0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:05 pm
As another indicator of our trouble with elections:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/14/national1716EST0683.DTL

Judge blocks Ky. state senator from serving because of residency rules
MARK R. CHELLGREN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, January 14, 2005

(01-14) 20:08 PST FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) --

Quote:
A Republican state senator may not take any official action or get paid because she was not a qualified resident of Kentucky before the election, a judge ruled Friday.

Franklin County Circuit Judge William Graham's temporary injunction all but removed Dana Seum Stephenson from office, prohibiting her from "sitting as a state senator, from performing any official duties of the office as state senator, from receiving or accepting any pay for the office of state senator and from participating in the affairs of the General Assembly."

Senate President David Williams, a Republican, said he expects to appeal Friday's ruling and seek an immediate review by the Supreme Court.

Stephenson said she planned to appeal and "continue to fight to make sure the will of the voters in my district prevails."

Stephenson received more votes than Democrat Virginia Woodward in their Jefferson County race, but Woodward went to court just before the election and won a judicial ruling that Stephenson did not meet the six-year residency requirement in the Kentucky Constitution.

Woodward was certified by the State Board of Elections as the only candidate receiving votes and took an oath of office on Jan. 1 as a senator. The Republican-controlled Senate, however, later voted to seat Stephenson, even though a special committee appointed to review the case also determined Stephenson did not meet the residency requirement.

Graham's order said the initial judicial ruling, which Stephenson did not appeal, left the case within the jurisdiction of the courts.

Jennifer Moore, Woodward's attorney, has argued that Woodward should get the Senate seat, but on Friday she said the court could declare the seat vacant, which would require a special election.

Counting Stephenson, Republicans hold a 22-15 advantage over Democrats with one independent. The independent is Bob Leeper of Paducah, who left the Republican Party over its decision to seat Stephenson.




Just put in there so people will not think I am blowing smoke out my ear about our own troubles with voting and elections. IF we do this kind of thing with our elections; imagine what we might do for the Iraqi polling places in our country.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:17 pm
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz I try to give you a pass, Revel, because... well... just because. No more. I'm tired of the anti-American stench emanating from most every one of your posts. You are just blowing smoke. Foul smelling smoke at that. What you just posted in NO WAY suggests there is any reason to doubt the integrity of our elections. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:23 pm
Quote:
According to the CIA World Fact Book, over 10 million of Iraq's 25 million people are age 14 or under so I'm guessing the number of registered voters represents pretty much all of the eligible voters. I, for one, will be surprised not at all if Iraq shows a higher percentage of eligible voters turning out than the United States did in our most recent election. Do you think that will end the doubt about whether or not Iraqis desire democracy? I doubt it. The so-called liberals seem to have convinced themselves that they'd prefer to be slaves to a dictator.


This 'so-called' liberal agrees with you; but I also do not underestimate the cunning of the insurgents and terrorists, who know they can remove legitimacy from the election with a relatively small number of attacks.

It won't take many errors for people to cry foul. That is the goal for the insurgents in this case; they will never stop the election whole, but they can try to disrupt it enough so the results will not be seen as valid by a significant number of Iraqis, which could lead to chaos at the worse, and an upswing in sectarian tensions at best.

Hopefully everything goes well...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:34 pm
No question they'll do everything in their power to disrupt the elections and attempt to make them appear unsuccessful, Cyclops. It is the only logical thing for them to do. However, I think it's entirely possible... perhaps even likely that the leader will arise with a majority sufficient to render minor mishaps and disenfranchised voices irrelevant to the actual outcome. Frankly, I think that's what's driving the Sunnis in the first place. Pity they have to lose their birthright but the tyranny could end no other way. Majority has to rule in any just society. Idea
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:48 pm
[my comments are in blue]
InfraBlue wrote:
A person tolerating other persons encamping on/in his/her property isn't necessarily harboring those other persons.
[A person tolerating other persons encamping on/in his/her property IS NECESSARILY HARBORING those other persons, BECAUSE that person is giving "shelter or refuge to" that other person that serves as that other person's "home or habitat."]

Saddam allegedly tolerating Ansar al-Islam isn't Saddam harboring Ansar al-Islam, because Saddam had no control over the area of Iraq Ansar al-Islam was encamped.
[The encampment of Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq was controlled by al Qaeda in the same way as the encampments of al Qaeda in Afghanistan were controlled by al Qaeda. Saddam tolerated the al Qaeda in northern Iraq in the same way as the Taliban tolerated al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The al Qaeda's control of encampments in Iraq and Afghanistan were destroyed after the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam would have destroyed that encampment in northern Iraq before the US invasion if he had not tolerated that al Qaeda encampment in northern Iraq. The Taliban in Afghanistan would have destroyed those al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan before the US invasion if they had not tolerated those encampments in Afghanistan.]

The US said it asked Saddam to extradite Zarqawi and provide information about him and his close associates. The US also said it demanded that Saddam disarm of WMD. The US saying it asked Saddam to extradite Zarqawi isn't evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi like the US saying it demanded that Saddam disarm of WMD isn't evidence that Saddam had WMD.
[That's true: our "saying it" all by itself is not evidence; BUT the US's discovery and destruction of the al Qaeda encampment in northern Iraq is evidence of Saddam's harboring of al Qaeda in northern Iraq. Also, Saddam denied possessing ready-to-use WMD when the US accused him of that; BUT Saddam did not deny harboring al Qaeda in northern Iraq when the US accused him of that.]

Colin Powell said a lot of things in his UN speech. None of them have been verified. Colin Powell's credibility, to say the very least, is lacking.
[On the contrary, four out of five of Powell's allegations against Saddam have been verified: harboring al Qaeda; possession of hundreds of stockpiles of illegal conventional weapons; preparation to resume development of WMD after UN sanctions were lifted; and the mass murder of Iraqi civilians. The fifth allegation, possession of ready-to-use WMD was Powell's only incorrect allegation.]

Why do you think the 9/11 commission makes absolutely no mention of al-Zarqawi, ican?
[This is a silly and irrelevant question. If it makes you feel better, simply go back and replace in Powell's speech all references to Zarqawi with reference to al Qaeda instead. What of relevance to our debate is really changed? The 9/11 Commission didn't mention all of Osama's colaborating associates that we subsequently killed or captured. Why do you think the Commission didn't mention all of them? Why should we care?]

The only "evidence" you have, ican, of Saddam harboring "al Qaeda" are Powell's discredited UN speech, and the 9/11 commission's phrases "indications of tolerance" and "may even have helped." These phrases are unfounded allegations, nothing more.
[Not true! We also have the military's evidence, discovered after the invasion of Iraq, of al Qaeda's encampment in northern Iraq prior to the US's invasion of Iraq. We also know that when asked, Saddam truthfully denied possession of ready-to-use WMD, but did not deny at all that he was tolerating al Qaeda's encampment in northern Iraq.

You appear to be a member of that school of thought that claims that when a Republican (or perhaps anyone else you disagree with) is discovered to have made one mistake (e.g., the WMD mistake) all else that Republican claims is discredited. I'm tempted to assume that in your mind, all those Republicans that don't score 100%, score 0%. That's either nuts or bigoted, or both--take your choice.]
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:50 pm
I am so confused.....help me to understand what this means Bill


Quote:
Posted on Wed, Oct. 16, 2002

Iraq declares Saddam election winner

By SAMEER YACOUB

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq declared Saddam Hussein the winner Wednesday with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum in which he was the sole candidate, perpetuating his two-decade reign and prompting bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets.

Saddam's regime said the vote, widely dismissed outside Iraq, showed Iraq's people were standing with their leader against any U.S. attack.

"If there is aggression, the Americans will face these people who said 'yes' to Saddam Hussein," Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council and Saddam's right-hand man, told reporters at Parliament.

Bursts of gunfire exploded in downtown Baghdad as he spoke, as Saddam supporters fired in the air and danced on street corners.

"If the U.S. administration makes a mistake and attacks Iraq, we will fight them," Ibrahim said. "If they come, we will fight them in every village, and every house. Every house will be a front, and every Iraqi will have a role in the war.

"All Iraqis are armed now, and by God's will we will triumph."

The White House had dismissed the one-man race in advance.

"Obviously, it's not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it," press secretary Ari Fleischer said in Washington on Tuesday.

The vote was also rejected by the Iraqi opposition in exile and others outside Iraq. Many in Tuesday's referendum cast multiple ballots representing votes of entire families, stuffing fistfuls of votes into boxes.

The government offered no explanation for how it tabulated paper ballots from remote regions across the country of 22 million people overnight.

The referendum was a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote on keeping Saddam in power another seven years.

All 11,445,638 eligible voters cast ballots, Ibrahim said. Iraqi officials said popular outrage at American threats to Saddam's regime made the turnout and percentage even higher than the last vote, in 1995, when Saddam received a 99.96 "yes" vote.

In a sharply worded news conference broadcast live on Iraqi TV, Ibrahim dismissed a question terming the 100-percent affirmation for Saddam "absurd."

"Someone who does not know the Iraqi people, he will not believe this percentage, but it is real," Ibrahim said. "Whether it looks that way to someone or not. We don't have opposition in Iraq."

Parliament members were expected to go to Saddam sometime Wednesday to administer the oath of office immediately. Saddam has not appeared in public since December 2000.

The government already had declared the day a national holiday, in advance of the results.

Many Iraqis stayed indoors in the first hours after announcement of the results, fearing stray bullets.

Some men took to the streets amid the gunfire, hopping up and down on street corners with linked arms or hanging out of cars plowing through the streets honking horns.

"This referendum and the 100 percent shows that all Iraqis are ready to defend their country and leader," said Khaled Yusef, one of those dancing.

Watching, retired civil servant Mahmoud Amin insisted Iraqis wanted no other leader.

"We are not surprised with the 100 percent vote for the president, because all Iraqis are steadfast to their president, who has been known to them for 30 years," Amin said.

The vote was widely advertised not only as backing for Saddam but as a rebuke to the United States, which has been pressing in the United Nations Security Council for a resolution that would allow a war to topple Saddam.

Ibrahim referred to the United States as the "forces of injustice and illusion," and called Iraq the land of "civilization and creativity."

Saddam, 65, became president in 1979 in a well-orchestrated transfer of power within his Baath Party.

Iraq has never known democracy, having transferred from a monarchy under British sway to military-backed rule from 1958 onward.

Iraq has been under U.N. Security Council sanctions since invading Kuwait in 1990. U.N. resolutions require the country to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction, but it is widely believed to retain chemical and biological weapons, and the United States has accused it of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States wants a new Security Council resolution that would give U.N. weapons inspectors wide powers to uncover Iraq's arms and to trigger a war on Iraq if it resists full inspections.

France has led a campaign in the Security Council to drop from the resolution the idea of an automatic trigger for war.

0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:56 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
I am so confused.....help me to understand what this means Bill
It either means you're foolish enough to believe nonsense like that... in which case, your beliefs have already been proven false. Or, it means you are trying to make some point that's so far still a mystery to me... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:03 pm
bill, whatever you feel you need to do.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
I am so confused.....help me to understand what this means Bill
It either means you're foolish enough to believe nonsense like that... in which case, your beliefs have already been proven false. Or, it means you are trying to make some point that's so far still a mystery to me... Rolling Eyes


But, how can a person that has never set foot in Iraq know what to believe. You saw how Clinton lied about getting his knob polished Embarrassed . How can a person trust any politician? How do you determine truth?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:10 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
57 year old with 5 bypass surgeries and parkinson ..... what the fgck would they want with me? Get a grip will ya!!
Laughing
I thought that picture under your moniker was of someone other than you.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:12 pm
Enough with 20 question Gel... if you have a point (nothing you've written so far indicates you do, btw), make it.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:16 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
57 year old with 5 bypass surgeries and parkinson ..... what the fgck would they want with me? Get a grip will ya!!
Laughing
I thought that picture under your moniker was of someone other than you.


That's my evi666l twin Skippy.....
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:23 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
That's my evi666l twin Skippy.....
Laughing Peanut Butter? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:27 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Enough with 20 question Gel... if you have a point (nothing you've written so far indicates you do, btw), make it.


Oh I think the point has been made.... it is one of the kind that does'nt require acknowledgement. Some lessons are self evident ..

MUWAHHAHAHAHAHA
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:32 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
That's my evi666l twin Skippy.....
Laughing Peanut Butter? Shocked


smile when you say that ..... the kids used to call hiM that .... before tHe incident
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:34 pm
Rolling Eyes No point then. Okay, that's what I thought.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:44 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
But, how can a person that has never set foot in Iraq know what to believe. ... How do you determine truth?

Attention bush-whacker-can’ts!
There are now 14 million registered Iraqi voters.
Outstanding!
The total number of Iraqis voting will be more than

Corection! 12,730,000
Astonishing!
After they vote, there will be
[/b]
Corection! 12,730,000 or more Iraqi Patrick Henrys.
Quote:
Patrick Henry: "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace!—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethen are already in the field. Why stay we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!"

You can count on it!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 04:32 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14238-2005Jan16.html



washingtonpost.com
Anxious Iraqis Are Leaving Before Elections
Some Plan to Wait Out Vote Abroad; 'I Will Not Stay in Baghdad,' Commissioner Says
By Jackie Spinner and Naseer Nouri
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 17, 2005; Page A13


BAGHDAD -- Abu Muhanned, a former Iraqi army officer, fished into his back pocket and pulled out a black leather wallet stuffed with $100 bills.

He had brought his wife and 12-year-old son to a busy travel agency in downtown Baghdad last week to buy airplane tickets to Egypt. Sudad, the owner of the agency, a petite woman whose desk was stacked with green Iraqi passports, asked Abu Muhanned when he wanted to leave.

"As soon as possible," he replied.

Sudad, who asked that her last name and the location of her agency not be disclosed, nodded knowingly. She had been hearing similar requests for weeks, as many members of Iraq's educated upper middle class flee the country in advance of the Jan. 30 elections.

Iraqi officials have said they were encouraged by the millions of people checking to make sure they were registered to vote. This is one of the few tangible, statistical signs that the populace is gearing up to participate.

An estimated 15 million Iraqis are eligible to vote in the elections, which will choose 18 provincial councils and a 275-member National Assembly. The assembly will appoint a central government and draft a constitution.

But despite the significance of the elections -- the first democratic vote in the country in nearly half a century -- a growing number of Iraqis are making plans to get as far from the voting booths as possible.

Abu Muhanned, for example, does not plan to stick around for Jan. 30. At the travel agency, he asked Sudad to make a reservation at a five-star hotel in Cairo, where he said the family would wait out the election period.

Abu Muhanned, who declined to give his full name, said he lost his job when the U.S.-led occupation disbanded the Iraqi army in May 2003. He has since become a merchant, but it is hard, competitive work in a capital filled with former military officers and government officials-turned-salesmen.

"This no longer feels like my country," said Abu Muhanned, 45, who was dressed in a gray suit and tie. "We will come back on the 3rd of February, when everything will be finished."

His wife, Um Muhanned, her tiger-print scarf tucked into a black wool jacket, sat at his side. They looked like a fashionable, well-heeled couple about to go on holiday. But Um Muhanned said they were leaving to escape violence -- the suicide bombers, the gunmen, the insurgents who have vowed to hunt down and kill anyone who votes.

"It is getting worse and worse," she said. "I am afraid now even when I am sitting here that a car bomb will explode in any minute and all of us will die."

Um Muhanned, who also declined to give her full name, said she wished she could stay home. But even if she did, she said, she would not vote.

"I am not crazy," she said. "I just want to stay alive until I can leave the country for good. My husband works here in Baghdad; otherwise, I would take him and live outside of Iraq." In the past, she added, "I would have been proud if my husband died in the war, as he was an officer. . . . I hate this country now."

Another traveler, who gave her name as Um Sara, said she and her 16-year-old daughter also planned to go to Egypt before the elections. But they did not plan to return.

"It is going to be so bad here during the elections and worse after," she said. "There will be lots of car bombs and explosions. I don't know in which one of them me or my daughter will die."

Because she is divorced, Um Sara said, there would be no one to care for her daughter if something happened to her. She said she works for an Egyptian company, which helped arrange their visas.

"My friend lost her daughter in a car bomb in the street last week," she said. "I do not want to lose my daughter, too."

A third customer at the travel agency, Suhair, was making arrangements to go with her three children elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region, where she said her husband found a job six months ago.

"He was going to come back to Baghdad to visit us next month, but after we heard about the elections, we expected it to be so dangerous," said Suhair, 45, who declined to give her last name. "I asked him not to come here and suggested we go there instead."

Suhair said her husband, an electrical engineer, agreed and told her to sell all their belongings.

"He has a good job there," she said. "He used to be a military officer, and we used to live a good, safe life. He lost his job, and we lost our safety, so now we are leaving. I will not come back until Iraq will become the Iraq we dream to have."

Suhair's daughter Fatima, 18, who had been sitting quietly at her side, raised her head. "But we will lose all the childhood friends we grew up with," she said in a low voice.

At another travel agency nearby, Abu Ahmed, 41, bought three airline tickets to Amman, Jordan, for his family. Although he is a member of Baghdad's electoral commission, he said he planned to leave within days.

"I will not stay in Baghdad during the election," Abu Ahmed said. He said that when he arrived home last week, three strange men in a blue sedan were waiting outside and one of them put a knife to his neck.

"I think that was enough warning for me," he said.

Sudad, the travel agent, said she, too, would leave -- if she did not have so much business making departure arrangements for everyone else.

Asked if she intended to vote, she just laughed and said, "Come on."



© 2005 The Washington Post Company
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 11:30 pm
You're using a narrow definition of tolerance, ican, and it's full meaning would not necessitate harboring.

You're merely speculating about "Saddam would have destroyed that encampment in northern Iraq before the US invasion if he had not tolerated that al Qaeda encampment in northern Iraq." You have nothing to substantiate your flights of fancy. Saddam had no control over northern Iraq.

The US's discovery and destruction of the al Qaeda encampment in northern Iraq is not evidence of saddam's harboring of al Qaeda in northern Iraq. Saddam had no control over northern Iraq.

The allegations of Saddam harboring al Qaeda has not been verified. I stand corrected; Powell was right about some missile parts. How credible.

It is relevant to our debate that the 9/11 commission's report completely and utterly omits mention of al-Zarqawi because Powell named him specifically as the al-Qaeda lieutenant in northern Iraq. Powell made allegations that Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. And that affiliates were connected to Zarqawi because they remained in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters (what poison cell plotters?), and that they were involved in moving more than money and material. It was Zarqawi that Powell specifically mentioned in his allegations of approaching Baghdad about extradition. Not a single word of corroboration is mentioned in the 9/11 commission's report. The 9/11 commission's silence about Zaraqawi is relevant precisely because it could have corroborated Powell's claims, but it does not. Powell's claims concerning Saddam and admonitions about information and "passed details" to find Zarqawi "and his close associates," the al-Qaeda leadership whom you are implying, have not been substantiated.

Powell also played fast and loose and mislead with the "information" in his speech. He talked about "those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq." But later he stated, "We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida."

That "Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates" is one thing. That Saddam allegedly harbored Zarqawi and his subordinates is another. Powell deliberately confused the two issues.

We should care because Powell and the US administration trumped up the charges and played on the fears of the American public to gain support for an unnecessary war.

While talking about Zarqawi Powell said, "One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons," and then he wen on about how dangerous ricin and other poisons were. "Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure." (!!!) Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure." (!!!) "It is fatal." (!!!)

There is no evidence that poisons were ever handled at that camp.

Powell is a hustler par excellence.

That is why we should care, ican.

Well, for you the point is moot. You'd think our violence, destruction and killing in Iraq would be justified had Saddam merely farted upwind of the US of A.

"Al Qaeda's encampment in northern Iraq prior to the US's invasion of Iraq" is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda. Saddam, as Powell has asserted, had no control over northern Iraq.

I don't care what the political inclinations of anyone who is discredited are, ican. A discredited individual is a discredited individual, be he a Republican, Democrat, Ba'athist, or National Socialist.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 02:35 am
Sorry - no doubt this is way off topic - BUT - I JUST HEARD A FOX "NEWS" BROADCAST!!!!!! Made during Iraq II.

I am still reeling at the quality of the "reporting", nemmind anything else. really - I am amazed. I had thought it woule be a lot better than that.

Does anyone know what market share in the US this stuff has?
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 08/13/2025 at 09:26:30