Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

clark · 2005-05-19 13:42:30

Trust in the wisdom of the many, or trust in the altruism of one?

I hate either/or scenerio's. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-19 13:47:40

Trust in the wisdom of the many, or trust in the altruism of one?
I hate either/or scenerio's.

That's where that right to bear arms comes in.

Blending a little of both. There's your checks and balances.

clark · 2005-05-19 13:59:28

Hurumph!

Hey-zeus, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King show differently.

Palomar · 2005-05-20 07:06:59

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … photos]The next big outrage?

*Saddam in his underwear. Just saw the photo on TV.

Worries are Iraqis will be offended. Yeah, that's entirely understandable; Saddam was such a nice, sweet guy to them all those years.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-05-20 09:29:40

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … photos]The next big outrage?
*Saddam in his underwear. Just saw the photo on TV.
Worries are Iraqis will be offended. Yeah, that's entirely understandable; Saddam was such a nice, sweet guy to them all those years.
--Cindy

I agree with you Cindy, then again it could be a good thing if,

It shows the Iraqi people he is only mortal and not something to be feared after all. May even show some of the benefits that freedom will give them especially a chance to try in a fair court someone who has blighted his country and been responsible for the murder of thousands.

Ah but then again Saddams rights have been abused due to someone taking a photo of him in his underpants and looking silly. Awwww my heart bleeds

Palomar · 2005-05-20 10:28:52

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … photos]The next big outrage?
*Saddam in his underwear. Just saw the photo on TV.
Worries are Iraqis will be offended. Yeah, that's entirely understandable; Saddam was such a nice, sweet guy to them all those years.
--Cindy
I agree with you Cindy, then again it could be a good thing if,
It shows the Iraqi people he is only mortal and not something to be feared after all. May even show some of the benefits that freedom will give them especially a chance to try in a fair court someone who has blighted his country and been responsible for the murder of thousands.
Ah but then again Saddams rights have been abused due to someone taking a photo of him in his underpants and looking silly. Awwww my heart bleeds

*Let me get this straight:

The photo didn't surface in a U.S. paper, yet Bush is ordering a probe. Okay, maybe it was taken by a U.S. soldier (I hope not).

It was okay with Bush to depose Saddam with "shock and awe" heavy-duty military action; it's wrong to run a photo Saddam (apparently well fed and well cared for) in his underwear, in a jail cell.

This]http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050520/ts_nm/iraq_britain_saddam_dc_7]"This is another Abu Ghraib"

Yep, it's starting already.

Abu Ghraib was atrocious, wrong and inexcusable.

This is nothing by comparison, though -- IMO. It's tacky and in poor taste; that's about it.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-05-20 10:42:34

Now look over here (when you're done with the underpants):

http://nytimes.com/2005/05/20/internati … ...omepage

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Looks like NYTimes are tratiors too.

Martian Republic · 2005-05-20 11:12:10

I went to see episode III of Star Wars. From what I understand, the Star Wars series was written twenty to thirty years ago before there was a George Bush to worry about. George Lucas, used a general plan on how Republics crumble and become Empires and surrender there freedom to a Tyrant for temporary safety or the fear of death. Actually, it was based on fascism from World War II and the starting of wars for illegitimate reason to justify setting up an Empire by force vs a Republic by consent.

>>If you're not with me, you're are my enemy; Disguised motives dragging the Republic into war.<<

Which is a quote of George Bush I might ad: If you're no with me, you're are my enemy.

Another George Bush quote is: It would be a whole lot easier if this were a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator. Which was also kind of a rim shot of Sith Skywalker saying he what to setting up his own Empire under his control.

George Bush also has the same motive as the Star Wars President for dragging the American Republic into foreign wars too and to accomplish he purpose too.

George Lucas Star Wars episode III was not about George Bush drive to make the United States an Empire and any similarities with the young Sith Skywalker drive to make an Empire in Star Wars is completely coincidental. However there are some similarities and George Bush and I he would make a great Dart Vader with the policies he is pushing and Dick Cheney would make a good evil controller over his creation of George Bush his make over like the Dart Vaders make over, minus the hardware of course.

But, as I said, the similarities are frightening and one could almost think it was written about George Bush and Dick Cheney, but there was no such intent, as far as I know. But, it does make one think about it though and wonder about the future.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-20 11:18:51

Looks like NYTimes are tratiors too.

That's already been established.

But reports of such incidents are cause for great concern, each one needs to be investigated and those responsible need to be punished.

The problem though isn't that our troops are poorly trained, inexperienced or any of the other reasons regularly leveled. It's simpler than that. We're using soldiers as guards and policemen. The purpose of soldiers is to kill people, it's kind of foolish for us to get upset when our soldiers. . . wait for it. . . kill people.

Solution: Stop using soldiers as cops and prison guards. Send in the army to defeat the enemy forces, then bring in something else. We need a dedicated occupation and reconstruction force, something with the sole purpose of maintaining order and rebuilding broken nations.

Until then, all that can really be done is stopgap training measures and oversight to prevent these occurances along with security to keep them quiet when they occur.

But then certain quarters wouldn't get the rush of throwing accusations at America.

Get smart, get Roman, or get out. And it's too late for number three.

Martian Republic · 2005-05-20 11:36:05

Looks like NYTimes are tratiors too.
That's already been established.
But reports of such incidents are cause for great concern, each one needs to be investigated and those responsible need to be punished.
The problem though isn't that our troops are poorly trained, inexperienced or any of the other reasons regularly leveled. It's simpler than that. We're using soldiers as guards and policemen. The purpose of soldiers is to kill people, it's kind of foolish for us to get upset when our soldiers. . . wait for it. . . kill people.
Solution: Stop using soldiers as cops and prison guards. Send in the army to defeat the enemy forces, then bring in something else. We need a dedicated occupation and reconstruction force, something with the sole purpose of maintaining order and rebuilding broken nations.
Until then, all that can really be done is stopgap training measures and oversight to prevent these occurances along with security to keep them quiet when they occur.
But then certain quarters wouldn't get the rush of throwing accusations at America.
Get smart, get Roman, or get out. And it's too late for number three.

It looks like the:

"EMPIRE HAS SPOKEN"!

"EITHER GET WITH THE PROGRAM, OR DIE"!

Larry,

clark · 2005-05-20 11:37:58

Read the article.

I can agree on one level with you Cobra. Sure, soldiers kill.

However we don't want soldiers beating defenseless people for the joy of it.

I found the article disturbing. That's all. Put in the context of everything else, of other such incidents, the US policy and leadership is responsible for the backlash- not those who report on it.

Abuse and wrongdoing can only be corrected if it is identified and reported on to the general public. Otherwise it persists.

Things like this (reporting the bad) are neccessary for reform.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-20 11:49:50

Things like this (reporting the bad) are neccessary for reform.

Yes, to a point. If such reports are completely buried at the source it will never be resolved, but at the same time great consideration needs to be taken before spewing it all out for the world to see.

Sometimes we have leaders who are not inclined to fix it, then full public disclosure with all the breaking of eggs and skulls that accompany it is all that's left. But sometimes running around screaming about an injustice has the immediate effect of spurring more and greater injustice. It's often unecessary and irresponsible to do so.

Think before speaking, that's all I expect from our media. Sometimes we are truly wrong and it should be pointed out, but one doesn't need to be on the enemy payroll to be his propagandist.

That said, I am strongly in favor of severely punishing any American soldier that engages in this sort of behavior. That uniform represents a certain level of integrity and professionalism, many of us do not take kindly to that reputation being soiled by those unfit to carry on the legacy of their forefathers.

Case by case. . .

clark · 2005-05-20 11:55:43

That said, I am strongly in favor of severely punishing any American soldier that engages in this sort of behavior. That uniform represents a certain level of integrity and professionalism, many of us do not take kindly to that reputation being soiled by those unfit to carry on the legacy of their forefathers.

Fault lies with the leadership too. Something missing from most of the punishment being metted out. Low level grunts pay the price, but the senior leadership that gives the wink and a nod go free.

Just something to consider.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-20 12:04:21

Fault lies with the leadership too. Something missing from most of the punishment being metted out.

Certainly. Provided a direct link can be proven. Find an order from Rumsfeld saying "if the brown prisoners won't talk, starve them, beat them, make them expire" I'll call for action. Unfortunately we have a situation where the grunts who do it are obviously culpable, some of their officers no doubt authorized or ordered it, beyond that it's very hard to prove anything substantive. It could quickly become a witch-hunt, understandably there is resistance to initiatiating it even amongst people in the chain of command who are apalled by the incidents.

One could argue that the problem is far deeper than our troops or their leaders, but a problem in our culture. And that it's recent and deliberate on some levels.

Certainly not a simple matter.

Palomar · 2005-05-21 08:12:44

that wasn't FDR, it was Harry Truman.

*Regarding "The Buck Stops Here":

Shaun, I am always impressed by your knowledge of American history. Probably I've known it was Truman (forgot), but my guess likely would've been FDR. :-\

Now I wonder if the Lincoln's ghost thing is for real? :hm: :laugh:

--Cindy

Martian Republic · 2005-05-21 08:37:29

Fault lies with the leadership too. Something missing from most of the punishment being metted out.
Certainly. Provided a direct link can be proven. Find an order from Rumsfeld saying "if the brown prisoners won't talk, starve them, beat them, make them expire" I'll call for action. Unfortunately we have a situation where the grunts who do it are obviously culpable, some of their officers no doubt authorized or ordered it, beyond that it's very hard to prove anything substantive. It could quickly become a witch-hunt, understandably there is resistance to initiatiating it even amongst people in the chain of command who are apalled by the incidents.
One could argue that the problem is far deeper than our troops or their leaders, but a problem in our culture. And that it's recent and deliberate on some levels.
Certainly not a simple matter.

Witch-hunt are for people that may or may not actually be involved directly with this torture scandal, but that not the case or in this situation. The orders that caused this torture came right from the top or George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. We know who was involved and who authorized it and we know it was premeditated act to engage in torture in Iraq. Beside we both testimonies and written memo signed by George Bush and crafted by the current head of home land security and we don't want to for Donald Rumsfeld edit to authorize torture either which we also have a signed document of too. But, we have other members of the Bush Administration like Dick Cheney who were planning this disaster that we are currently in during the Reagan Administration and as a group in 1991. We also have a document in Great Britain that assure us that is true also, that state the George Bush intends to invade Iraq and fix the intelegence to match his foriegn policy or lie and this was before the 9/11 attack. So we have the documentation on these bastards and what they actually did. So that not the issue and this is not a witch-hunt, this is a fact and can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is so. The only question that is to be answered is, do you believe the truth. Yes or No and there is no other choice.

Larry,

reddragon · 2005-05-21 09:08:17

Witch-hunt are for people that may or may not actually be involved directly with this torture scandal, but that not the case or in this situation. The orders that caused this torture came right from the top or George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. We know who was involved and who authorized it and we know it was premeditated act to engage in torture in Iraq. Beside we both testimonies and written memo signed by George Bush and crafted by the current head of home land security and we don't want to for Donald Rumsfeld edit to authorize torture either which we also have a signed document of too. But, we have other members of the Bush Administration like Dick Cheney who were planning this disaster that we are currently in during the Reagan Administration and as a group in 1991. We also have a document in Great Britain that assure us that is true also, that state the George Bush intends to invade Iraq and fix the intelegence to match his foriegn policy or lie and this was before the 9/11 attack. So we have the documentation on these bastards and what they actually did. So that not the issue and this is not a witch-hunt, this is a fact and can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is so. The only question that is to be answered is, do you believe the truth. Yes or No and there is no other choice.
Larry,

I agree with you that there can and should be an investigation into the authorization and encouragement of torture by high-ranking military and/or government officials without it being a witch-hunt. I think there's enough evidence that higher-ups were involved to go ahead with such an investigation. I can't agree with your last two sentences though. ("The only question that is to be answered is, do you believe the truth. Yes or No and there is no other choice.") I think there are alot of questions that we still need to answer such as: Who did/said what?, What exactly did they do/say?, What was the context etc. We need more definitive answers so that even the Bush apologists won't be able to deny what happened. This is especially true where Bush and Cheney are implicated as being at fault in some of this. If they encouraged torture it is important that the truth comes out. But the evidence isn't yet enough to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think we also need more specific information about Bush's lies about the war, although in my mind at least there's pretty strong evidence that some of his claims were lies.

dickbill · 2005-05-21 11:30:11

Hi all,
Long time no post.
I would be personnaly interested to know WHO or what organisation created the fake " yellow pancake" documents, that GWB mentioned in his adress to the nation before the war (the document revealed that Hussein had acquired nuclear "yellow cakes" from Niger). That document scared so much the US that nothing could stop the march to the war after that.
It was soon dismissed as a hoax, actually the information that it was a fake document was already circulating on the internet at the time of W's speech. Indeed, a couple of weeks later, Colin Powell didn't mention it in his talk to the UN.

So, Who created this clever fake that made the President of the United State Himself, by mentioning it in His adress to the Nation, a victim of a terrible conspiracy ???
It would interesting to know since it was one of the strongest justification for the war.
I read in FOX NEWS that it was the french, that forged the document. They officially did everything they could to avoid the war, while secrelety plotting to force the US to go to war, while later they would know that the US who be ridiculised once the hoax would be known.
So the "Niger Yellow Cake" document was created by the french for the only purpose to ridiculize the US.
Is this really what americans think ? I think there are enough intelligent people in the US (like me, but I am not american) that deserve to know the truth. This, just in case the french plot, even if it was displayed in fox news, which is guaranty of veracity, is not true... just in case.
If it's the french, let it be known, if not then who else ?
after all thousands of people have died upon this infernal machination.

Palomar · 2005-05-22 07:50:30

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … bush]Laura Bush in Jerusalem

*Wow. Even the Israelis are protesting. That surprised me.

The militant Muslim group Hamas still *believes* the Koran-flushing story is absolutely true.

If only we'd heeded -- a long, long time ago -- the advice of this nation's founders, to stay at home and mind our own business.

::shakes head::

It's a truly no-win situation, isn't it? I mean all around.

--Cindy

Martian Republic · 2005-05-22 09:41:25

Hi all,
Long time no post.
I would be personnaly interested to know WHO or what organisation created the fake " yellow pancake" documents, that GWB mentioned in his adress to the nation before the war (the document revealed that Hussein had acquired nuclear "yellow cakes" from Niger). That document scared so much the US that nothing could stop the march to the war after that.
It was soon dismissed as a hoax, actually the information that it was a fake document was already circulating on the internet at the time of W's speech. Indeed, a couple of weeks later, Colin Powell didn't mention it in his talk to the UN.
So, Who created this clever fake that made the President of the United State Himself, by mentioning it in His adress to the Nation, a victim of a terrible conspiracy ???
It would interesting to know since it was one of the strongest justification for the war.
I read in FOX NEWS that it was the french, that forged the document. They officially did everything they could to avoid the war, while secrelety plotting to force the US to go to war, while later they would know that the US who be ridiculised once the hoax would be known.
So the "Niger Yellow Cake" document was created by the french for the only purpose to ridiculize the US.
Is this really what americans think ? I think there are enough intelligent people in the US (like me, but I am not american) that deserve to know the truth. This, just in case the french plot, even if it was displayed in fox news, which is guaranty of veracity, is not true... just in case.
If it's the french, let it be known, if not then who else ?
after all thousands of people have died upon this infernal machination.

There is no indication that it was a French plot against the United States. From what I understand, the French are just making a statement fact that the Bush Administration was deliberately fixing the intelligence, to fit there foreign policy, which is exactly what the Bush Administration did. So the French are just making a statement of fact of what really happened and nothing else. So all this boo hoo about a French plot, is just an attempt to hide the real facts from the American people behind a pack a lies. It what also known as propaganda and which is generally based on lies, which the Bush Administration is putting out there.

But, now to your yellowcake question of where did that story come from.

From what I have been able to find out on that subject is: the original source of that yellowcake story came from some college students paper that was ten year old or longer or immigrant and/or agent from Iraq and even then that information is supposedly ten years old or more also. So the yellowcake story was never based on any real intelligence to begin with or with anyone that would have been in a position to know. But, from that base there are two stories that are being told. The first story is, that Tony Blair took the student paper and cooked it up false intelligence and gave it to Dick Cheney and George Bush and that they used it to justify the Iraq in war. The other story revolves around Dick Cheney hearing about the story and had CIA check out the yellowcake story. So they send ambassador Wilson and he come back and told them there was nothing to this story and filed his report. This was six month or more before George Bush's State of the Union Address where he mentions it. But, Dick Cheney wanted to use the yellowcake story anyway, even though he knew it was a lie. The people around Wilson and George Tenat kept throwing the Yellowcake story out of the speeches, because they knew it was a lie and Dick Cheney kept putting the Yellowcake story back in, because he wanted to use that as the excuse to invade Iraq. Dick Cheney finally won out in this tug of war to keep the yellowcake story in or put back into George Bushes State of the Union Speech, on the eve of our invasion of Iraq. There was also retaliation against Wilson for telling the truth and they struck at his wife Valerie Plain and ousted her as a CIA operative and blew her cover and her contacts in the field too. This outing of Valerie Plain originated either in the office of or with Dick Cheney and/or George Bush and/or possibly with someone in there inner circle acting on there authority and with there blessings. This outing of Valerie Plain, was a damage control effort to protect there open flank and to intimidate people that would choose to oppose Dick Cheney and George Bush.

From what I can tell, this is basically what happened. There might be some minor detail here or there that might need to be changed, but this is the jest of what happened. But, knew six month or longer that there was nothing to this yellowcake story and they choose to use it anyway in there fixing the intelligence to justify there war in Iraq.

Larry,

dickbill · 2005-05-22 12:54:37

So all this boo hoo about a French plot, is just an attempt to hide the real facts from the American people behind a pack a lies. It what also known as propaganda and which is generally based on lies, which the Bush Administration is putting out there.

Well, I never believed it either, but who knows, when you play dirty, there is always a chance that it get out of control.

Actually, I cannot retrieve the article or comment that I remember...Was it in FOXNEWS faired and balanced or the Washington Times, I am not sure now ?
I did a search in both and cannot find it. But I read it for sure.
At least I found a link in the News telegraph that confirm that this theory (the french forged the yellow cakes documents) has circulated on Internet for a time:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.j … ...r19.xml

Now the "old college student" memo theory that you mention, I don't buy it either. How could the White House use a college student memo as an incentive to go to war ?
This look more like another convenient explanation. I think it has been forged on purpose to push the balance a little bit further to the war.
This is an important issue and obviously the white house has no interest to see somebody finding something more uncomfortable that a bunch of college student that created a hoax for fun, so it's gonna be buried for a while.

By the way I am french, I think that a couple of guys should have been fired in france after their link with the Saddam regime (among other things) was revealed, the same apply to the US role in funding an supporting the Sadam regime against Iran. Rumsfeld was handshaking Saddam as often than Chirac, just the picture hasn't been broadcasted much often in the fair and balanced media news.

Martian Republic · 2005-05-22 14:35:19

By the way I am french, I think that a couple of guys should have been fired in france after their link with the Saddam regime (among other things) was revealed, the same apply to the US role in funding an supporting the Sadam regime against Iran. Rumsfeld was handshaking Saddam as often than Chirac, just the picture hasn't been broadcasted much often in the fair and balanced media news.

As far a Donald Rumsfeld shakeing hand with Saddam Hussien, Oh he was just the front man in this deal. If you want to get everybody that was involved in those dirty dealing in Iraq, then let include Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden, etc, etc. If we did that, we would get Donald Rumsfeld, almost the entire Bush crime family, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, George Shultz. We would have to take out the entire Bush Administration for engaging in racketeering or criminal acts and even Treason too.

"GEE, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT"!

Larry,

reddragon · 2005-05-22 15:32:11

"GEE, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT"!

The depressing thing is that the American people had a chance to get rid of this administration last November and we failed to take it. The truth about the yellowcake and other lies that have led to the carnage in Iraq was out at that time too. But people just looked the other way and voted for the guy who, in empty words, promised to protect us. Didn't these people notice that he has concentrated money and military might on the enemy that neither attacked us nor even threatened us, rather than on the one (Al Quaida) that did attack and threatens to do so again. It's a sad commentary on the intelligence of the populous that we're suffering under four more years of Bush and Cheney. So much for reason. Slogans, lies, and obviously empty promises win the support of the people. I still hope that my fellow Americans will one day come to their senses. Maybe in 2008, but it's a long time to wait. Until then, I suppose we have no one to blame but ourselves that we're stuck with this administration.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-22 21:29:38

Cindy
Quotes:-
1) "Wow. Even the Israelis are protesting. That surprised me."
It's a healthy sign that America is able to stir up protest among Jews as well as Muslims. A further indication she's not entirely one-eyed.

2) "The militant Muslim group Hamas still *believes* the Koran-flushing story is absolutely true."
Yes indeed, and always will. This is why the damage done by irresponsible journalism is so very dangerous - in the minds of the militants, murderers and religious bigots, it's irreversible.

3) "If only we'd heeded -- a long, long time ago -- the advice of this nation's founders, to stay at home and mind our own business."
To quote a phrase: "The business of America is business". The home of free enterprise couldn't help but expand its business interests onto the world stage. It was inevitable and has stimulated the economy of the whole planet, helping to raise living standards to unprecedented levels all over the world
With the rise of international business, comes international politics. You simply cannot have one without the other. The withdrawal of America into itself was always an impossibility and so, the eventual expansion of American political influence in the world was inexorable. In fact, much of Europe can thank its lucky stars that this was the case, or they'd all be speaking either German or Russian today.

4) "It's a truly no-win situation, isn't it? I mean all around."
The world situation is always bad and always has been. But it's never as bad as watching the media would lead us to believe. Good news is no news - bad news is big news. Most news is politically flavoured because the journalists involved all have political views.
I've watched the media for decades now but I've never seen such a concerted and vitriolic campaign against America, and particularly against one U.S. Administration, as we're seeing today.
And it seems to be working. Normally intelligent people are starting to believe conspiracy theories they would otherwise routinely dismiss as nonsense. The persistent and insistent daily diet of 'disaster' in the Middle East is achieving its aim of weakening Western resolve there, thus aiding and abetting murderers and undermining the newfound freedom of the Iraqi people. Look at Spain, the Netherlands, and other countries which have succumbed to this negative propaganda and withdrawn troops from Iraq, for example.
You yourself, Cindy, despair of the situation at times, which is very understandable, even though your grasp of the equivocal nature of left-right politics is usually clearer than many of the tribalists here at New Mars.

World politics have always been dirty and murky but it's no worse today than ever it's been. It's just that the power of the media to convey doom and gloom when it suits them has never been this pronounced and rarely this one-sided.
Things are happening in the Middle East which I think may ultimately produce a good result and which will have stemmed, in large part, from the liberation of Iraq.
And regardless of not finding the WMD, the liberation of Iraq was an intrinsically good thing in itself. Give it time and I believe history will vindicate that.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-23 05:14:49

And regardless of not finding the WMD, the liberation of Iraq was an intrinsically good thing in itself. Give it time and I believe history will vindicate that.

Well said. The entire post, I couldn't have said it better.

All undertakings have their vehement critics. Posterity will tell whether Iraq proves to be a great achievement or a disaster. Whatever the case, it will be largely determined by us and our resolve.

However the anti-war crowd has one thing right. It was never about WMDs, at least not exclusively or even primarily. Hint: it isn't oil either.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2005-05-19 13:42:30

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#277 2005-05-19 13:47:40

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#278 2005-05-19 13:59:28

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#279 2005-05-20 07:06:59

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#280 2005-05-20 09:29:40

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#281 2005-05-20 10:28:52

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#282 2005-05-20 10:42:34

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#283 2005-05-20 11:12:10

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#284 2005-05-20 11:18:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#285 2005-05-20 11:36:05

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#286 2005-05-20 11:37:58

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#287 2005-05-20 11:49:50

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#288 2005-05-20 11:55:43

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#289 2005-05-20 12:04:21

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#290 2005-05-21 08:12:44

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#291 2005-05-21 08:37:29

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#292 2005-05-21 09:08:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#293 2005-05-21 11:30:11

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#294 2005-05-22 07:50:30

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#295 2005-05-22 09:41:25

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#296 2005-05-22 12:54:37

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#297 2005-05-22 14:35:19

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#298 2005-05-22 15:32:11

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#299 2005-05-22 21:29:38

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#300 2005-05-23 05:14:49

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer