0
   

Mistreatment of copies of Mein Kampf: Lawsuit....

 
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 04:50 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Lash wrote:
Quote:
Tell me what you thought about PDiddie's pictures of Condi Rice's face superimposed on Aunt Jemima, and I'll look at these links.

But, I can tell you right now--no matter what I think of those links, I'll never disavow a person. I'm not righteous enough to cast a person aside. Guess maybe when I get all perfect and pure like you and your ilk, I can start disavowing people.


I thought they were immature, childish and non-productive.



Nonetheless I do not see anything resembling a rational argument against anything I've ever posted coming from you; just this constant effot at demonization. Pretty sorry show.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 01:05 pm
OK. Somebody needs to drop me $100 in the Play Pal to do all this reading.

I went to this site: http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/11_04/najah.htm

It was about a million pages long--but I didn't see any bigotry. I saw a lot of information that was presented as fact--may have been, may not have been--I think he who calls it a lie should prove the lie---

I'm actually interested in the link I read--and may eventually fact check. I DO think i'd be more concerned about the "facts" (if they turn out to be correct), than the fact that someone linked it.

Joe-- I don't think you should expect anyone to read all that stuff. I know I won't. But, if you find an excerpt you claim as bigotry, if you'll link it, I'll be glad to give my opinion about it.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 01:26 pm
I disavow all of you! Ha! I win! Woohoo!!!
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 02:22 pm
There's a porn link in that list you gave, gunga. :wink:
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 02:36 pm
kickycan wrote:
I disavow all of you! Ha! I win! Woohoo!!!



Can't argue with that...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 04:13 pm
Lash wrote:
You've been a busy bunny since I was last here.

OK, I wanted to see your proof of my bigotry.

I must say, I've actually mulled this. I'm not afraid to call myself a bigot if that's what I am. Primarily, because I know what I think, say, mean and feel and I'm not ashamed of any of it when it relates to race, nationality, religion or any other major characteristics of people. I say in public what I say in private. I'm completely transparent in this area--from choice.

However, I won't agree to something that's not accurate. I'm still deciding...

I sincerely believe that you are fully aware that when I make broad statements about Muslims, and point out certain behavior, that I am quite obviously only referring to those people in that group who practice the behavior.

One of the posts you brought even states this.

BTW, I am not ashamed of anything I said in those posts. Muslim women are assaulted and oppressed in many Muslim countries with the blessing of the Koran. It obviously was a joke, but jokes can be bigoted. I don't think that one was, but I'm not the best arbiter of that particular issue. I don't know what that guy said before I said that....context...

The first time you brought my quote "Revering a book is stupid", I thought you had accidentally left part off. For the past few days, as I was fussing about the ridiculous hoopla surrounding treatment of a book by guards, I have many times written the entire complaint out--it is stupid for guards to feel compelled to treat a book with gloves and go to so much trouble. It is stupid to assuage an irrational belief by accepting criticism of book handling. It isn't their BELIEF that I criticise--it is when observation of their belief is demanded of others.

I've said this many times, and I will not hold myself responsible for writing this disclaimer every time I make a comment about stupid Muslim beliefs when they encroach on others.

Again. Perception is quite a thing. I know Muslims I like. I don't consider them in the same category as Muslims who follow murderous, oppressive, intolerant practices, which they cite in their book. So, I cannot be bigoted against Muslims.

I am, however, distinctly bigoted against violent, dangerous, women beating, terrorist sympathizing, Koran thumping Muslims.

So, at this juncture, we each think the other is a bigot.

Not much accomplished.

Joe--

A point that's important to me, but maybe only me-- I felt it was wrong that Gunga was attacked in your first post and dlowan's. He had a right to post what he did--just as you and she had a right to freak out over it--and I had a right to say his post wasn't as bad as the two of you made it out to be. Christians are lampooned ALL THE TIME. Why can't Muslims be?

I haven't looked at the links he brought. I rarely do look at posts that appear like that one--lots of links--no matter who posted them. Scrolled, as usual.

---
However, I do see I referred to detainees as war criminals. Likely because I believe they are. But, I try to refer to them by their legal title. Twas a slip on my part.


Lash - if you only occasionally made those sorts of statements about Muslims I would have no quarrel - and would see it as part of the heat of argument - you know, ramping up your nastiness because you are upset by something someone has said.

But - it is an ongoing pattern.

I find a lot of it extremely offensive - but I only very occasionally choose to engage you on it, because I have a number of ideas about why you do it - eg I think a lot of it is trolling and just trying to upset people. In short, I suspect you are less prejudiced than you appear.

However, on this thread you chose to defend true - well, I will not call Gunga's stuff what I think it is, because of TOS - let us rest in knowing that my view of it could not be more negative - just as my view of similar hateful and uber-bigoted trash by Islamic fanatics could not be more negative - let us just call it nastiness.

Yep - we each think the other a bigot.

I - as I said - deliberately ramped up my anti-religious views to give some of you a taste of your own unpleasantness.

If we are to speak reasonably, I will happily give you my REAL views on religion.

But - I stand by the logical inconsistency you find yourself in.

I would still like to see you answer my questions. And if you say what questions, I really will not state them again.They are in my previous two posts. I note that Gunga's "ravening wolves" and burn 'em quote actually IS from the New Testament.


But - thank you for a much more true-debate toned post. I admire that you have been prepared to look and think, not just attack.


I also will give it more thought when I have time (have to rush off to work.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 04:16 pm
gungasnake wrote:
dlowan wrote:


You know, Gunga, it is perfectly possible to appreciate the dangers created by such bigoted, fanatical people as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists - or other groups - without getting into the hateful, bigoted stuff that you and some others here do.


In my estimation, you simply are clueless.

I do not hate individual slammites; I hate I-slam. There is absolutely nothing biggoted about hating or despising a false religion.

Likewise, there is no particular law of physics to prevent a Christian or a Jew from being an a$$hole. Nonetheless, in order to be an a$$hole, a Christian, Jew, Budhist, or Hindu has to be in substantial violation of the basic tenets of his religion. A slammite, on the other hand, has to be in substantial violation of the basic tenets of HIS religion in order to be a decent person. THAT is the differernce.

Islammic societies still work after a fashion, as do "secular humanist" societies, because the basic tenets of REAL religion (as opposed to I-slam) are pretty much coded into most people biologically. Nonetheless the religion itself (I-slam) is basicaly a call to lunacy and, at any given time, some percentage of its followers (slammites) are ready to heed that call. The world would clearly be better off were those people to all be converted to some decent religion.

They say that I-slam has "bloody borders", meaning that, pretty much anywhere in the world where slammite societies border on non-slammites societies, there is trouble and bloodshed. You can check this out yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?q=islam++%22bloody+borders%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

There are something like 30 or 40 major sorts of trouble spots in the world today as I read it. A half dozen or so involve things like North Korea, Taiwan, Zimbabwe (Jimmy Carter's most major accomplishment in life), Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia. The rest all involve I-slam.


Yes - we ALL know you hate Islam, Gunga.

You seem to hate a lot of things, no?

This is why we challenge your hate-filled postings from time to time - there is not time enough to manage all of them - but every now and then you need to be challenged and called on your bigotry.

Please delineate the aspects of Islam you consider inferior, with quotes from their scriptures. You have said a mouthful.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 06:35 pm
You're missing a lot of good stuff, Lash, your compadre Gung(I hate a lot of things I can't spell)Snake worked extra hard putting together that list of noxiousness and you defend him but won't read through it.

Okay.

It is pretty hard to take, the news that Islamists are raping their way across Europe has, as you might say, escaped the attention of the mainstream press. I was struck by how parallel that news was to that of the members of the Negro race doing the very same thing across 20th century America (bringing us cases like the Scottsboro Boys, the rash of lynchings and the recently exhumed Emmett Till) and the same news about Jews engaged in the very same behavior, the very same!, in pre-Third Reich Germany. Striking!

You would think they would change the lies, but they don't.

There's a lot more, but you already know the propaganda and you know where the list can be found, so hold your nose and dig in. All I can say is that if Gungasnake is going to represent us as a warrior anytime soon he'd better get his head on much straighter, blind people tend to miss things going on around them, and if he is a product of a Christian education, Jesus ought to sue the school for breach of Covenant.

Joe(doing my bit for the poor forgotten Prince of Peace)Nation
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:32 pm
Clearly, the solution is to round up all bigots and do away with 'em. Lets get right on that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:38 pm
Briefly, neither dlowan nor Joe has pointed out any specific item to judge. Can either of you find an untrue slur in one of his links? I did read what may constitute 6 or 7 pages worth of material on one link. I didn't see anything that could be called a slur or bigoted. I am waiting, though; ready to condemn bigotry if you will only show some. Frankly, I think you owe it to Gunga, me and yourselves to produce some.

Joe-- I defended one item of Gunga's, and still do. His initial post was satirical. I have seen much worse levelled against other religions, and feel the two of you are choosing which religion is popular to defend--while leaving certain other ones to whatever consequence befalls them. PC. Unfair. Inequality. I hate that.

As to dlowan's opinion about my habits... The frequency of my comments--both legitimate opinion and my admittedly unique sense of humor--does not change or make more serious the content of what I say. Please judge content, not perception of motive. I say what I say because I don't mince words, I don't hide the truth of what I think or feel, and I am not bound by concern about others' perception. I AM, however, true to my own core beliefs. Those beliefs include that all human beings are created equal and that each person bears responsibility for their actions.

I can understand that some people think it is indecent to say certain things, due to how those things will be received by others. This is one reason I don't quite fit in with the mores of most people. I decided consciously very early in life that I don't respect a few of the main societal tenets. Perception trumps truth in this world. I reject that, and that fact puts me at odds with most people.

People's behavior, appearance...lifestyles, mannerisms and ...words.... are purposefully crafted based on how it makes them appear--not how it reflects their intent or how it reflects who they are at their core.

If I ridicule an aspect of Islam, I must be a bigot. Because people know they aren't supposed to criticise Islam. It may have been OK to criticise Islam before 911, but now... it's just not done. Now, it's a political issue--and well, criticising them may incite someone to burn down a mosque or something.... Not bloody likely. But the more left we are, the more concerned we are that the unwashed masses may not understand the complications of the lives of Islamics...because the masses are just so backward, nationalistic, uneducated...So, the lefties become guilty of the same thing they are trying to save the wretched masses from committing.

Talk about a Catch-22.

So, you lefties can save the unwashed from their errors....and I'll save you.

---

And, I must say nothing you say about any religion bothers me. I have never been protective or demonstrative with my religion, so any 'nastiness' you exert toward religion could not be for my benefit. You may pee on the Bible for all I care. I won't issue a fatwa on you, or an Order of Smite. (Which is why my religion is not a parallel to the nutty Muslims'--not to be confused with the not nutty Muslims.)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:24 pm
dlo-- This kind of reminds me of the time you derided Fox News as having made up news, a la Dan Rather ...but "refused" to link evidence---and seems like there was another time....

Point being, I think you and Joe suspect those links are bigoted, or that the fact that there are a legion of them--and Gunga is notoriously anti-Islam (hope that's a fair characterization, Gunga), that surely they must contain bigotry.... so, you don't look. You haven't really seen it. It may not be there.

They MAY be accurate.

I just think you really should prove your case or retract.

There MAY be bigotry in those links. I don't know. But, I don't HAVE to know, because I didn't make the accusation.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 09:40 pm
dlowan wrote:


This is why we challenge your hate-filled postings from time to time - there is not time enough to manage all of them - but every now and then you need to be challenged and called on your bigotry.

Please delineate the aspects of Islam you consider inferior, with quotes from their scriptures. You have said a mouthful.


Gee.... where to start?

This, possibly...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul1.htm

Quote:

ome examples of recent convictions under Sharia law:
bullet 1996-MAR: Afghanistan: Some strict interpretations of Islamic law calls for the death penalty for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened. A woman, Jamila, was found guilty of trying to leave the country with such a man. She was caught and stoned to death on 1996-MAR-28. 1.....








http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/stoning.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/stoning2.jpg


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308154/posts

Quote:

It is a looooong story. But to make it short, I was born in a staunchly Islamic Sunni family of a mother,father, younger sister and younger brother. I started reading Quran and Hadith while I was living away from home doing my Bachelors in Electrical Engineering. Thats when I realized the connection between what the Islamists are doing in the world and what is prescribed to Muslims in the Hadith and the Quran. I realized Islam is a violent faith. So I left Islam and now I live in a different city away from my family- because in my Ex-religion, if one quits Islam, then he should be killed.

Cheers.

11 posted on 12/24/2004 6:07:25 PM PST by velocityguy
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 10:56 pm
"If I ridicule an aspect of Islam, I must be a bigot. Because people know they aren't supposed to criticise Islam. It may have been OK to criticise Islam before 911, but now... it's just not done. Now, it's a political issue--and well, criticising them may incite someone to burn down a mosque or something.... Not bloody likely. But the more left we are, the more concerned we are that the unwashed masses may not understand the complications of the lives of Islamics...because the masses are just so backward, nationalistic, uneducated...So, the lefties become guilty of the same thing they are trying to save the wretched masses from committing. "

Sheer crap.

If you criticised an ASPECT - well and good. You consistently post blanket hateful material about Islam and Muslims - NOT delineating aspects.

This is what really pees me off. You and Gunga are crying how mean people are to challenge your hateful posts - "oh how PC - how LIBERAL. You are trying to censor us...waaah How humourless."

Try CENSURE.

As you both warrant.





I am a very harsh critic of aspects of Islam as it is practised in some countries - just as I am of christianity ditto.

What I am against is blanket hatefulness and constant derision of a whole religion and its adherents.

You say, Lash, that you MEAN something else by what you post. I see what you DO post again and again and again.

Then you cry bigot and so on when someone dares to post anything similar in tone to yours about your favoured things.

Do not dare to say I deny your right to criticise aspects of Islamic practice.

It is generalised nastiness and prejudice I deride.

And - please answer my questions about whether you agree with the stuff Gunga has posted from your Bible that is at least equal in bigotry to anything I have seem garnered from the Koran.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:01 pm
Lash wrote:
dlo-- This kind of reminds me of the time you derided Fox News as having made up news, a la Dan Rather ...but "refused" to link evidence---and seems like there was another time....

Point being, I think you and Joe suspect those links are bigoted, or that the fact that there are a legion of them--and Gunga is notoriously anti-Islam (hope that's a fair characterization, Gunga), that surely they must contain bigotry.... so, you don't look. You haven't really seen it. It may not be there.

They MAY be accurate.

I just think you really should prove your case or retract.

There MAY be bigotry in those links. I don't know. But, I don't HAVE to know, because I didn't make the accusation.


I haven't looked at the links and I am not discussing them - yet - I will look at them later.-I am talking about Gunga's usual hateful speech - and the piece he posted from your bible - the ravening wolves burn 'em bit that you have steadily refused to address.

He clearly agrees with it - DO YOU????
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:03 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Clearly, the solution is to round up all bigots and do away with 'em. Lets get right on that.


I think we are prone to bigotry as the sparks fly upwards.


Many of us do our best to overcome it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:04 pm
"So, you lefties can save the unwashed from their errors....and I'll save you.

"


Lol - that is really kinda amusing.

Or you might try just washing?

(joke)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:11 pm
gungasnake wrote:
dlowan wrote:


This is why we challenge your hate-filled postings from time to time - there is not time enough to manage all of them - but every now and then you need to be challenged and called on your bigotry.

Please delineate the aspects of Islam you consider inferior, with quotes from their scriptures. You have said a mouthful.


Gee.... where to start?

This, possibly...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul1.htm

Quote:

ome examples of recent convictions under Sharia law:
bullet 1996-MAR: Afghanistan: Some strict interpretations of Islamic law calls for the death penalty for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened. A woman, Jamila, was found guilty of trying to leave the country with such a man. She was caught and stoned to death on 1996-MAR-28. 1.....








http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/stoning.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/stoning2.jpg


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308154/posts

Quote:

It is a looooong story. But to make it short, I was born in a staunchly Islamic Sunni family of a mother,father, younger sister and younger brother. I started reading Quran and Hadith while I was living away from home doing my Bachelors in Electrical Engineering. Thats when I realized the connection between what the Islamists are doing in the world and what is prescribed to Muslims in the Hadith and the Quran. I realized Islam is a violent faith. So I left Islam and now I live in a different city away from my family- because in my Ex-religion, if one quits Islam, then he should be killed.

Cheers.

11 posted on 12/24/2004 6:07:25 PM PST by velocityguy


ha - thought as much.

Shall you be posting the pictures of massacred Muslims from the former Yugoslavia - just as an example? Or do you think they deserved it?


You seriously think Islam more violent than other religions?

The history of your religion is awash in blood and torture and viciousness - as well as some wonderful things - like most other religions (I have had trouble finding evidence of Buddhist religious atrocities - but i am sure someone will know of some somewhere).


I trust you acknowledge the bloody murderous history of christianity?


Ah, I hear you say - but that is long ago - well, as I said, secular power has - thank goddess - been wrested from christian hands, by and large.



But - given that islam and christianity share a bloody history - though christianity is, by and large, a gentler thing now (I hope it remains so) - how do you argue that it is essential to Islam to be bloody etc. but not to christianity?


Do you not think that bloodiness is human - in spite of religion - or all too often using it as a lens and focus for our bloodiness - and that religions become less bloody as the society around them changes?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:56 pm
It is worth noting at this point, Miss Wabbit, that the Serbs of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo were motivated to their acts by their Orthodox Christianity. Croatians and Serbs speak the same language, but the Serbs are Orthodox and use Cyrillic characters, and the Croatians are Catholic and use Roman characters--reason enough to slaughter them, no? Karadzic, the mad Sarajevo psychiatrist who was the heart and sould of Bosnian Serb propaganda made it a point that the Bosnian Serbs refer to the Bosnians as Turks--dredging up the centuries long hatred. The Kosovars were easy, though, many of them were descended from Turks, and many are practicing Muslims, unlike the Bosnians, who are largely Muslim in name only.

You shouldn't have to wait long for Gunga Din to start ranting about ethnic cleansing being practiced against the poor, sweet Serbs.

Vicious Christian violence is not a thing of the past, it is with us to this day. Think Eric Rudolf, for example, and the murder of abortion clinic doctors and workers. The main reason the Christians are not as viciously violent as in the past is because, as you justifiably observe, the societies of which they form the majority inhabitants are secular today. The beast lurks just beneath the surface, however, and it takes but little to bring it forth.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 06:14 am
Starting from around 1990, I knew less than nothing about Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, or Albanians, or who the good and bad guys might be in the Balkans. The question people were asking was, assuming even that the obvous propaganda we were reading were factual and moslem women WERE moving on conveyer belts in Serbian rape factories, was it worth it? Was whatever Slick KKKlinton and Madeline Albright werer doing over there worth sacraficing the possibility of a new relationship with Russia over? I mean, to me it wasn't, but that may have been just me.

When the thing with Kosovo started to boil over in 98 and 99, the internet age was upon us and I made it my business to find out everything I could about the Balkans, and what I found out was substantially at odds with most of what we read. There were people from all of the surrounding territories and countries on usenet vouching for the character of the Serbs, and referring to the Albanian Kosovars as savages. Basically, you had something like 26 ethnic groups in the Yugoslav federation and only three had ever had any serious problems getting along with Serbs, and those three were the three which had most ardently sided with Hitler and the nazis in WW-II, i.e. Croats, Albanians, and Bosnians.

Moreover it turned out that pretty much all of the supposed atrocities which were being used to justify NATO actions were garbage. The worst case was Trnopolja. The question ANYBODY would ask is, after Trnopolja, which part of this bullshit are we supposed to go on believing?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/judgment2.html

The so-called "RACAK Massacre" which was supposed to be the caussus belli for the NATO action in 1999 also turned out to be garbage:

http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990509exilewalker.php

In fact, it turns out that the entire case against Serbia was never anything but a bunch of bullshit. In fact, in Kosovo in 1998 and 99, there was never any "ethnic cleansing" going on,

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

and

there was never anything remotely like genocide going on.

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

The most recent problems in Kosovo began with Miloshevic rescinding the autonomy of the region in 1989.


Basically, e had to. Every other group of people in the province was being brutalized by
the Albanians:

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm

Further readings and articles from the 80's tell much the same story:

http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html

These are New York Times reports and not Serbian propaganda.


The complaint I read from several people in Hungary, Macedonia, and other surrounding lands at the time regarding the Albanians was that they engaged in a policy of ensconsing themselves in little corners of other people's countries, do their super breeding thing for fifteen or twenty years until they become a majority in the little corner, and then try to break the little corners of the other guy's country off into their "Greater Albania".

In a tight little part of the world in which land is always going to be a zero sum game, Albanians average something like ten or twelve children per family. Other people in the region call what they do "rabbit breeding their way to power". Albanians refer to it as "the power of the penis":

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/apr04/hed6362.shtml

Quote:

British MP's criticize Western policy in Kosovo

The following text is an excerpt from a speech made by Tam Dalyell British MP and long-term opponent of war-policy of PM Blair (though he is in the same party) and following that is an excerpt of the speech from Mrs. Alice Mahon British MP who has devoted huge energy to publicising the plight of Serbs:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040325/debtext/40325-25.htm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab)

I shall simply relate a personal experience, and I hope to be forgiven for crudity. I went to stay for four days in Kosovo with my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, which was on duty there. In the presence of the then colonel, David Allfrey, and the then second in command, now colonel of the regiment, Ben Edwards, I was able to talk at length with some of the local Albanian leaders. I would not have had that conversation had not the guns of the British Army been behind me, because they were pretty rough customers. They were truculent, saying, to put it crudely,


Basically what I get from reading is that Slick KKKlinton and Mad Dog Albright basically bombed a totally innocent Christian nation into the stone age for eighty days and nights including Easter Sunday, for the benefit of a bunch of narco-terrorists and white trash and a political organization (KLA) which was and is basically a branch of AlQuaeda, and to take that Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation and Chinagate off the front pages of American newspapers.









0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 06:23 am
Keep digging yourself deeper gunga.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 11:00:10