3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 04:27 pm
okie wrote:
Pachelbel, if you run out of sites to post, you can tackle the subject of aliens that landed at Roswell, New Mexico. If you need help, call Art Bell and George Norrie after midnight.


Don't you DARE start him picking on our aliens. We have enough trouble taking care of all the other nuts who are doing that as it is.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 07:30 pm
Like I said, I challenge you Bushie lovers to come up with documented evidence that what I posted was not true.

I'm still waiting. Insults do not qualify as evidence.

Your reply was what I expected from a group of high school dropouts.

I doubt any of you knows how to look for these documents at the Nat'l Archives and Library of Congress. Hint: you can search online.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:04 pm
MYSTERYMAN WROTE:
pachelbel wrote:
Marvin Bush got an award from the Israelis!! Well, my oh my, I can't EVEN guess why they would award him.....let me think...... for allowing security to lapse at the WTC on 9/11, so that the Arabs could be blamed for what the Zionists did that day? Nawwwww..........of course not.

I think the Bush family should be awared the highest honour -
The Darwin Awards, don't you think so, BernR?
end of Pachelbel quote

Mysteryman wrote:
You apparently cant read,or you are purposefully misrepresenting the truth.
The company he ran was in charge of ELECTRONIC security.

There is no way that any electronic security,or physical security for that matter,in the WTC could have stopped those airplanes.

You know that,yet you are purposly trying to blame him.

Why is that?
end of Mysterman quote

***********************************************************

okie wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he is a conspiracy guy, mysteryman. A disconnection from reality renders the ability to reason inactive to non-existent.

End of Okie quote
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 07:58 am
Quote:


Christian Coalition losing chapters By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Wed Aug 23, 6:11 PM ET

Three disgruntled state affiliates have severed ties with the Christian Coalition of America, one of the nation's most powerful conservative groups during the 1990s but now buffeted by complaints over finances, leadership and its plans to veer into nontraditional policy areas.


"In our prime, we were rated the seventh-most powerful lobbying organization in the country," he said. "Now, there's not even any blip on the radar screen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_el_ge/christian_coalition



Sane people are simply getting tired of these whackos.

The government continues in its 6 year plan of pointed dithering, incompetence reigns supreme, and jail looms on the horizon for many of these scoundrels.

Yet there still is this core group of masochists who cling to their delusions.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 10:34 am
Foxfyre wrote:
okie wrote:
Pachelbel, if you run out of sites to post, you can tackle the subject of aliens that landed at Roswell, New Mexico. If you need help, call Art Bell and George Norrie after midnight.


Don't you DARE start him picking on our aliens. We have enough trouble taking care of all the other nuts who are doing that as it is.


Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:16 am
Al Qaeda Poll Shows No Iraq-Terror Link
by Scott Ott


(2006-08-23) ?- The latest poll of al Qaeda members worldwide shows that 91 percent see no link between the global fight against Islamic terrorists and the ongoing U.S. effort to establish a free and democratic Iraq.

The results follow release of a New York Times/CBS News poll showing 51 percent of Americans also fail to see the connection.

"The al Qaeda public is simply not buying President Bush's argument that a free Iraq will make the world more secureby denying safe-haven to terrorists," said an unnamed spokesman for al-Razmuhsan, the polling division of al-Jazeera. "Our survey shows that the average al Qaeda man on the street is much like the average American. He has no fear that Islamic fascists plan to use Iraq as a base from which to fight their jihad to establish a global Muslim caliphate."

In other results that parallel U.S. public opinion, the poll shows that the overwhelming majority of al Qaeda members think that "planting the seeds of democracy in the Arab world" is not worth the cost in American lives and money, and most believe that a hasty retreat of American forces will not embolden the terrorists.

The al-Razmuhsan poll was conducted over the past three weeks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Great Britain, Russia, France and the U.S., by contacting al Qaeda cell leaders via satellite phone or donkey courier.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:19 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Al Qaeda Poll Shows No Iraq-Terror Link
by Scott Ott


(2006-08-23) ?- The latest poll of al Qaeda members worldwide shows that 91 percent see no link between the global fight against Islamic terrorists and the ongoing U.S. effort to establish a free and democratic Iraq.

The results follow release of a New York Times/CBS News poll showing 51 percent of Americans also fail to see the connection.

"The al Qaeda public is simply not buying President Bush's argument that a free Iraq will make the world more secureby denying safe-haven to terrorists," said an unnamed spokesman for al-Razmuhsan, the polling division of al-Jazeera. "Our survey shows that the average al Qaeda man on the street is much like the average American. He has no fear that Islamic fascists plan to use Iraq as a base from which to fight their jihad to establish a global Muslim caliphate."

In other results that parallel U.S. public opinion, the poll shows that the overwhelming majority of al Qaeda members think that "planting the seeds of democracy in the Arab world" is not worth the cost in American lives and money, and most believe that a hasty retreat of American forces will not embolden the terrorists.

The al-Razmuhsan poll was conducted over the past three weeks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Great Britain, Russia, France and the U.S., by contacting al Qaeda cell leaders via satellite phone or donkey courier.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Too bad this will go over the heads of many here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:23 am
McGentrix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Al Qaeda Poll Shows No Iraq-Terror Link
by Scott Ott


(2006-08-23) ?- The latest poll of al Qaeda members worldwide shows that 91 percent see no link between the global fight against Islamic terrorists and the ongoing U.S. effort to establish a free and democratic Iraq.

The results follow release of a New York Times/CBS News poll showing 51 percent of Americans also fail to see the connection.

"The al Qaeda public is simply not buying President Bush's argument that a free Iraq will make the world more secureby denying safe-haven to terrorists," said an unnamed spokesman for al-Razmuhsan, the polling division of al-Jazeera. "Our survey shows that the average al Qaeda man on the street is much like the average American. He has no fear that Islamic fascists plan to use Iraq as a base from which to fight their jihad to establish a global Muslim caliphate."

In other results that parallel U.S. public opinion, the poll shows that the overwhelming majority of al Qaeda members think that "planting the seeds of democracy in the Arab world" is not worth the cost in American lives and money, and most believe that a hasty retreat of American forces will not embolden the terrorists.

The al-Razmuhsan poll was conducted over the past three weeks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Great Britain, Russia, France and the U.S., by contacting al Qaeda cell leaders via satellite phone or donkey courier.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Too bad this will go over the heads of many here.


It won't go over their heads. They'll be posting it as authoritative proof on other threads and/or other sites. Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:27 am
Quote:
August 24, 2006
Relearning Lessons in the War on Terror
By Victor Davis Hanson


From the recent Israel-Hezbollah war in southern Lebanon to the jihadists in Iraq's Sunni Triangle to the repeated efforts by Islamists across the globe to trump Sept. 11, what old lessons about terrorism are we in the West finding ourselves having to relearn?

First, death is the mantra of terrorists. In urban landscapes, they hide among apartment buildings, use human shields and welcome all fatalities - friendly or hostile, combatant or civilian. Death of any kind, they think, makes the liberal West recoil, but allows them to pose as oppressed victims.

Their nihilistic hatred intimidates, rather than repels, third parties - whether "moderate" Arabs, Europeans who back off from peacekeeping in Lebanon, or the Western public at large. Our enemies call Jews "pigs" and "apes" and employ racist caricatures of the U.S.'s African-American secretary of state. Meanwhile, we worry about incurring charges of "Islamophobia," when we should be stressing our liberal values and unabashedly contrasting Western civilization with the 7th-century barbarism of the jihadists.

Second, windfall petrol-dollar profits (now around $500 billion annually) financially fuel radical Islam. Iranian cash allowed Hezbollah to acquire the sophisticated weaponry needed to achieve parity in ambushes with the Israeli Defense Forces. Unless the U.S. can find a way to force oil prices back down below $40 a barrel, Islamists may eventually be better equipped with weapons they buy than we are with munitions we make.

Third, as Israel's experience in Lebanon demonstrated, air power alone can never defeat terrorists. Precision bombing is a tempting option for Westerners since it ensures few if any of our own casualties. But jihadists, through the use of human shields and biased photographers, are able to portray guided weapons as being as indiscriminate as carpet-bombing.

Fourth, the use of old shoot-and-scoot missiles - Katyushas, Qassams and worse to come - is altering the strategic calculus, as they now number in the many thousands. The fear of Hezbollah's near limitless mobile launchers enabled terrorists to put whole Israeli cities in bomb shelters and almost shut down the country's economy.

In the Middle East, neither the new Israeli border wall nor the Golan Heights guarantees security from a sky full of rockets. Israel needs a breakthrough in missile defense and may have to target the conventional assets of terrorist sponsors - the power grid, for example, of Syria - to restore deterrence.

Fifth, intelligence remains lousy. The lapses are not just an American problem but stymie the Israeli Mossad as well. The latter had little idea of the anti-tank weapons and impenetrable bunkers of Hezbollah, located a few miles from the border. Western reliance on drones and satellites yields little on-the-ground information. Meanwhile, free societies broadcast on television much of their own debates and plans.

Under the jihadists' code of vigilante justice, local informants suspected of supplying tips to Westerners are almost instantly and publicly executed. We, on the other hand, flay ourselves over targeted wiretaps.

Sixth, there is little evidence of either the efficacy or morality of the vaunted "multilateral" diplomacy. The French have steadily downsized their proposed contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. Cash-hungry Russia sold its best weapons to terrorists. And oil-hungry China supplies Iran with missiles.

And seventh, the reputation of the international media in the Middle East for both accuracy and fairness has been lost. In the recent war in Lebanon, news agencies were accused by bloggers of publishing staged photos, and one agency, Reuters, was embarrassed when it found out - thanks again to the work of bloggers - that one of its freelancers had doctored war-zone photos.

Journalists rarely interviewed or filmed Hezbollah soldiers; we still have no idea how many so-called "civilians" reported killed were, in fact, Hezbollah terrorists. In the Middle East, reporters are scared stiff of Islamic fundamentalists, but not the Israeli or American military.

***

Despite the enormous advantages of Western militaries, there is no guarantee we can keep ahead of terrorists - especially since they are becoming more adept while we seem tired and unsure about whom, why and how we should fight.

So far, the U.S. has been able to dodge the latest terrorist bullets. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq are clinging to their newfound democracies. So far, Israel has been able to survive Hamas and Hezbollah, and these groups' state sponsors in Iran and Syria.

But unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we've learned about our enemies - there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:32 am
I have to remind you guys that a conservative comedian is an oxymoron.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:42 am
Speaking of conservative comediennes, heeeeeerrrrrrreeee's Ann .....


Quote:
WHAT PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM DO THEY SUPPORT?
August 23, 2006
by Ann Coulter



This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.

To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror ?- absolutely in favor of that war ?- they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.

As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."

This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.

Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.

Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.

They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!

Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)

Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.

Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.

The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember ?- the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.

But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music ?- more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)

Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.

Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.

The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" ?- a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry ?- the man they wanted to be president ?- called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.

They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.

They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 12:01 pm
Coulter certainly exemplifies the conservative comedienne. She is also an expert on rocket science.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:29 pm
And Tico reads and quotes her. Now that's telling!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:39 pm
Yes, Ticomaya and the scumbag judge who ruled on the NSA should have recused herself. But it is evident, that as a left wing extremist, she has no ethics.

Coulter mentions her ruling!

Note - Article from Chicago Tribune-Aug. 23, 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiretap judge has link to ACLU
Group was a plaintiff in case she ruled on

By Eric Lichtblau
New York Times News Service
Published August 23, 2006


WASHINGTON -- The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush's wiretapping program was unconstitutional serves as a trustee and officer for a Detroit non-profit group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, one of the plaintiffs in the high-profile case.

Judicial Watch, a conservative group in Washington that first discovered the financial connection, charged on Tuesday that the relationship poses a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, and it called for further investigation.

"The system relies on judges to exercise good judgment, and we need more information and more explanation about what the court's involvement was in support of the ACLU," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which gained attention in the 1990s for raising legal and ethical charges against President Bill Clinton.

The Web site for the Michigan non-profit group that supported the ACLU, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, lists Taylor as a trustee and secretary. It indicates that trustees make all funding decision for the group, which has assets of over $350 million and gives out grants for a wide variety of community-based projects.

Taylor declined to comment on the issue Tuesday, and the Community Foundation did not respond to a message seeking comment about what role, if any, Taylor played in the awarding of the ACLU grants.

Three legal ethicists interviewed said Tuesday that while Taylor's role as a trustee at a non-profit group supporting the ACLU would not necessarily disqualify her from hearing the high-profile wiretapping case, she probably should have disclosed the connection in court to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

"It certainly would have been prudent" for Taylor to notify the parties in the case, including the Justice Department, about the issue, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University who was an author of "Judicial Conduct and Ethics."

"I don't think there's a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself," Lubet said, "but at a minimum she should have disclosed it."

In a case brought by the ACLU's national organization and its Michigan chapter, among others, Taylor ruled last week that the warrantless wiretapping program approved by Bush weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks violated both the Constitution and a 1978 surveillance law passed by Congress. Her ruling, which declared that "there are no hereditary kings in America," threw the future of the counterterrorism program into doubt, as the Justice Department moved immediately to appeal the decision.

Some legal experts saw the decision as an important affirmation of constitutional principles, but even some supporters took issue with her legal reasoning, and Republicans charged that the judge, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, was driven by political motives. Questions about a possible conflict appear likely to stir new concerns.

Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, said that her group has received four grants from the Community Foundation since 1999 totaling $125,000.

Moss said that the question of whether Taylor's role as trustee poses a conflict "seems to me to be a real non-issue." She noted that judges routinely serve on civil and non-profit groups, including many groups that may fund or have ties to parties that come before them in court. "Judges have not recused themselves when there's been a much, much stronger connection to an organization," she said.

Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with one of the parties in the case.
end of quote_

As the last paragraph says, Ticomaya, No scumbag judge can or should try to reverse a policy protecting our country while so obviously ignoring the law herself.

CAN THE LEFT SPELL CONFLICT OF INTEREST???
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:46 pm
This is the type of thing that put in place this disasterous aftermath.

Quote:

Rove blasts warrantless wiretapping decision


TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove criticized a federal judge's order for an immediate end to the government's warrantless surveillance program, saying Wednesday such a program might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Rove said the government should be free to listen if al Qaeda is calling someone within the U.S.

"Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/24/rove.spying.ap/index.html




This is part and parcel of the lies that these clowns spew on a daily basis. There is nothing in the law that now prevents or would have prevented them from listening to al Qaeda before the attacks on New York.

Rove is lying through his teeth. The government IS free to listen if al Qaeda calling someone within the U.S. Ample provision was made to allow for this. What a bald-faced liar!

The really important question that the media should be asking Rove is why weren't you listening when you had been given warning after warning. It easily could have been done then and it could have been done legally, THEN, and it could be done legally now.

These fallacious ready made excuses just highlight how incompetent they were before 9-11. That incompetency has only gotten worse since then.

Rove knows that this is what he really means;

"Imagine if we hadn't been asleep at the wheel before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome," he said.

He still mistakenly believes that he can BS people. Hmmmm, well actually, some he most certainly can; the ticos, the foxys, the okies, the occom bills, the ... .
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:53 pm
Damn! Another list I failed to make! I shall endeavor to start being far more conservative so I can make lists like the one above.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 02:01 pm
BernardR wrote:
Yes, Ticomaya and the scumbag judge who ruled on the NSA should have recused herself. But it is evident, that as a left wing extremist, she has no ethics.

WTF does this jumble of illiteracy mean?



Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with one of the parties in the case.
end of quote_

As the last paragraph says, Ticomaya, No scumbag judge can or should try to reverse a policy protecting our country while so obviously ignoring the law herself.

CAN THE LEFT SPELL CONFLICT OF INTEREST???


CAN YOU READ? This from your own offering.

Three legal ethicists interviewed said Tuesday that while Taylor's role as a trustee at a non-profit group supporting the ACLU would not necessarily disqualify her from hearing the high-profile wiretapping case, she probably should have disclosed the connection in court to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

Would this issue that you've raised differ in any way from this one?

Quote:


Alito Defends His Actions In Two Appeals Court Cases

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. said yesterday that he did nothing improper when he ruled in cases involving two financial firms in which he held accounts, although he had told the Senate 15 years ago that he would step aside in matters involving the companies.

Alito, trying to quell conflict-of-interest issues raised by liberal opponents, said he had been "unduly restrictive" in promising in 1990 to recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard Group Inc. and Smith Barney Inc.

After the Senate confirmed him as an appellate judge and when he subsequently ruled on routine cases involving the two companies, he said, he acted properly because his connections to the firms did not constitute a conflict of interest under the applicable rules and laws.

Alito had at least $390,000 in Vanguard mutual funds when he ruled in a 2002 case that favored the company. After a party to the suit complained, he stepped aside and another panel of judges reheard the case. Alito also ruled in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney, which was his brokerage firm.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111002188.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 02:05 pm
Oh, I can read all right- Here was the last paragraph of the article--

Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with one of the parties in the case.
end of quote. She'll be overturned by the Sixth Appealate which does not usually agree with Jesse Jackson type legal reasoning!!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 02:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Damn! Another list I failed to make! I shall endeavor to start being far more conservative so I can make lists like the one above.


Your insignificance extends light years beyond recondite obscurity.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 02:12 pm
McGentrix-Pay no attention to lefties who consult dictionaries attempting to dissuade you from posting your opinions. As you can see, he posted nothing worth while!!!
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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/06/2026 at 03:42:12