1
   

At LEAST WE AINT REPUBLICANS

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 06:57 am
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The fact that one single WMD of various types can obliterate an entire city.

You mean the ones that Saddam didn't have, and couldn't have delivered to a US target, anyway?

Why do you say that he couldn't have delivered a WMD to a US target, when all he would have had to do was disassemble a few, sneak the components into the target country, and reassemble them there? As I said, one single one of these weapons could probably obliterate a city.
Oh, wait! That's why we have radiation detectors in our ports.

Only a tiny percentage of our ports have radiation detectors. Furthermore, I saw an article on the news in which some reporters checked one of the ports that do have radiation detectors, and were easily able to smuggle a tube of radioactive material into the US and drive it into the heart of a major city. If you think that the odds are good that an attempt to smuggle the pieces of a WMD into the country would be detected, you're being extremely optimistic. They only have to get one in to win. We have to stop 100% to win.

DrewDad wrote:
Help me out again with how easy it is to deliver WMD. I seem to have missed that memo.

Sure. You disassemble the bioweapon or nuke or whatever into components, transport the components into the target country separately, maybe in the middle of a cigarette vending machine or something, and then reassemble them.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 07:00 am
xingu wrote:
Brandon wrote:
Iraq was invaded because we couldn't tell whether he had dismantled them as he had promised, or else merely gotten better at hiding them.


WOW!! What a terrific reason to invade a country, get thousands of Americans killed, destabilize the Middle East where a lot of the worlds oil comes from and slaughter well over 50,000 men, women and children.

All this done because we "couldn't tell".

Brilliant Brandon.

Yes, because we couldn't tell if an evil dictator had abandoned his pursuit of weapons, one single one of which could kill half a million people, or was still lying and hiding the weapons and development labs as before.

Sure a Saddam Hussein with atomic bombs and bioweapons would be no big deal. Brilliant.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 May, 2006 07:53 am
did you know brandon that there was now a heavy duty tin foil available at like Food Lion or Krogers? Time for a new hat. reinforced.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 01:03 am
Asherman wrote:
Blatham,

It sounds as if you're recommending that the Democrats concede the upcoming elections to the Republican Party. Rather than make any positive attempt to correct all the "terrible" policies of the past 8 years, the Democrats will have the satisfaction of gloating as the country is flushed away. This seems to be a continuation of the Democratic approach that has worked so well all during the present administration. No ideas or no solutions, only whining, complaining and "I told you so". Works for me, though I would hate to see the Democratic Party a successful suicide.

You remain so convinced that the Republican Party is the personification of evil, and will forever "become equated in the mind of Americans with pus, dead babies and scabrous disease". Some Democrats were confident that President Bush would be defeated in the last Presidential canvas for similar, though not quite so vividly described, predictions of how terrible things had become with a Conservative government. You guys were wrong then, and I'm pretty sure you're still wrong about how odious this Administration is with the American electorate. Either put up your best candidate and a platform to correct what you believe to be so wrong, or don't whine about losing later. I suspect that the Democrats will do neither.

Your advice to let the opposition self-destruct "when the other side is busy ripping itself to bits" applies equally well to the GOP. Let the Democrats remain fixed in its hatred of this President and unresponsive to the issues, and the Republican Party can win elections for a long, long time. The danger to the Republican Party is that it will become so used to dealing with nut cases that it will eventually become complacent and arrogant. That would be very bad for the country, so I sincerely hope that the Democratic Party will wake-up and revive itself.


What a fix we find ourselves in.

It is not a good thing for the Republican Party to remain in power for decades. It is worse for the Democratic Party to gain power for even a year.

Pity poor despondent blatham.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 01:27 am
blatham wrote:

farmerman

Let me ressurect this discussion to make some suggestions.

First, I don't agree with your initial premise (dems have no policy prescriptions). A more accurate description of real states of affairs is that your rhetorical question reflects a propogated myth - propogated through the purposeful Republican talking-point mechanism (constant repetition from multiple sources). Simply count the number of times in any given day where you will hear or read "the dems have no plans" from Republican reps. Count how many times you'll bump into it here from the folks who turn to nothing much but rightwing media sources.

But also, you've repeated it yourself. Not too surprising as the notion is also forwarded pretty regularly on the mainstream media. It has become a successfully propogated idea regardless of any connection to reality.

To get really clear on this matter, consider also how this portrayal/notion/unreflective meme re the Dems sets up the binary opposite portrayal of Republicans - they alone HAVE plans. But there is a whole package of inferences, explicit and implicit, attached to both ends of this binary opposition. You could note some of them as follows:

certain vs confused - kind of
possess knowledge vs lack knowledge - nope
bold vs meek - only as respects islamo facists
courageous vs cowardly - that's not quite fair.
tough vs wimpy - getting closer
steadfast vs vacillating - nope
manly vs feminine - yep (Now whether or not this is a good thing is another question).
can protect you vs can't protect you - Give me a guns blazing Repub any day
or even
steered by God vs directionless - While it's probably true that the Dems are not paying particular attention to God, they are hardly directionless. They have a very definate course that they follow. Execution may be a problem, but not strategy.

etc - yes, etc.

Note how often these exact phrases or immediate synonyms are constantly forwarded in Republican rhetoric.

Very infrequently actually. Please cite numerous Republican sources that contend

Dems are feminine and Repubs are masculine.

Dems don't possess knowledge.

Dems are directionless.

Dems are wimpy - wait, don't bother. I'll concede that one.




But of course, it is really complete bullshit. It has the same sort of truth status as the propogated meme Repubs are tighter with money (while government grew and debt spiralled under Reagan and now again).


Interesting choice of bullshit generalizations about Republicans.

It is, I suppose, entirely accurate that Republicans:

* Kill babies
* Hate minorities
* Want to enslave women
* Clamor for dictatorships.
* Hate homos
* Kill women
* Despise the poor
* Celebrated Katrina
* Kill men
* Long for a monarchy
* Want to screw minority women
* Kill dogs
* Like acid rain
* Are dedicated to making the rich richer
* Want to kill Howard Stern

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 06:08 am
finn

Sorry. As you know, I'm fond of you but I'm not much interested in arguing the color of the sky. You are among a number of folks here who clearly will retain your party loyalty and function as apologist regardless of all else. And I do mean "regardless of ALL else". I no longer consider any of you to be rational. I do consider that you are functioning, intellectually or as citizens, pretty much precisely as did the folks who supported Joe McCarthy.

The language/imagery which I suggest is in use to frame the discourse can be easily ascertained if one proceeds to measure or analyze that discourse in some orderly way - say, by watching five Fox news/commentary shows with a pencil and a notepad where your page has two columns, feminine/masculine. The sky is blue.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 06:23 am
Blatham, When I viewed my original post and then viewed your coment of it, yu reminded me of an exercise I had some students do for a research methods class a number of years ago. Now these were grad students . I asked the stdents to write an executive summary of a series of papers on continental drift summarized to , I believe, 2000.

Well, from a group of papers that were all about 20 pages, we had a total of about 200 pages worth of original work. I received a number of "executive summaries" that were actually much longer than the original papers.
Having noted that, I also ws able to discern that , from the papers that were as long or longer than the original material, there was littkle of value that could really be considered a valid summary.
Im afraid that yours fits in that realm.
Consider, as the GOP goes forth shootting itself in the foot and still declaiming its virtue, the Dems are unable to mount any successful campaign that contains new ideas and solutions.

Since the DEms, more than the GOP, have a true "big tent", I feel it may be difficult for them to verbalize a single approach to get the country off the present dangerous track. In a sort of roundabout way, I find this a good thing. We dont represent a cluster of the Borg whose overall mission is purely world domination..

Finn-- Your belief in such clear absolutes is so innocent and childlike. Always stay as cute as you are.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 11:13 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
did you know brandon that there was now a heavy duty tin foil available at like Food Lion or Krogers? Time for a new hat. reinforced.

Fearing the proliferation of WMD isn't in the same category as thinking the Martians are invading, Einstein. Of course, in your brilliant analysis, you've deduced that there's no danger of the wrong people getting a nuke or bioweapon and doing great harm with it. How stupid of me.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 01:13 pm
Quote:
Consider, as the GOP goes forth shootting itself in the foot and still declaiming its virtue, the Dems are unable to mount any successful campaign that contains new ideas and solutions.

Since the DEms, more than the GOP, have a true "big tent", I feel it may be difficult for them to verbalize a single approach to get the country off the present dangerous track. In a sort of roundabout way, I find this a good thing. We dont represent a cluster of the Borg whose overall mission is purely world domination..


As a fourth year philosophy prof wrote on one of my ethics papers, "Beautifully written. Truly so. Otherwise completely without value." That's close to the exact wording.

I'm afraid I simply no longer consider that the formulation and explication of rational or workable policy prescriptions are terribly important in the American election cycle. The complexity of the problems faced (made particularly acute after the last six years) and the sophistication of the remedies necessary will be appreciated by what percentage of the voting population? We aren't helped in all this by the evolution of media towards simplistic analysis and stenographic rather than investigative reportage. The arrival of a very effective propaganda machine designed to bypass or supplant objective or non-partisan media has been, and will continue to be, deeply destructive to your national political discourse. As I'm sure you understand, it does not really matter what policy prescription or candidate might be advanced by the modern dem party, that propaganda machine will set to the invalidation of what is advanced. And the means used will not be sophisticated rebuttal to sophisticated policy because other rhetorical devices are far more effective. Personal attacks, false dilemmas (black vs white), catchy phrases (we'll stand down when they stand up) and big dollars will most voters more than educated discussion. That's an ugly truth, but it is the truth. Evidence the global warming debate in America.

This is a bleak view, sure, but whether it is bleak or not bears no relationship to whether it is so or not. The way out isn't at all clear. I was not speaking tongue in cheek in suggesting that the Dems (and the US in toto) may be better off losing the next two elections. It will surely be a disaster if they do but even if they win, many deeply negative factors will remain in place and the dems' task will be huge - and all the while they set to it, they will be under the same sort of assault, covert and overt, which Clinton faced from the beginning of his presidency. Perhaps it would be better if the Republicans continued on in power and trashed America so badly and so obviously that even the sanguine apologists ("Torture? No big deal") we have on board here and all those like them would gain a clue.

But I will add that the only way out, finally, is serious activism and organization.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 01:39 pm
blatham nailed it. Were screwed.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 03:28 pm
blatham wrote:


ps to george
Re restaurants etc...definitely get to the Banana Leaf on Denman Street and, one block from there and Delilah's at Comox and Denman. Also the Boathouse (two blocks away on water) and the Fishhouse in Stanley Park. All those restaurants are top notch and in the area where I lived previously. If you haven't booked a hotel yet, I'd recommend the Sylvia or the Coast Plaza, both in that same neighborhood which puts you right on or near the ocean at English Bay and near Stanley Park.

As to sights, you must get on the seawall which takes you some seven or more miles around Stanley Park and the city. Also, take the tram up Grouse Mountain (restaurant up there too)...that's one agenda item you really can't miss as it goes up some 3000 feet and gives a wonderful view of the city and the Fraser River Valley. Best bet is to go up in the afternoon to get a daylight view, then stay through to nighttime.



Thanks very much Bernie. I'll do it ! The convention is in a hotel nearby on West Hastings St. I'll be just a potted palm at the opening and a presenter at one session so I'll skip out & see the place.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 05:56 pm
Blatham say
Quote:
I'm afraid I simply no longer consider that the formulation and explication of rational or workable policy prescriptions are terribly important in the American election cycle. The complexity of the problems faced (made particularly acute after the last six years) and the sophistication of the remedies necessary will be appreciated by what percentage of the voting population?
.
Wellthen you must realize that its all about marketing silly. How long have you felt otherwise?.
Show me a race that (in the whole) is being served up by anything but kneejerk response. Even in my state the issue of Sen Santorum's obvious misdemeanors is being hobbled by the "me too" position of the pro-life, pro-Catholic Bullshit, pro family values crap, that the Democratic candidate brings. His present lead in the race is more determined by his fathers reputation.

\There is good marketing and (like evolution) not quite as good marketing. So in the Darwinian sense of survival of the fit enough, the better marketers win.

[
Quote:
As a fourth year philosophy prof wrote on one of my ethics papers, "Beautifully written. Truly so. Otherwise completely without value." That's close to the exact wording.


Whats the phrase most said by philosophy grads?

"You want fries with that?"
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 06:54 pm
http://republicananatomy.cf.huffingtonpost.com/images/anatomyofarepublican.gif
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:36 am
george

Your West Hastings location puts you in easy walking distance of all I've mentioned other than the Grouse Mountain tram (your concierge can fill you in on that one). Head right up Hastings towards the mountains and you'll be at Stanley Park and the seawall in ten minutes. Given that the weather is agreeable, I suspect you'll fall in love with the city.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 05:48 am
farmerman wrote:
Blatham say
Quote:
I'm afraid I simply no longer consider that the formulation and explication of rational or workable policy prescriptions are terribly important in the American election cycle. The complexity of the problems faced (made particularly acute after the last six years) and the sophistication of the remedies necessary will be appreciated by what percentage of the voting population?
.
Wellthen you must realize that its all about marketing silly. How long have you felt otherwise?.
Show me a race that (in the whole) is being served up by anything but kneejerk response. Even in my state the issue of Sen Santorum's obvious misdemeanors is being hobbled by the "me too" position of the pro-life, pro-Catholic Bullshit, pro family values crap, that the Democratic candidate brings. His present lead in the race is more determined by his fathers reputation.

\There is good marketing and (like evolution) not quite as good marketing. So in the Darwinian sense of survival of the fit enough, the better marketers win.

[
Quote:
As a fourth year philosophy prof wrote on one of my ethics papers, "Beautifully written. Truly so. Otherwise completely without value." That's close to the exact wording.


Whats the phrase most said by philosophy grads?

"You want fries with that?"


Oh, I think there is no question as to whether I am a political romantic. I doubt any "realist" would get as bilious as I've recently become. He would simply set to establishing a mutually advantageous relationship with Diebold.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing for. Ought the Dems to lay out effective policies or ought they to lay out anything at all that merely looks convincing to enough of the electorate while saying and doing everything possible - true or not, ethical or not - to suggest the Republicans eat and breathe porcata? (A colorful Italian derogation meaning, approximately, pieces of pig shitt). It is the latter which has been the successful strategy lately, if not forever as you suggest. Of course, that is if we define "success" as the achievement of power rather than some other end like liberty or real democracy.

I hope you guys can pull out of this national nosedive. You now have two Supreme Court Justices who have, in speeches over the last two or three months, begun to raise the prospect and danger of a serious drift towards dictatorship, Ginsburg and O'Conner. By poll, Evangelical Christians are now more likely to support the use of torture than are secular Americans. 85 % of those fighting in Iraq believe they are there as a matter of revenge for Hussein's role in 9/11. A recent study shows that viewers of Fox are far more likely to believe fallacious information than those who attend to other media and that the more they watch Fox the more fallacious are their views. And then there is the whole economic disaster and the international relations disaster (disasterS, plural)...you know the litany.

In many saddening aspects, America is no longer the hope or beacon for the world as a model of liberty and responsible citizen-involved democratic governance. The views of Canadians and Brits towards the US are overall very poor now and it is downhill from there. Perhaps it would be better if the US fell to the unimportant and ineffectual status of, say, Italy. You are already a good ways there if one compares the media control and the marketing/corruption of Berlusconi and Bush. But of course, the US is so militarized and self-righteous that it won't go down without blowing up everyone else just for spite (as in Newman's wonderful song).

So the Dems better get control. And they better maintain some semblance of integrity and honor towards the democratic ideals.

Apparently I love to yak as the entire purpose of my initial post was to merely alert you that in even posing your initial question you were forwarding a fundamental Republican talking-point, one which seems to be to be completely baseless unless it is understood in as a comment about smart marketing.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 11:06 am
blatham wrote:
In many saddening aspects, America is no longer the hope or beacon for the world as a model of liberty and responsible citizen-involved democratic governance. The views of Canadians and Brits towards the US are overall very poor now and it is downhill from there. Perhaps it would be better if the US fell to the unimportant and ineffectual status of, say, Italy. You are already a good ways there if one compares the media control and the marketing/corruption of Berlusconi and Bush. But of course, the US is so militarized and self-righteous that it won't go down without blowing up everyone else just for spite (as in Newman's wonderful song).

So the Dems better get control. And they better maintain some semblance of integrity and honor towards the democratic ideals.
.


An interesting and appealing argument, Blatham - but, at best a lovely illusion.. I don't think the historical references in it are really true, and I believe our present situation is more or less what it was a century ago, different only in in the particular source of the flood of immigrants who still come here.

The fact is that through the early 20th century the attitudes of European governments, and their cultural elites as well, were decidedly anti-U.S. Until the 20th century our Navy (such as it was) planned for a war with Great Britain or other European powers as the most likely danger they faced. After the war with Spain our interests turned to the protection of our new posessions in Asia, but, even there we found ourselves at odds with the British because of their alliance of convenience with Japan, a state we viewed with increasing suspicion after the Russo-Japanese War. This general antipathy was shared by the government of Canada as well. 19th century disputes, ranging from our ill-fated attempt at invasion of Ontario in 1812, to the comic opera Fenian invasion after our Civil war, to boundary disputes in the Pacific Northwest, disputes over competing rights in the Great Lakes waterways , and fishing rights in the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Grand Banks, all made for generally difficult relations. The lack of dispute on our long internal border was a reflection only of the lack of population or competing interests on the great plains which comprised most of its extent.

European literature of the age (and since then as well) abounds with portraits of the uncultured, materialist, grasping Yankee. In Europe it was only the disaffected underclass (or classes) who saw America in the terms you describe. They expressed their feelings by coming here in the millions. They assimilated, and are now us.

The myth of America as a "beacon for the world" was the self-serving creation of the Leaders of the Allies in WWI who needed more cannon fodder for their bloodbath with Germany (and so that they could spare the troops needed to take down the Ottoman Empire - to out great and continuing misfortune). Unfortunately our boneheaded then President, Woodrow Wilson, a self-righteous southern bigot of the first rank, amplified this cynical idealization, and, together with the leaders of Britain and France, created a "peace" treaty at Versailles that insured continuing conflict throughout the ensuing century.

After WWII leftist politicians, no longer able to cling to the illusion of Soviet Socialistic Paradise, rekindled this shopworn American illusion as an adjunct to a, perhaps well-intended, attempt to create world government and forced decolonialization through U.S. government policy. The practical emptiness of these illusions is well-illustrated by the U.N. today.

The U.S. is still the focus of the hopes and aspirations of hundreds of thousands of mostly Central American, Asian and interestingly, Moslem immigrants who come here from countries whose elites and governments are generally suspicious of us and even moderately hostile. This situation exactly duplicates that of the 19th century: the only difference being the source of the immigrants.

I believe even you recognize that your perhaps hopeful analogies between the U.S. and Italy are quite without merit. Europe certainly managed to tax and exploit a good deal of the world during its decline. I doubt that we will meet that exhaulted standard during ours when it comes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:44 pm
I refuse to read
long posts that are
through no fault of the authors
stretched out and extending beyond
the screens full field.
It appears that
hasd you cared enough re: responses,
you would have used the method thus.
Id suggest that both bernie and georgeob quote themselves
and try again
on the following page.
Im sure there was something of worth in them.
Alas
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:54 pm
It's probably Xingu's picture that stretched the screen out, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 05:02 pm
Here it is again
blatham wrote:
In many saddening aspects, America is no longer the hope or beacon for the world as a model of liberty
and responsible citizen-involved democratic governance. The views of Canadians and Brits towards the US are overall
very poor now and it is downhill from there. Perhaps it would be better if the US fell to the unimportant and ineffectual
status of, say, Italy. You are already a good ways there if one compares the media control and the marketing/corruption
of Berlusconi and Bush. But of course, the US is so militarized and self-righteous that it won't go down without blowing
up everyone else just for spite (as in Newman's wonderful song).

So the Dems better get control. And they better maintain some semblance of integrity and honor towards
the democratic ideals.
.


An interesting and appealing argument, Blatham - but, at best a lovely illusion.. I don't think the historical references
in it are really true, and I believe our present situation is more or less what it was a century ago, different only
in the particular source of the flood of immigrants who still come here.

The fact is that through the early 20th century the attitudes of European governments, and their cultural elites as well,
were decidedly anti-U.S. Until the 20th century our Navy (such as it was) planned for a war with Great Britain
or other European powers as the most likely danger they faced. After the war with Spain our interests turned to
the protection of our new posessions in Asia, but, even there we found ourselves at odds with the British because
of their alliance of convenience with Japan, a state we viewed with increasing suspicion after the
Russo-Japanese War. This general antipathy was shared by the government of Canada as well.
19th century disputes, ranging from our ill-fated attempt at invasion of Ontario in 1812, to the comic opera Fenian
invasion after our Civil war, to boundary disputes in the Pacific Northwest, disputes over competing rights
in the Great Lakes waterways , and fishing rights in the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Grand Banks,
all made for generally difficult relations. The lack of dispute on our long internal border was a reflection only
of the lack of population or competing interests on the great plains which comprised most of its extent.

European literature of the age (and since then as well) abounds with portraits of the uncultured, materialist,
grasping Yankee. In Europe it was only the disaffected underclass (or classes) who saw America in the terms
you describe. They expressed their feelings by coming here in the millions. They assimilated, and are now us.

The myth of America as a "beacon for the world" was the self-serving creation of the Leaders of the Allies
in WWI who needed more cannon fodder for their bloodbath with Germany (and so that they could spare
the troops needed to take down the Ottoman Empire - to out great and continuing misfortune). Unfortunately
our boneheaded then President, Woodrow Wilson, a self-righteous southern bigot of the first rank,
amplified this cynical idealization, and, together with the leaders of Britain and France, created a "peace" treaty
at Versailles that insured continuing conflict throughout the ensuing century.

After WWII leftist politicians, no longer able to cling to the illusion of Soviet Socialistic Paradise, rekindled
this shopworn American illusion as an adjunct to a, perhaps well-intended, attempt to create world
government and forced decolonialization through U.S. government policy. The practical emptiness of these
illusions is well-illustrated by the U.N. today.

The U.S. is still the focus of the hopes and aspirations of hundreds of thousands of mostly Central American,
Asian and interestingly, Moslem immigrants who come here from countries whose elites and governments
are generally suspicious of us and even moderately hostile. This situation exactly duplicates that of the
19th century: the only difference being the source of the immigrants.

I believe even you recognize that your perhaps hopeful analogies between the U.S. and Italy are quite
without merit. Europe certainly managed to tax and exploit a good deal of the world during its decline. I doubt
that we will meet that exhaulted standard during ours when it comes.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 10:50 pm
farmerman wrote:
I refuse to read
long posts that are
through no fault of the authors
stretched out and extending beyond
the screens full field.


In such cases I simply highlight, copy and poste the response into Word/Wordpad, and then read it.

At 567 words, his post is not that long anyway.
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 01/22/2022 at 12:46:44