0
   

Liberial Bias from the NYT.

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 06:05 am
Speaking of biases

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Quote:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."


A Challenge For Lawmakers Who Voted To Attack MoveOn Ad: Will They Now Condemn Limbaugh?

Quote:
b) Sense of Senate.-It is the sense of the Senate-

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:43 am


Wow, almost 3 hours and no responses.......interesting.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:11 pm
maporsche wrote:


Wow, almost 3 hours and no responses.......interesting.


Not everyone sits in front of their computer screen all day in a bath robe.

Here's a comment:

Limbaugh is frequently on point and frequently off the mark. I don't think he ventures into the territory of mean-spirited idiocy as often as his regular critics charge, but he may have done so on this one.

Sometimes his comments are taken out of context and so I won't assume this quoted article has not done so, but if it is accurate his comments are not only absurd but offensive.

Serrvice in the Armed Forces doesn't automatically convert a sow's ear into a silk purse, but it should be respected --- even when the soldier doesn't share one's political opinions.

Just as there are homocidal sociopaths in the ranks of the military, there are also cowardly slackers. I'm not about to assume such status for any of them based solely on my position on the War.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:17 pm
kuvasz wrote:
unresponsive responses

go phillies!..... Laughing


I know!

You're a Leftie Icon on A2K, maybe you can prod DTOM and Roxxy to stay on point.

Go Phillies?

Another reason to despise you.

Go Yankees!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:20 pm
While I do think Finn is an idiot, I do agree that anyone who accepts any grunt on the ground as having any meaningful analysis of the current war (or any war for that matter) is a flag waving meaningless retard.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:25 pm
revel wrote:
Speaking of biases

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Quote:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."


A Challenge For Lawmakers Who Voted To Attack MoveOn Ad: Will They Now Condemn Limbaugh?

Quote:
b) Sense of Senate.-It is the sense of the Senate-

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.


Except thats not what Limbaugh said.
You need to stop relying on mediamatters for your info.

Yes, he did use the phrase "phony soldiers", but he was talking about ONE PERSON.
That person was used by the left as a poster boy for the anti-war movement, a man that claimed to be an Iraq veteran,an ex army ranger,and that he had a purple heart.

That was all a lie on his part.

Here is who Rush was talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Of course, if you dont like that source,try these...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27149&only&rss

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=36627&archive=true

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/anti-war-youtub.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003739269_fakeranger08m0.html

There are 635,000 other references to him, just type Jesse MacBeth into google.

This is the man Rush was talking about, nobody else.

And if you go here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcq%2Dadm01%2Ejfk1%2Epremiereradio%2Enet%3A4502%2Fhome%2Fdaily%2Fsite%5F092807%2Fhome%2Eguest%2Ehtml

You will see and hear EXACTLY what Rush said.

You then can apologize for your lying and your attampts to smear him, but apologize to him.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:31 pm
Bull crap. He talked about that kid later in the show; earlier on, he hadn't mentioned him at all. The comments weren't connected in any meaningful way.

Weak

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:33 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bull crap. He talked about that kid later in the show; earlier on, he hadn't mentioned him at all. The comments weren't connected in any meaningful way.

Weak

Cycloptichorn


actually,he mentiond him this morning in his "morning update".

Its apparent you havent bothered to read any of the links or watch the video.
Your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused by the truth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:34 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bull crap. He talked about that kid later in the show; earlier on, he hadn't mentioned him at all. The comments weren't connected in any meaningful way.

Weak

Cycloptichorn


actually,he mentiond him this morning in his "morning update".

Its apparent you havent bothered to read any of the links or watch the video.
Your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused by the truth.


Wrong. He was talking to a caller, talked about 'phony soldiers' who were criticizing the war. The caller was talking about actual soldiers, not fake ones. Rush brought the other point up later.

You're just mad b/c your boy is the one who is being criticized now - by the WH, by McCain, by Romney.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bull crap. He talked about that kid later in the show; earlier on, he hadn't mentioned him at all. The comments weren't connected in any meaningful way.

Weak

Cycloptichorn


actually,he mentiond him this morning in his "morning update".

Its apparent you havent bothered to read any of the links or watch the video.
Your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused by the truth.


Wrong. He was talking to a caller, talked about 'phony soldiers' who were criticizing the war. The caller was talking about actual soldiers, not fake ones. Rush brought the other point up later.

You're just mad b/c your boy is the one who is being criticized now - by the WH, by McCain, by Romney.

Cycloptichorn


Well, since he isnt "my boy", I wont defend him if he is wrong.

You apparently dont care if you look like a fool or not.
REad the links, watch the video, then tell me if Rush is wrong about the "phony soldier" Jesse Macbeth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:51 pm
He's not wrong about Jesse MacBeth. But neither he nor the caller were talking about him; they were talking about active-duty soldiers who criticize the war.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:53 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's not wrong about Jesse MacBeth. But neither he nor the caller were talking about him; they were talking about active-duty soldiers who criticize the war.

Cycloptichorn


No they were not.
Try listening to the actual show instead of relying on mediamatters for your info.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:05 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's not wrong about Jesse MacBeth. But neither he nor the caller were talking about him; they were talking about active-duty soldiers who criticize the war.

Cycloptichorn


No they were not.
Try listening to the actual show instead of relying on mediamatters for your info.


Try asking Rush not to edit out a few minutes from his transcripts.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280013?f=h_latest

From Rush's show:

Quote:


RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.


Wasn't until a few minutes later that he started discussing 'fake soldiers.' He was smearing the anti-war members of the military - actually, to be fair, he was participating in a smear started by the caller, and agreeing with his risible comments about 'real soldiers.'

Plenty of 'real soldiers' have spoke out against the war; but Rush doesn't consider them to be 'real soldiers.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's not wrong about Jesse MacBeth. But neither he nor the caller were talking about him; they were talking about active-duty soldiers who criticize the war.

Cycloptichorn


No they were not.
Try listening to the actual show instead of relying on mediamatters for your info.


Try asking Rush not to edit out a few minutes from his transcripts.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280013?f=h_latest

From Rush's show:

Quote:


RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.


Wasn't until a few minutes later that he started discussing 'fake soldiers.' He was smearing the anti-war members of the military - actually, to be fair, he was participating in a smear started by the caller, and agreeing with his risible comments about 'real soldiers.'

Plenty of 'real soldiers' have spoke out against the war; but Rush doesn't consider them to be 'real soldiers.'

Cycloptichorn


Watch and listen to the video, and you will see and hear that part included.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:14 pm
I did watch and hear the video. Funny that his transcripts don't match.

You are making ridiculous excuses for a horrible man, you know that?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:20 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
unresponsive responses

go phillies!..... Laughing


I know!

You're a Leftie Icon on A2K, maybe you can prod DTOM and Roxxy to stay on point.

Go Phillies?

Another reason to despise you.

Go Yankees!


Actually, I love the Yankees and the Mick was my favorite ball player of all time, and Mick's biography "The Education of a Baseball Player" still sits all dog-eared on my library shelf. It's those idiots from Queens whom I detest. Likely, you have not been on the message boards at ESPN this summer with the Muts trolls trashing anyone wearing any other baseball jersey.

So, yet another area between us that shows your complete lack of discrimination. Oh well, at least you never fail to disappoint.

Quote:
You're a Leftie Icon on A2K,


haha! That. Really. Is. Funny. Really. funny. Perhaps you have mistaken me with Ozymandias. But, I would be preferred to be known as Kodi's daddy whose a2k tribute to her made folks hug their own dog with love.

I'll leave public accolades to the egotists like you. I'm comfortable in my own skin, thank you very much, but of course if there is any money in it, of course I will accept it, for the people, comrade, always, for the people.

btw since it has been several days since you posted that you were preparing a reply to the post you quoted of mine and you posted afterwards nearly a half dozen superfluous non-sequiter comments I assume it likely that you cannot respond with any intellectual credibility, so yes your responses are unresponsive.

play ball! game on!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:02 pm
Quote:
MoveOn Who?

The seemingly ubiquitous controversy surrounding MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad does not appear to have resonated widely. Few Americans off the campaign trail or outside the halls of Congress have even tuned in.

The ad, which ran in The New York Times as the top U.S. commander in Iraq testified before Congress, provoked anger from lawmakers and a retaliatory full-page ad from Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign (not to mention hours of TV talking head punditry). But a new Fox News poll shows that few are paying attention, and the dust-up has had little impact on opinions of either MoveOn or the Democratic Party.

Just 18 percent of registered voters said they have been paying "a lot" or "some" attention to MoveOn's ad, while more than half, 53 percent, said they were paying "not much" or "none" and one-quarter volunteered they had not heard of the ads.

MoveOn.org itself remains a largely unknown quantity. Only about a third even express an opinion of the group, unchanged since Fox last asked about the political advocacy group in March.

Views of the Democratic Party itself are also similar to what they were in Fox polling earlier this year. Also, few voters see MoveOn.org as an influential faction within the party -- about two in 10 said the group has "a lot" of influence. Among self-identified Democrats, just one in 10 said the group has that much power.

There's also little evidence that the ad will have a major effect on the presidential campaign. Asked whether Hillary Clinton's vote against the Senate amendment disapproving of the ad would impact their thinking, most voters said it wouldn't. Among Democrats, 72 percent said Clinton's vote wouldn't make a difference to them, and of the rest, a higher percentage said it would make them more likely to vote for her (14 percent) than less (6 percent).

The ad's deepest impact may be in riling up groups already at odds with MoveOn. Among Republicans, just 3 percent have a favorable view of MoveOn, while 35 percent have an unfavorable opinion -- up 7 points since March. About three in 10 say the group has "a lot" of influence on Democratic Party policies.

Even among Republicans, just three in 10 say MoveOn has "a lot" of influence on Democratic Party policies.. that struck me. The conservatives we attract here, many of whom appear to sincerely believe the Democrats are wholly beholden to Michael Moore and MoveOn, really are as unrepresentative as can be, I suppose - even of their own side.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:34 pm
nimh wrote:
Even among Republicans, just three in 10 say MoveOn has "a lot" of influence on Democratic Party policies.. that struck me. The conservatives we attract here, many of whom appear to sincerely believe the Democrats are wholly beholden to Michael Moore and MoveOn, really are as unrepresentative as can be, I suppose - even of their own side.


i've been a member of MoveOn since 2002 and they don't even have that much influence on me. somethings i agree with, a lot i don't.

but what i find really ironic is that at the same time republicans were going into hysterics about the patraeus ad and all about how it disrespected the troops, the repub senators blocked a bill that would have given those same troops more time out of the combat zone.

not only did they kill the bill, i don't think they even tried to negotiate the length of time stateside down to address concerns about operational continuity.

yeah... that's really supporting the troops.

"yer doin' a heck of a job GOP".
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:34 pm
mysteryman wrote:
revel wrote:
Speaking of biases

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Quote:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."


A Challenge For Lawmakers Who Voted To Attack MoveOn Ad: Will They Now Condemn Limbaugh?

Quote:
b) Sense of Senate.-It is the sense of the Senate-

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.


Except thats not what Limbaugh said.
You need to stop relying on mediamatters for your info.

Yes, he did use the phrase "phony soldiers", but he was talking about ONE PERSON.
That person was used by the left as a poster boy for the anti-war movement, a man that claimed to be an Iraq veteran,an ex army ranger,and that he had a purple heart.

That was all a lie on his part.

Here is who Rush was talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Of course, if you dont like that source,try these...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27149&only&rss

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=36627&archive=true

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/anti-war-youtub.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003739269_fakeranger08m0.html

There are 635,000 other references to him, just type Jesse MacBeth into google.

This is the man Rush was talking about, nobody else.

And if you go here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcq%2Dadm01%2Ejfk1%2Epremiereradio%2Enet%3A4502%2Fhome%2Fdaily%2Fsite%5F092807%2Fhome%2Eguest%2Ehtml

You will see and hear EXACTLY what Rush said.

You then can apologize for your lying and your attampts to smear him, but apologize to him.


I woudln't apologize to that lying windbag if my life depended on it. The link above is just where he was talking about what he said, it wasn't an actual recording or what he said.

Here is an actual recording of what he said. He said soldiers not soldier.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:30 pm
It's a mystery how he can find his way to the keyboard man wrote:


You need to stop relying on mediamatters for your info.

Yes, he did use the phrase "phony soldiers", but he was talking about ONE PERSON.


You need to stop relying on Limbaugh's lies.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 07:46:58