Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Palomar · 2005-04-07 06:32:17

Finally, a few have decided to go out there themselves and report (not apprehend, shoot, beat down or chase off) illegals attempting a crossing.

*Come on. You're not that naive.

Some of these people are bringing vehicles outfitted with gun racks...with guns in them, I presume.

We're supposed to believe they're all benign, well-intended observers...merely? Just that?

I'm not opposed to reducing illegal immigration. Let the Border Patrol handle it: Hire more officers, who answer to a chain of command.

--Cindy

P.S.: The fact that they're calling themselves "militiamen" is an indication (militia -- military -- force).

And yes -- it *will* stir up racial tensions, if most of these "militiamen" are white. We don't have much in the way of racial tensions around here -- folks get along quite well. I don't want to see that changed.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-07 06:40:29

I'm not opposed to reducing illegal immigration. Let the Border Patrol handle it: Hire more officers, who answer to a chain of command.

But that's just it, the government hasn't hired enough Border Patrol officers. What should concerned Americans do? Whine and say "please Uncle Sam, please" or get up and do something themselves. You know, like Americans. :;):

Some of these people are bringing vehicles outfitted with gun racks...with guns in them, I presume.

There is an effort to portray these people as a bunch of ig'nant trigger-happy racist yahoos but I'll wager that in the vast majority of cases it just isn't true. We have to look past the biased image of some liquored-up peon with a 30-06 thinking "I'm a shoot me some wetbacks, yessiree", in most cases these are reasonably intelligent and responsible people repsonding to a very real problem that government has demonstrated an unwillingness to do a damn thing about. Sure, I have some concerns about the potential for incidents but overall I commend the effort. If more people would get up and act instead of complaining to government we'd make some real progress in dealing the problems that face us.

clark · 2005-04-07 07:11:53

How is any of this any different than a giant "Neighbor Hood Watch"?

Some well meaning individuals want to help in preventing what they perceive as criminal activity from occuring. If they act violently, well, we have laws to deal with them.

We have neighborhood watches, which is effectively the same thing (on a smaller scale) because we can't afford more police. Watching our neighborhoods is ostenibly a police and state function.

This is that whole self-reliant, rugged individualism of the American "will-do" attitude. Why would we want to discourage people from helping their government enforce its laws?

Of course, open the border, and this all becomes a moot issue. :laugh:

Palomar · 2005-04-07 07:16:44

*I'm opposed to -- and will remain opposed to -- unchecked power which answers to no one.

Are all of these "militiamen" residents of Arizona? If not, what are they doing there?

If this were 1992 and one of these "militiamen" was Timothy McVeigh?

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Just a few months ago, in a different nation, 2 undercover (plainclothes) police officers were first beaten and then burned to death. Why? They were watching an area within a city which has a high crime rate. Locals in the neighborhood (disgruntled that the gov't wasn't doing enough to curb the crime, so decided to do the policing themselves) mistook them for criminals. After beating them, the police officers tried to explain and provide proof of who they were. They were ignored, doused with gasoline and set afire.

The lesson? Vigilanteeism and mob rule -- no thanks.

clark · 2005-04-07 07:19:36

Last I checked, all states that make up the United States, as signatories to the Constution, agree for free and unfettered travel of all citzens throughout the land.

I live in a state where I am not a resident. I don't need to explain to anyone why I am here.

clark · 2005-04-07 07:38:45

::EDIT:: Just a few months ago, in a different nation, 2 undercover (plainclothes) police officers were first beaten and then burned to death. Why? They were watching an area within a city which has a high crime rate. Locals in the neighborhood (disgruntled that the gov't wasn't doing enough to curb the crime, so decided to do the policing themselves) mistook them for criminals. After beating them, the police officers tried to explain and provide proof of who they were. They were ignored, doused with gasoline and set afire.
The lesson? Vigilanteeism and mob rule -- no thanks.

I'm familiar with this, actually.

To put this into context, this occured in Mexico, and the officers were survailing a local school for drug pushers. It just so happened that a few kids had gone missing from this school, and many local area parents and neighbors were upset, one, because kids were being snatched, and two, many felt the police were doing little to solve the crimes.

So, some concerned people saw some strangers sitting in a car, in front of a school, where children had gone missing before. Taking pictures. It's tragic, but there is a bit more to this story too.

People impersonating Federale's is pretty common down there. I heard they saved one of the three officers- had to helo him out.

BWhite · 2005-04-07 15:12:08

Rant deleted. It was just more of the same old, same old.

Edited By BWhite on 1112909844

Palomar · 2005-04-07 20:44:51

Finally, a few have decided to go out there themselves and report (not apprehend, shoot, beat down or chase off) illegals attempting a crossing. They call the border patrol who comes out and gets them.

*Okay, I'm going to have to back down a bit. Saw on O'Reilly this evening folks doing what you said they're doing -- simply observing and reporting to the BP.

But still, there's a lot of opportunity for mischief.

And the added report on O'Reilly that the Mexican police are reacting -- by pointing out to drug smugglers different routes to take and different areas of the U.S. to enter. Not arresting them. Helping them.

Can't win.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-04-08 15:23:02

God Bless Representative http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … tml]Walter Jones (R - NC):

Jones, nearly in tears as he held up [Richard] Perle's testimony, glared at the witness. "I went to a Marine's funeral who left a wife and three children, twins he never saw, and I'll tell you, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I am just incensed with this statement."

And GOP Senator http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local … html]Wayne Allard:

His beef? The scripted Social Secuirty "town hall" meetings with pre-chosen actors lobbing the Prez softball questions about the non-plan plan to raid social security.

Edited By BWhite on 1112995610

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-09 08:04:45

His beef? The scripted Social Secuirty "town hall" meetings with pre-chosen actors lobbing the Prez softball questions about the non-plan plan to raid social security.

:laugh:

"Town hall" meetings are always packed in favor of the party holding them and SocSec has already been raided! Now any discussion of how to correct it is spun as raiding when the robbers have long since made their getaway.

Palomar · 2005-04-11 14:21:50

*Bill O'Reilly mentioned some "interesting" things about Ward Churchill. Apparently Churchill isn't registered with any Native American Nation as a tribal member (despite his claims of being a Native American).

Besides the plagiarism charges, they also have uncovered a painting by Churchill, which he sold...which is a mirror-image duplicate of a painting by the original artist (either that artist was Native American -- or not, and he painted Native American imagery; can't recall which). The artist is deceased now and Churchill claims that artist gave him permission to reproduce the painting, sign his own name to it, sell it and make money.

:laugh:

Sure.

The artist's son denies Churchill's claim.

I dunno, looks like Mr. Churchill's credibility is slipping a few notches at least.

--Cindy

P.S.: Churchill also claims to have earned some high-falutin' degree at an Illinois college...which seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth somehow. Apparently that "degree" helped him get his job at U of C.

Palomar · 2005-04-12 12:45:31

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _dogs]More casualties of the Iraqi war

*Why the negligence on the part of the owners? Emaciation, others dumped. This is so AVOIDable. Turn them over to families, the local shelter, etc.! Give them to someone to take care of them, prior to being deployed.

I'd have put this in the "Critters" thread, but don't want war talk spilling over into it. It's more on-topic for this thread.

Two of the 14 cat cages hold mothers with litters of nursing kittens.

::sigh::

Many of the abandoned pets are wearing collars, but with their tags removed.

This is abhorrent.

--Cindy

P.S.: Okay, will just blurt this out: How can we expect our soldiers to treat others equitably when they do this to innocent animals? It definitely shows extreme lack of character, at the very least.

Palomar · 2005-04-12 20:24:36

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … it]Inquiry into Pres. Bush stamp art

*...frightens the exhibit's curator.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-04-15 18:44:16

http://www.frc.org/img/item/AD05D01_LARGE.jpg]Fascism - - American style

If you oppose George W. Bush getting 100% of his judges approved, you HATE the Baby Jesus.

Cobra, here is your scepter. Atheists beware. :;):

Palomar · 2005-04-17 07:03:27

Itll]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050417/ap_on_re_as/china_japan]It'll all come out in the wash

*A few years ago I saw a TV documentary about human rights atrocities committed by the Japanese prior to and during WWII on the Koreans, Chinese, American POW's, etc. Apparently the Japanese gov't has been moving to "erase" unpleasant portions of their history on the pretext that the upcoming generation doesn't need to know. Looks like China won't allow them to forget.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2005-04-18 00:13:40

Came over a slightly interesting article the other day:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0110/S … S00046.htm

If true, this would mean that not only were the reasons for the war in Iraq fraudulent, but there never existed an honest reason to invade Afghanistan either.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-18 05:29:28

If you oppose George W. Bush getting 100% of his judges approved, you HATE the Baby Jesus.
Cobra, here is your scepter. Atheists beware.

Oversimplifying matters. The linked graphic does make a reasonable charge, given recent behavior by "the Left", who can in turn charge that it's "divisive" in their own "you did it first so it's okay" way.

For my part, I do want Bush to get his judicial nominees and while I don't "hate the baby Jesus" I have no love for the little bugger either. Conservative judges bound by the Constitution are preferable in my eyes to liberal judges bound by "international law" and their own feelings. A bible-thumping judge is generally better than a socialist, even for an atheist such as myself.

Apparently the Japanese gov't has been moving to "erase" unpleasant portions of their history on the pretext that the upcoming generation doesn't need to know.

Interesting contrast with the Western approach to such things. Europe, and to a lesser extent America, wallow in guilt and shame over the less noble aspects of their past and slowly crumble as a result. Maybe the Japanese "Not listening, didn't happen, not gonna talk about it" approach is better in the grand scheme of things. ???

Why the simple approach of acknowledging the past but not whipping oneself over things you didn't personally do is lost on both cultures escapes me.

Which brings us to:

If true, this would mean that not only were the reasons for the war in Iraq fraudulent, but there never existed an honest reason to invade Afghanistan either.

Not sorry!

But seriously, this is making my "bullshit detector" ping like mad. Like many other assertions made about the war, 9/11 and the like, I'd file this under "possible but highly improbable."

But who knows, maybe bin Laden really thought a public trial in an Islamic country for an attack against America would really fuel the fires. But no sense crying over spilt blood at this point, even if everything was wrong removing Saddam and the Taliban from their respective countries is for the best in the long run. Or so my fellow arrogant American imperialists keep saying at the secret meetings.

Palomar · 2005-04-18 07:08:48

Interesting contrast with the Western approach to such things. Europe, and to a lesser extent America, wallow in guilt and shame over the less noble aspects of their past and slowly crumble as a result.
Why the simple approach of acknowledging the past but not whipping oneself over things you didn't personally do is lost on both cultures escapes me.

*I completely agree. Having lived for 13 years in a predominantly non-white region of the nation, though, I have noticed one thing: We whites seem to have this tendency of not knowing when to let go. A poor analogy, but an apt one IMO: The constant insane obsession with weight. Yes, it's healthier and etc. to be slimmer rather than obese. But I'm referring to the scourge of bulimia, anorexia, constant obsessing about gaining a pound and "pinching an inch"...on and on and on and on and on and ON. ::shakes head:: For the sake of health, it becomes unhealthy! Actually it's more about pure vanity and sexual politics (even though I've known people of both genders who look great, eat less, exercise...and they still get cheated on and dumped by spouses) -- enough of that. Just an analogy to point out that we apparently DON'T know when to relax and let go. It seems. :-\

Maybe the Japanese "Not listening, didn't happen, not gonna talk about it" approach is better in the grand scheme of things. ???

I've considered that myself. "Out of sight, out of mind." It's very tempting. But I believe it's best to own up to faults, wrongs and mistakes (I'm differentiating between wrongs and mistakes because often they are two entirely different things; wrong in this context is synonymous with deliberate/intentional and mistakes synonymous with bungling, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...that sort of thing). It's best to own up to/admit on one's own initiative; it's nobler. Rather than being embarrassed and shamed by an enemy, as Japan is currently experiencing. They look ignoble.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2005-04-18 07:20:39

But who knows, maybe bin Laden really thought a public trial in an Islamic country for an attack against America would really fuel the fires.

It would have made quite a lot of sense if bin Laden wasn't guilty of 9/11 and perfect sense for the Taliban all along. I used to marvel at their immense stupidity when not extraditing Osama, or did I smell a rat already at that point? Extradition to Pakistan would in any case practically mean further extradition to and standing trial in the United States.
???

But sense and sense, it didn't make one bit of sense for bin Laden to condemn the 9/11 attacks and claim his innocence either, which he repeatedly did to begin with. Wasn't this guy supposed to be a terrorist?
???

My bullshit detector is perhaps more unbiased than yours. If the regime lied about the need to invade Iraq - meaning we don't know to this day precisely why the US are in Iraq - they could just as easily have lied about Afghanistan.

But no sense crying over spilt blood at this point, even if everything was wrong removing Saddam and the Taliban from their respective countries is for the best in the long run. Or so my fellow arrogant American imperialists keep saying at the secret meetings.

That would all depend, I guess, on whether the blood spilling is really done with your best interest in mind or someone else's.

Good commenting regarding the Japanese, Europeans and guilt. Indeed, one wonders why politicians aren't smart enough to do just that, acknowledge ancient misdeeds without taking personal responsibility and move on.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-18 09:27:52

My bullshit detector is perhaps more unbiased than yours. If the regime lied about the need to invade Iraq - meaning we don't know to this day precisely why the US are in Iraq - they could just as easily have lied about Afghanistan.

We all have our biases. For example, asserting that the "regime lied" rests on an assumption of intent. Acting on bad intel isn't lying, merely an error.

But again the real question isn't "why did Bush think Iraq had WMDs" but rather "where the hell did the WMDs we know he once had go?" Questions that need answering.

That would all depend, I guess, on whether the blood spilling is really done with your best interest in mind or someone else's.

Despite the fanfare that accompanies it, no one ever spills blood for purely altruistic reasons. Yet sometimes we can act in our own interests and help others at the same time, the two need not always be in conflict.

That said, I suspect that this conflict has layers upon layers that we mere citizens can only grasp a vague inkling of. What we want, what they want, what we think they want and vice versa, when "they" are in fact "them", each with their own agendas and we with ours.

Gennaro · 2005-04-18 10:34:32

We all have our biases. For example, asserting that the "regime lied" rests on an assumption of intent. Acting on bad intel isn't lying, merely an error.

You seriously can't believe this crap yourself. You're much too smart, Cobra. Missing troop movements preceeding the Ardennes offensive, that's bad intelligence. Inventing mobile WMD launch sites in order to explain their obvious illusiveness is not bad intelligence, that's hoaxery, pure and simple. I never believed for a second that Iraq was a threat in any way and I was right.

But again the real question isn't "why did Bush think Iraq had WMDs" but rather "where the hell did the WMDs we know he once had go?" Questions that need answering.

Why? Maybe Hussein shipped the last can of mustard gas off to Nigeria? Who cares?

Despite the fanfare that accompanies it, no one ever spills blood for purely altruistic reasons. Yet sometimes we can act in our own interests and help others at the same time, the two need not always be in conflict.

That's not the issue here. The point is that the public is kept in the dark regarding the real reasons why all this is going on, whether altruistic or not. I believe a people has the right to know why they are fighting. If it's a purely amoral case of "you've got what we want" and everyone's in on it, then fine.

That said, I suspect that this conflict has layers upon layers that we mere citizens can only grasp a vague inkling of. What we want, what they want, what we think they want and vice versa, when "they" are in fact "them", each with their own agendas and we with ours.

You still seem reluctant to think in terms of the possibility of dog wagging.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-18 11:46:03

Missing troop movements preceeding the Ardennes offensive, that's bad intelligence. Inventing mobile WMD launch sites in order to explain their obvious illusiveness is not bad intelligence, that's hoaxery, pure and simple. I never believed for a second that Iraq was a threat in any way and I was right.

And with that we enter into the realm of vagaries. Was Iraq a threat, in the sense that Saddam Hussein was going to send his minions across the oceans and destroy us? No. Was he a threat in the sense that he could threaten our allies in the region? By the record, yes though his capacity had been crippled to the point that little mischief could be wrought. He could have caused a distruption in the region while we deal with something else and there was a possibility that Saddam's WMDs (which he was known to have at least until '91 and has used in the past) could end up in the hands of terrorists, either through intent or incompetence.

But as I've said on several occasions previously, failure to find weapons doesn't prove a deliberate lie and furthermore those weapons were never my primary reason for supporting the action. To me it broke down essentially like this, if we're going to be fighting Muslim fundamentalists with visions of a Caliphate (admittedly an assumption, though not without basis) then there will be a wide front, perhaps the bulk of the region. We'll need to A: establish a beachhead and B:demonstrate willingness to act. Iraq made a good choice for that all around. If it turns into a thriving democratic nation, so much the better. Unfortunately no government can come right out and say "Hey folks, we're gearing up to throwdown with these guys and we're gonna grab this little country to operate out of and show the hammer, then see who pops their head up."

Why? Maybe Hussein shipped the last can of mustard gas off to Nigeria? Who cares?

Depends on one's perspective. On some level I don't really care, there's alot of mustard gas and other nasty stuff in the world, what's a little more? But here both sides of the Iraq issue are stuck. Those who supported war in part to secure those weapons can't now say "nothing to see here" and move on, but the "Bush lied, the war was fabricated" crowd can't with any credibility level that charge without making an honest effort to determine what happened to them. If the Iraqis destroyed them after the frst Gulf War or they were all wiped out in the Clinton bombings, fine. But it needs to be substantiated, not just asserted.

That's not the issue here. The point is that the public is kept in the dark regarding the real reasons why all this is going on, whether altruistic or not. I believe a people has the right to know why they are fighting.

In a perfect world, yes. But does a people ever really know why they're fighting? What the general public believes about the reasons rarely capture the complex nature of the reality. Throughout history the reasons for war have been shrouded in feints, fronts and obfuscations.

You still seem reluctant to think in terms of the possibility of dog wagging.

Not at all, I merely see more than one level of wagging from one dog. Sometimes the wagging dog is really just the tail of a bigger dog. :;):

Palomar · 2005-04-19 07:00:33

*It's a bit odd that suddenly, it seems, the threat of terror doesn't appear as important as it used to. Between 2001 to 2002 especially we heard a lot about Osama bin Laden; lately (for the past 1-1/2 years especially) very little emphasis on him.

We had the color-coded terror alert system included near the "ticker" area of every major news broadcasting station after 9/11. Haven't seen that for a while. We had updated alerts on Yahoo! news and etc.

Now that seems diminished and/or gone.

After the 2004 elections it seems A LOT of "things" changed quite quickly and noticeably.

Makes you wonder, huh?

--Cindy

P.S.: Apparently "home-grown" terrorism is still a concern. ABC Nightly News had a special investigative report last evening about white supremacist neo-Nazi organizations still plotting and planning (aka the OKC bombing in 1995).

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-19 07:28:16

It's a bit odd that suddenly, it seems, the threat of terror doesn't appear as important as it used to. Between 2001 to 2002 especially we heard a lot about Osama bin Laden; lately (for the past 1-1/2 years especially) very little emphasis on him.

No doubt a combination of political manipulation and the short attention span of the American public. Hunting bin Laden, leads on terror cells, stupid color-coded alerts, it's all old news and no longer holds interest. Catch bin Laden or nab a few terrorists on their way to blow up the Statue of Liberty or better yet, Capitol Hill and all the old "excitement" will come rushing back and we won't hear about anything else for days.

In short, we get bored easily, our media caters to that tendency, and to alleviate our boredom we come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons for why things have changed when they actually haven't changed at all. We just stopped paying attention.

ABC Nightly News had a special investigative report last evening about white supremacist neo-Nazi organizations still plotting and planning (aka the OKC bombing in 1995).

"Domestic terrorists" as they are collectively labeled are an interesting group. Aside from the "neo-Nazi" elements (which generally are neither new nor Nazi, but just racist thugs) the domestic terrorist spectrum is a microcosm of the political tension at large. On the Right you have extreme constitutionalist, states rights, gun-toting "screw the fed" types, not all that different from America's founders in some respects. On the Left you've got rabid communist/socialist anti-globalization, "social justice" types that frequent trade talks and get tear-gassed and who advocate tearing down all manner of institutions with little idea of what to replace them with, not all that different from the founders of Soviet Russia in many respects. It's like taking the political fight of mainstream America and condensing it down to its purest elements and most fundamental disagreements.

Not really going anywhere with this, just pointing it out. If anything I suppose my point is that there are people in this country who condemn even mildly fringe groups on the Right as "neo Nazi" while considering organizations like International ANSWER (communists) and the Earth Liberation Front to be merely passionately concerned citizens. That incite riots and burn down housing developments, respectively. And the converse is true as well, of course.

Everyone has a terrorist or two they're secretly sympathetic to on some level, even they disapprove of the methods. It's part of what we are.

Not that I expect everyone to admit that, even to themselves. :;):

Palomar · 2005-04-19 07:32:32

It's a bit odd that suddenly, it seems, the threat of terror doesn't appear as important as it used to. Between 2001 to 2002 especially we heard a lot about Osama bin Laden; lately (for the past 1-1/2 years especially) very little emphasis on him.
No doubt a combination of political manipulation and the short attention span of the American public. Hunting bin Laden, leads on terror cells, stupid color-coded alerts, it's all old news and no longer holds interest. Catch bin Laden or nab a few terrorists on their way to blow up the Statue of Liberty or better yet, Capitol Hill and all the old "excitement" will come rushing back and we won't hear about anything else for days.
In short, we get bored easily, our media caters to that tendency, and to alleviate our boredom we come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons for why things have changed when they actually haven't changed at all. We just stopped paying attention.

*WHOOPS...

Never mind (deleted previous comments in this post; inserted this). I reiterated something you said clearly (regarding political manipulation).

It's one of THOSE days. :laugh:

--Cindy

P.S.:

Everyone has a terrorist or two they're secretly sympathetic to on some level, even they disapprove of the methods. It's part of what we are.
Not that I expect everyone to admit that, even to themselves. :;):

Hmmmm. Honestly? I don't think that applies to me. I haven't taken offense; it just made me stop and think. Basically I'm too confused and/or overwhelmed and/or frustrated, etc.

I really do dislike discussing/thinking about politics because it all seems mostly futile. Just one big wrestling match with the victor on top for a while, then the grappling begins all over again. Seems a lot of political models are so burnt out; NOTHING seems to truly work all that well. So many flaws and unintended consequences, etc. I really should read Machiavelli's The Republic; I've been intending to do that for quite a while now. Anyway, I *make* myself discuss and think about politics because otherwise I'll get into this unhealthy Dream World I'd rather inhabit. :-\

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-04-07 06:32:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#27 2005-04-07 06:40:29

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#28 2005-04-07 07:11:53

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#29 2005-04-07 07:16:44

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#30 2005-04-07 07:19:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#31 2005-04-07 07:38:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#32 2005-04-07 15:12:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#33 2005-04-07 20:44:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#34 2005-04-08 15:23:02

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#35 2005-04-09 08:04:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#36 2005-04-11 14:21:50

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#37 2005-04-12 12:45:31

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#38 2005-04-12 20:24:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#39 2005-04-15 18:44:16

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#40 2005-04-17 07:03:27

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#41 2005-04-18 00:13:40

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#42 2005-04-18 05:29:28

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#43 2005-04-18 07:08:48

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#44 2005-04-18 07:20:39

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#45 2005-04-18 09:27:52

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#46 2005-04-18 10:34:32

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#47 2005-04-18 11:46:03

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#48 2005-04-19 07:00:33

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#49 2005-04-19 07:28:16

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#50 2005-04-19 07:32:32

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer