American public in the process. There's no need to use an attack on the American infrastructure as an excuse for going after a despicable dictator like Saddam Hussein on the laughably thin excuse that he was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and has WMDs that he plans to use against us. That was palpable horseshit from the begining. There's no need to perform actions for which we then have to invent rational explanations. I would have had a much higher opinion of President Bush if he'd simply said, "Look, this guy Saddam is a piece of ****; we have to get rid of him. My dad made a mistake not offing him when he had the chance after the first Gulf War. I'll rectify that." Plainly put in plain words. I would have respected that and said, "Good riddance to Saddam." I do not respect lying bullshit.

I'm a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Talk softly, too. Above all, don't try to frighten the American populace with Chicken Little paranoia.

Happy now, Brandon? (I still say Cheney is far more dangerous to US democracy than binLaden ever was.)
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 05:46 pm
and here, sean hannity himself asserts that al qaida was a known quantity when bush / cheney took office. why didn't cheney spring into action?

jesse ventura goes on to give sean the spanking he so richly deserves.

Merry Andrew
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 07:12 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Wow. I knew there was some reason why I liked Ventura. What surprises me, though, is that Fox News even ran this interview. Jesse is so articulate and outspoken he makes Hannity look and sound like a pompous, pureile school kid (which, of course, he is).
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 07:23 pm
@Merry Andrew,
it looks like they cut his segment short, from what jesse was saying. sean doesn't handle it very well when people push back.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 02:37 am
Merry Andrew wrote:

There's no need to try and scare the pants off the American public in the process. There's no need to use an attack on the American infrastructure as an excuse for going after a despicable dictator like Saddam Hussein on the laughably thin excuse that he was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and has WMDs that he plans to use against us. That was palpable horseshit from the begining. There's no need to perform actions for which we then have to invent rational explanations. I would have had a much higher opinion of President Bush if he'd simply said, "Look, this guy Saddam is a piece of ****; we have to get rid of him. My dad made a mistake not offing him when he had the chance after the first Gulf War. I'll rectify that." Plainly put in plain words. I would have respected that and said, "Good riddance to Saddam." I do not respect lying bullshit.
******************************************************************

Merry Andrew is correct. Especially about the laughably thin excuse that he was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and has WMD's that he plans to use against us. That was palpable horseshit from the beginning.

Merry Andrew is correct. The morons who believed that Saddam was a menace and that he had WMD's are just stupid.

As Merry Andrew said: "I do not respect lying bullshit"--exactly--moreover, no one should respect anyone who is a lying bullshitter.

Note:


The consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:


Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President


to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:


There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:


Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:


We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:


Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force"if necessary"to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.


Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:


Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.
*****************************************************

Lying Bullshitters???

Clinton'
Albright
Cohen
Berger
Levin
Daschle
Kerry
Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Jay Rockefeller
Al Gore
Ted Kennedy
Byrd.

Yes, read what they said about Saddam and WMD's.

Bullshitters all!!!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 05:06 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

What's the appropriate reaction to a multinational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?


apparently invading Iraq wasn't the appropriate reaction. we'll see if there's any value to Afghanistan after ignoring it for so long.

it might be better to use smaller, faster strike teams when there's good information.

there's always organizations like Interpol. it's not like there were no terrorists untill 9/11, ya know.

My point is that there is really something which one ought to be afraid of.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 05:16 am
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
Would you care to actually respond on topic to what I said? I don't think you can.


You're probably right. I'm not very good at the kind of in-your-face "discusions" that seem to chracterize the A2K style. Posters here seem to argue until they're blue in the face, apparently trying to convince the unconvinceable of the rightness of their own position. That's my definition of 'futility.'

I'll try to answer your question -- "What's the appropriate reaction to a multnational conspiracy of amoral fanatics who want to destroy you and would stop at nothing?" For me, the appropriate reaction would be to engage them and destroy the nucleus which activates the actual troublemakers.

There's no need to try and scare the pants off the American public in the process. There's no need to use an attack on the American infrastructure as an excuse for going after a despicable dictator like Saddam Hussein on the laughably thin excuse that he was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and has WMDs that he plans to use against us. That was palpable horseshit from the begining. There's no need to perform actions for which we then have to invent rational explanations. I would have had a much higher opinion of President Bush if he'd simply said, "Look, this guy Saddam is a piece of ****; we have to get rid of him. My dad made a mistake not offing him when he had the chance after the first Gulf War. I'll rectify that." Plainly put in plain words. I would have respected that and said, "Good riddance to Saddam." I do not respect lying bullshit.

I'm a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Talk softly, too. Above all, don't try to frighten the American populace with Chicken Little paranoia.

Happy now, Brandon? (I still say Cheney is far more dangerous to US democracy than binLaden ever was.)

Going after Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11. It was a completely unrelated action, related instead to his treaty obligation to stop all WMD research. It has nothing to do with the issue of fearing terrorists.

Dick Cheney, someone whom you disagree with politically, is not a bigger threat than bin Laden, who would probably destroy the US altogether if he had the means.

As for engaging the terrorists, engaging someone involves negotiation, and I don't think we can negotiate very much on the subject of whether we should all convert to Islam and adopt the Islamic lifestyle. Sometimes conflict results from the other guy being evil, and not from a misunderstanding.

Also, talking softly and carrying a big stick is pointless unless you're willing to use the stick from time to time.

In conclusion, someone who says that we should be afraid of what the terrorists might do, rather than being a fear-monger, is simply not a fool.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 08:41 am
Two posts in a row, you appeal to Fear.

I am not afraid of terrorists; and you are a fear-mongering fool, Brandon. You are the type of person that terrorists hope our country is full of.

Bad things are going to happen from time to time; terrorism is going to continue, along with murder, famine, etc.. to spend your time fearing it is childish and a dumb way to run your country.

Cycloptichorn
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 10:28 am
Merry Andrew wrote:

There's no need to try and scare the pants off the American public in the process. There's no need to use an attack on the American infrastructure as an excuse for going after a despicable dictator like Saddam Hussein on the laughably thin excuse that he was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and has WMDs that he plans to use against us. That was palpable horseshit from the begining. There's no need to perform actions for which we then have to invent rational explanations. I would have had a much higher opinion of President Bush if he'd simply said, "Look, this guy Saddam is a piece of ****; we have to get rid of him. My dad made a mistake not offing him when he had the chance after the first Gulf War. I'll rectify that." Plainly put in plain words. I would have respected that and said, "Good riddance to Saddam." I do not respect lying bullshit.
******************************************************************

Merry Andrew is correct. Especially about the laughably thin excuse that he was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and has WMD's that he plans to use against us. That was palpable horseshit from the beginning.

Merry Andrew is correct. The morons who believed that Saddam was a menace and that he had WMD's are just stupid.

As Merry Andrew said: "I do not respect lying bullshit"--exactly--moreover, no one should respect anyone who is a lying bullshitter.

Note:


The consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:


Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President


to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:


There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:


Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:


We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:


Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force"if necessary"to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.


Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:


Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.
*****************************************************

Lying Bullshitters???

Clinton'
Albright
Cohen
Berger
Levin
Daschle
Kerry
Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Jay Rockefeller
Al Gore
Ted Kennedy
Byrd.

Yes, read what they said about Saddam and WMD's.

Bullshitters all!!!
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 10:29 am
Cyclops should be afraid of terrorists. I have heard that they know what to do with Cyclops. They remove his eye.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Newt Agrees With Dick; You Should Be Afraid.
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/21/2014 at 12:00:49