0
   

Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:47 pm
blatham wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:
There remains no other option but to nuke the entire planet so as to keep christians and white people safe. Terrorists can be anywhere. Perhaps even your brother or your wife might have been influenced by their lies. Watch them closely. Cut their throats if necessary. And always always believe what your government tells you.

You put words in my mouth that I never said and don't believe. I said only that the worst of the worst dictators cannot be allowed to control such weapons.


Oh, but you do believe.....

I said that certain groups cannot be allowed to develop WMD. You then accused me, among other things, of believing that "There remains no other option but to nuke the entire planet so as to keep christians and white people safe." I have never said and do not believe anything of the sort. How does your example regarding Guatemala in any way imply that I believe what you attribute to me in this quotation? It is abundantly clear that you choose not to debate me on anything that I actually say, but only on words that you put in my mouth.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:54 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
When a person like Hussein is developing WMD


Yea, well, he wasn't.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? If a policeman frisks a suspect and doesn't find a gun, does that mean that it was unreasonable for him to frisk the suspect? The point is that at the time of invasion, the total twelve year history with trying to get Iraq to disarm left a significant probability that Iraq had not eliminated its WMD and WMD programs, and the danger from these weapons is so immense, that we simply had to go in.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 06:09 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bazooey wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
A country, such as North Korea, which already has nukes can't be invaded, since it would possess the option of killing a million people instantly. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability.

So what you're saying is, anyone who's got the Bomb is basically untouchable, can't be invaded, has instead to be bargained with and their sovereignty respected.

Of course I'm saying that since it's blatantly obviously true.

Of course, that logic - say: evil regimes who might just harbour agressive intentions and (want to) develop WMD need to be invaded, unless they actually already did develop the Bomb - that very logic provides every ill-meaning regime in the world with any sense of self-preservation with an acute motivation to now develop their own nuclear bomb - asap.

After all, no longer can you rest assured that as long as you dont attack the US, they'll probably leave you alone too - you now live in a world where the mere suspicion on their part of you harboring (future) evil intentions towards them might be taken as enough reason to invade you. It can happen any moment ... BUT, once you have the Bomb, they will instead bargain with you. So what do you do? Ask yourself how soon you can get that Bomb, pronto. Its a recipe for boosting nuclear proliferation with an acute new impetus.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 06:16 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
PDiddie wrote:
And nimh, that was a fine delineation of the point Brandon has proven himself incapable of comprehending for a looooong time now.

Rubbish. I never intended to imply in any way that these dictators were equal.

Oh. It must be the line where you wrote, "One could make a list of criteria for someone whom we really need to stop from stockpiling WMD [..], but I will be close enough to the mark if I say that someone on the level of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Hussein, or a Pol Pot must be stopped from possessing them", that had me confused ...
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 08:23 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bazooey wrote:
So what you're saying is, anyone who's got the Bomb is basically untouchable, can't be invaded, has instead to be bargained with and their sovereignty respected.

Of course I'm saying that since it's blatantly obviously true.


So in other words, you would agree that in the interests of defending his country from invasion by the United States, it's equally self-evident that he would have been justified in seeking and maintaining nuclear weapons... and that given the example the US has just set to nations that fail to do so (unlike, say, North Korea), it has provided a real impetus to other such nations to immediately procure them out of their own self-interests?


Quote:
Do you not have enough proof that Hussein, his sons, and his administration were evil?


There's sure plenty to demonstrate George W. Bush is. Would you care to compare notes?


Quote:
Yes, of course the idea of the invulnerability conferred by nuclear weapons appeals to people.


Yes, indeed... it would be interesting to see the United States relinquish theirs, if only to see how so much of the rest of the world feels...


Quote:
You are putting words in my mouth which neither I nor the other conservatives here have said or believe.


No I'm not; I'm interpreting views you've expressed in new ways that hopefully will shed some light on the for you from a new perspective. If you believe it is right and good for the United States to build and have weapons of mass destruction in order to prevent attacks upon it and assert its sovereignty, how can you possibly justify any move that prevents other people from doing the same? Other than, of course, admitting to gross hypocrisy probably based on low-key racism (i.e., rich white folks deserve nuclear weapons; little brown people don't...?).


Quote:
Who said that any individual was being killed for his own good?


Well then exactly for whose good are they being killed? Because they are being killed; we can agree on that much, I think, no?


Quote:
I have consistently, over and over, including in this thread, said that we invaded Iraq primarily to prevent it from developing WMD


And what gives you the right? In having such weapons itself, the United States morally abdicates the right to condemn any other nation for doing likewise.


Quote:
...which, judging from Hussein's character, might soon be used to kill many people, perhaps Americans.


I was led to believe the principle was "innocent until proven guilty". Has that been a casualty of the war in Iraq too? Has Iraq ever used nuclear weapons on another country? No. In fact, as I recall, only one nation ever has... the United States.

Hmmmmm.


Quote:
When a person like Hussein is developing WMD, he must be stopped, by negotiation if possible, but by other means if negotiations do not yield results in a reasonable amount of time.


What has his personal character to do with the right of his nation to defend itself from... well... yours?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 12:20 am
This really isn't the best place to post this, but since Brandon continues to keep the thread off in the ditch (and also because I feel for the fact he's being waled upon mercilessly by at least six of us) let me try again to move the discussion away from a topic which already has fifteen threads devoted to it, and to a broader point I believe Brandon is also mistaken about.

About that psychological running-in-the-background program relative to terrorism and being terrorized, how about a revision to the definition of the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...

From Laura Lee's book "100 Most Dangerous Things in Everyday Life and What You Can Do About Them":

-- Each year, 12,779 people in the U.S. are injured by washing machines.

-- More people are killed annually by teddy bears (choking hazard) than by grizzly bears.

-- Each year, thousands of couch potatoes are admitted to emergency rooms for television-related injuries.

-- There are more germs on your desk than there are on your toilet.

-- More than 133,000 people each year are injured by doors.

-- More than 400,000 Americans suffer injuries every year while relaxing or sleeping in bed.

The point, Lee says, is "not to increase the general paranoia but to diminish it. If you can look such deadly items as kitchen knives, bedding, vegetables, and teddy bears in the face each day without fear, you should be able to stare down the much more statistically unlikely threats that now haunt our collective consciousness."

Good advice for those who think George Bush is the only person capable of maintaining a (MO false) sense of security, usually phrased by Republicans as 'keeping America safe'.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 12:46 am
PDiddie wrote:
-- There are more germs on your desk than there are on your toilet.


You haven't seen my toilet.

ba-dum-ching!

Thank you! I'll be here all week.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 01:37 am
nimh wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bazooey wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
A country, such as North Korea, which already has nukes can't be invaded, since it would possess the option of killing a million people instantly. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability.

So what you're saying is, anyone who's got the Bomb is basically untouchable, can't be invaded, has instead to be bargained with and their sovereignty respected.

Of course I'm saying that since it's blatantly obviously true.

Of course, that logic - say: evil regimes who might just harbour agressive intentions and (want to) develop WMD need to be invaded, unless they actually already did develop the Bomb - that very logic provides every ill-meaning regime in the world with any sense of self-preservation with an acute motivation to now develop their own nuclear bomb - asap.

After all, no longer can you rest assured that as long as you dont attack the US, they'll probably leave you alone too - you now live in a world where the mere suspicion on their part of you harboring (future) evil intentions towards them might be taken as enough reason to invade you. It can happen any moment ... BUT, once you have the Bomb, they will instead bargain with you. So what do you do? Ask yourself how soon you can get that Bomb, pronto. Its a recipe for boosting nuclear proliferation with an acute new impetus.

Some of what you're saying is true and some isn't. One part that is not true is that I, and people who feel the same way, advocate invasion on mere suspicion. We emphatically do not. We advocate invasion of the worst of the worst dictators, if various risk criteria are met, on great suspicion, after a lengthy effort to negotiate has not succeeded.

It is true that we do not advocate invading a nuclear power, and that this fact might prompt people we would otherwise invade to become nuclear. But this is not as you suggest a flaw in our beliefs, but simply in the basic nature of the situation. Here is the logic:

1. The destructive capability of even one nuclear bomb is so great that in some cases, the worst of the worst dictators cannot be allowed to obtain them. Negotiation is far preferrable to invasion, but ultimately invasion becomes necessary if lengthy negotiation seems to have failed. One also can't negotiate forever, since, if the country in question is developing WMD, one must stop them before they progress too far.
2. If someone is already nuclear we can't invade. You present this as though it were some flaw in our reasoning, but it is merely a recognition of reality. How can we initiate an invasion in which the country we invade has the option of killing a million people the moment we start? If we were to invade North Korea, they might, for example, use a nuke to kill a huge number of South Koreans and then say, "Unless you withdraw, we'll detonate another nuke in the South." When a country has weapons of this power, invasion would not be an option except under the most extraordinary circumstances.
3. You are correct when you say that items (1) and (2) above might cause someone to seek WMD, but that does not change the fact that the reasoning above is correct. We are in a situation that is not very pleasant or easy, but recognizing the situation isn't the same as having caused it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 01:41 am
nimh wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
PDiddie wrote:
And nimh, that was a fine delineation of the point Brandon has proven himself incapable of comprehending for a looooong time now.

Rubbish. I never intended to imply in any way that these dictators were equal.

Oh. It must be the line where you wrote, "One could make a list of criteria for someone whom we really need to stop from stockpiling WMD [..], but I will be close enough to the mark if I say that someone on the level of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Hussein, or a Pol Pot must be stopped from possessing them", that had me confused ...

I can see how you could have been confused, but my phrase "on a level" was never intended to imply that they were on the same level. Criticize my sentence construction if you want, but don't tell me that I intended to portray them as equal, because I did not. I was trying to convey the idea that some national leaders are so dangerous that it would not be sensible to allow them to amass WMD.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 02:18 am
My sister-in-law had breast implants. A-cup to D-cup. Talk about your evil dictators with weapons of mass destruction!

Ba-dum-ching.

Thank you! Don't forget to tip your waitresses!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 02:29 am
Bazooey wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bazooey wrote:
So what you're saying is, anyone who's got the Bomb is basically untouchable, can't be invaded, has instead to be bargained with and their sovereignty respected.

Of course I'm saying that since it's blatantly obviously true.


So in other words, you would agree that in the interests of defending his country from invasion by the United States, it's equally self-evident that he would have been justified in seeking and maintaining nuclear weapons... and that given the example the US has just set to nations that fail to do so (unlike, say, North Korea), it has provided a real impetus to other such nations to immediately procure them out of their own self-interests?

Whether some dicator is justified in seeking WMD is not the point. My point is that under certain conditions, the worst of the worst dictators ought to be prevented from owning WMD. It is also true that it would be extremely foolish to invade a nuclear power under any but the most extraordinary circumstances. Yes, this combination of facts could cause someone to seek the near invulnerability that nukes confer. That fact however does not alter the correctness of the preceding two sentences.

Quote:
Do you not have enough proof that Hussein, his sons, and his administration were evil?


Bazooey wrote:
There's sure plenty to demonstrate George W. Bush is. Would you care to compare notes?

You had said, "What more proof could you need that they're 'evil' than that they don't want to be overrun by hordes of fine, decent, upstanding invaders..." To me this seems to imply that you believe Hussein, et al., were not evil. So, I will ask you again if you intended to claim that they were not.


Quote:
Yes, of course the idea of the invulnerability conferred by nuclear weapons appeals to people.


Bazooey wrote:
Yes, indeed... it would be interesting to see the United States relinquish theirs, if only to see how so much of the rest of the world feels...

What you are saying does not alter the fact that there are some dictators so abhorrent that it would be foolish to allow them to accumulate WMD.


Quote:
You are putting words in my mouth which neither I nor the other conservatives here have said or believe.


Bazooey wrote:
No I'm not; I'm interpreting views you've expressed in new ways that hopefully will shed some light on the for you from a new perspective. If you believe it is right and good for the United States to build and have weapons of mass destruction in order to prevent attacks upon it and assert its sovereignty, how can you possibly justify any move that prevents other people from doing the same? Other than, of course, admitting to gross hypocrisy probably based on low-key racism (i.e., rich white folks deserve nuclear weapons; little brown people don't...?).

Yes, you are putting words in my mouth. Specifically, you attributed the idea to me that we are killing people for their own good. I have consistently stated that the reason for the invasion was to protect us and our allies against the danger of WMD.

What you are saying here is like saying that becuase I think that I have the right to own a gun, I am a hypocrite if I think that a serial killer should be prevented from owning a gun.

Quote:
Who said that any individual was being killed for his own good?


Bazooey wrote:
Well then exactly for whose good are they being killed? Because they are being killed; we can agree on that much, I think, no?

It depends who you mean by "they." Yes, people die in wars. I am being pretty clear that the good the type of war under discussion is intended to accomplish is to prevent very, very bad people from obtaining WMD. That is the good.

Quote:
I have consistently, over and over, including in this thread, said that we invaded Iraq primarily to prevent it from developing WMD


Bazooey wrote:
And what gives you the right? In having such weapons itself, the United States morally abdicates the right to condemn any other nation for doing likewise.
No. Self-preservation gives us the right. By owning a gun (if I did), I would not be abdicating the right to try to stop a serial killer or some other dangerous person from owning one.

Quote:
...which, judging from Hussein's character, might soon be used to kill many people, perhaps Americans.


Bazooey wrote:
I was led to believe the principle was "innocent until proven guilty". Has that been a casualty of the war in Iraq too? Has Iraq ever used nuclear weapons on another country? No. In fact, as I recall, only one nation ever has... the United States.

Hmmmmm.

Perhaps you are mistaking the whole world for a courtroom. My goal is to prevent a huge number of people, maybe even millions, from being killed by WMD. I assert that if a country ruled by a terrible dictator, who appears to be very amoral, who has ties to terrorism, who tries to annex his neighbors, etc. has had WMD and WMD programs, has used them, has lied about them, has hidden them, and lengthy negotiations appear to leave significant probability that he still has them, we are justified in invading to protect ourselves. One single WMD smuggled into a large American or allied city and used could kill a number of people that would make 9/11 look very tiny indeed.

Quote:
When a person like Hussein is developing WMD, he must be stopped, by negotiation if possible, but by other means if negotiations do not yield results in a reasonable amount of time.


Bazooey wrote:
What has his personal character to do with the right of his nation to defend itself from... well... yours?

He does have the right to act in self-defense, but if his character strongly suggests that he would be likely to use the weapons offensively for conquest, then that is another matter. Hussein is clearly an evil man. He ran an absolute dictatorship, he tortured and murdered a large number of his own people, perhaps a million, and did many other bad things to them, e.g. raping women who happened to strike his fancy. These things suggest that his actions are not very restricted by ethical considerations. He purposely gassed Kurdish civilians. He invaded Iran and apparently used chemical weapons on them. He attempted to annex Kuwait. He has ties to terrorists. This is not a man who ought to be in control of WMD.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 02:48 am
Now let's see if the rest of us got this right? Brandon, Bazooey was interpreting that you implied that he inferred that what you meant to infer suggested a reverse of your prior postulation that notwithstanding and all other factors being equal you more or less indicated that all other stipulations to the contrary being covered in part or in whole by circumstances and conditions defined by earlier agreements.....In behalf of all the other witnesses to your gentlemanly discussion we now pronounce you Trial Lawyer and Trial Lawyer. Bazooey! You May Kiss Brandon.
Oh! And both of you colossal bores can kiss our collective Tushes!
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 03:17 am
Ba-dum-ching.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 06:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
Quote:
When a person like Hussein is developing WMD


Yea, well, he wasn't.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? If a policeman frisks a suspect and doesn't find a gun, does that mean that it was unreasonable for him to frisk the suspect? The point is that at the time of invasion, the total twelve year history with trying to get Iraq to disarm left a significant probability that Iraq had not eliminated its WMD and WMD programs, and the danger from these weapons is so immense, that we simply had to go in.


brandon, the one good thing that bush administration did with regard to the whole iraq thing was to get nations involved and the inspectors back into Iraq again. Whether they were pushed into as I believe or whether that was intention all along, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they were successful with getting the inspectors back in again. That is the equalivant of a frisk from a police officer, not invading a country on the chances of might be guilty. What we did is more like putting a person in jail before finding out if there guilty.
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 07:08 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Whether some dicator is justified in seeking WMD is not the point. My point is that under certain conditions, the worst of the worst dictators ought to be prevented from owning WMD.


You're missing the point. Just who gets to decide who the "worst of dictators" are in the first place? Who sets themselves up on high above all other nations and makes that determination? By what right? Unless you're ready to say "the UN", any answer you could give would be utterly arbitrary. The rules either apply to everyone, or no one.

Quote:
It is also true that it would be extremely foolish to invade a nuclear power under any but the most extraordinary circumstances. Yes, this combination of facts could cause someone to seek the near invulnerability that nukes confer. That fact however does not alter the correctness of the preceding two sentences.


There is no correctness in the preceding two sentences because they imply at "right" that neither you nor anyone else actually possesses.



Quote:
To me this seems to imply that you believe Hussein, et al., were not evil. So, I will ask you again if you intended to claim that they were not.


Again the point seems to elude you. "What is evil?", to paraphrase. Are the things Saddam was doing in his own country yesterday somehow measurably worse than the things yours is doing in it today? So tell me, then... what's evil?


Quote:
What you are saying does not alter the fact that there are some dictators so abhorrent that it would be foolish to allow them to accumulate WMD.


No, I was saying that the United States has no moral right to deny to others a capacity it claims itself. If you don't want other people to have the Bomb, give it up yourself. Otherwise, live with the precedent you've set, and no bitching when others follow your example. This "evil dictators" dividing line that, first of all, you have no right to set, and secondly, can and obviously would be drawn anywhere in the sand convenient to the United States at any given moment, is threadbare rhetorical hypocrisy.


Quote:
I have consistently stated that the reason for the invasion was to protect us and our allies against the danger of WMD.


And where are they, exactly?



Quote:
What you are saying here is like saying that becuase I think that I have the right to own a gun, I am a hypocrite if I think that a serial killer should be prevented from owning a gun.


Guy's not a serial killer till he actually kills someone; you see, that's the problem here. Is Saddam ruthless? Yes. But aside from annexing Texas -- I mean, Kuwait -- what has he ever done outside his own country? Has he overturned inconvenient Latin American governments, like in Guatemala, or Panama, or Chile, or lately Venezuela so they don't euroize their oil production? Did he interfere in, and thus exacerbate, a civil war in Vietnam? Did he drop nuclear weapons on Japanese cities and vapourize about a quarter million civilians?

Yeah, tell us all about serial killers who shouldn't have guns now.


Quote:
No. Self-preservation gives us the right.


Then it stands to reason that self-preservation -- particularly in the face of an overawing imperialist power willing and able to use force against other nations -- grants everyone else the right to arm with weapons that, as you yourself have admitted, make it unlikely that they would be invaded in the first place. Number one thing here is you have to understand that there is no right exclusive to you. Any right you claim to yourself implies a parallel right for someone else. The behaviour of the United States in recent times is not but the best reason for every other country on Earth to arm itself with nukes. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet that pouring napalm on the water is no way to cool it down.


Quote:
By owning a gun (if I did), I would not be abdicating the right to try to stop a serial killer or some other dangerous person from owning one.


Nothing in gun ownership implies the right or even the capacity of determining who else is qualified for gun ownership.


Quote:
I assert that if a country ruled by a terrible dictator... who has ties to terrorism


Proof?

Quote:
who tries to annex his neighbors, etc.


You mean like, oh, northern Mexico, Hawaii, Canada, Cuba, etc.? That kind of thing?

Quote:
has had WMD and WMD programs


Proof?

Quote:
One single WMD smuggled into a large American or allied city and used could kill a number of people that would make 9/11 look very tiny indeed.


Yeah, so can a single army arriving in Baghdad. But those people don't count, after all. They're not white, and they don't even speak English, so who cares what they're hilariously babbling about in those 9-second FOX News soundbites anyway? Oh, wait... by extension, I appear to be putting words in your oblivious, monstrously self-absorbed mouth again, saying the things you ultimately mean but could never actually say. So sorry.


Quote:
He does have the right to act in self-defense, but if his character strongly suggests that he would be likely to use the weapons offensively for conquest, then that is another matter.


Yeah, next thing you know, he could load his army on ships and invade a nation that never attacked him.


Quote:
He purposely gassed Kurdish civilians. He invaded Iran and apparently used chemical weapons on them.


Yawwwwwn, boring, General Sheridan... we wanna hear the story of your campaign in the Shenandoah Valley!

Quote:
He attempted to annex Kuwait.


I'm sorry to interrupt your story, General Scott, but them Mexicans ain't gonna conquer themselves. Saddle up!
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 07:10 am
Chuckster wrote:
Oh! And both of you colossal bores can kiss our collective Tushes!


Whatever floats your salmon-colored boat, bud. Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:17 am
Quote:
It is also true that it would be extremely foolish to invade a nuclear power under any but the most extraordinary circumstances.


Yaknow, I'm not so sure about this.

After all. Nuclear devices, while quite destructive, are neither easy to obtain nor use effectively.

If we attack a nuclear-capable country; the true threat is in long-range missles. If said country does not have them, they would have a hard time setting a device off on American soil.

If your contention is that we should not attack said country due to the risk, remember that this basically allows them to hold us hostage to demands, which is not a good position to be in. Better to close the borders and get on with the attack, if that is the case.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 02:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If we attack a nuclear-capable country; the true threat is in long-range missles. If said country does not have them, they would have a hard time setting a device off on American soil.


Maybe they don't want to incenerate San Francisco, though. Maybe they just want to vaporize the 7th Fleet before all those nice young Marines wade ashore and start blowing things up. That level of deterence is probably all anyone really needs. Hopefullly we can count on the antsiness of Russia and China to keep the US from generally nuking such countries in response.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 03:05 pm
Bazooey wrote:

Maybe they don't want to incenerate San Francisco, though. Maybe they just want to vaporize the 7th Fleet before all those nice young Marines wade ashore and start blowing things up.


Trying to hit the 7th fleet with a nuke would probably be unsuccesful, and would certainly result in nuclear retaliation probably withing minutes from the seventh fleet itself.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:53 pm
You could be auditing Drudge's Sunday night radio show.
Beats wild speculation. Learn of the legendary Bush propagandistic powers using Janet's right mammary. Why leave everything to your own modest all-knowing mind?
Real sleaze without peer.
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 © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 12:24:22