Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-20 10:54:33

More war, uncivility, propaganda, spin and fruitless argument.

BWhite · 2005-02-20 13:03:14

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/ … .html]Bush in Europe

This quote is classic Hobbes. Genuine peace comes when a single Leviathan dominates all political life and obtains a monopoly on the use of force:

This claim rests on the argument that an international system in which there is more than one major power is no longer acceptable. Two years ago, Condoleezza Rice told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London that 'multi-polarity' in the past had been 'a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but did not promote the triumph of peace'. As a theory of political society, she said, it stands for rivalry and competition. 'We have tried this before. It led to the Great War ... '
This obviously is untrue. The simultaneous existence of major as well as minor powers was the political reality throughout modern history, despite efforts to overturn it, most recently by Hitler and Stalin.
A traditional diplomacy of 'balance of power', meant to keep the peace, failed in 1914, and in 1938 the existing balance of power was deliberately destroyed by a hegemony-seeking Germany - in part made possible by an isolationist United States's refusal to intervene in Europe's affairs.
Speaking in Paris last week, the Secretary of State asked, 'why should we seek to divide our capacities for good, when they can be much more effective united? Only the enemies of freedom would cheer this division.' The alternative she proposes is an American-led international system that replaces Nato's principle of equality and collegiality with hierarchy.

America leads and the world follows.

Bush leads and America follows.

Anyone who disagrees (or even refuses to follow) is an enemy of freedom and "an evildoer" - - see how easy it all is?

= = =

By the way, how many parents say they want their to children to "cooperate" when they actually mean "obey" - - maybe this is all about parenting style and GWB wants to play "Promisekeeper" for the entire world. :;):

= = =

And this:

This American role is avowedly benevolent, and in the eyes of many Americans, certainly including President Bush, it is of divine origin (Woodrow Wilson also believed this). Within the present administration, there are those who believe cosmic forces are in play and responsible for America's emergence as the sole superpower. The American belief in a divine commission goes back to its religious origins in the 17th century, and is not open to logical refutation. Even secular interpretations of American destiny assert a moral claim, expressed thus in the 19th century: 'The United States has achieved the highest possible form of political system and that this great system can be extended to the rest of humanity ... Because America is exceptionally good, it both deserves to be exceptionally powerful and by nature cannot use its power for evil ends.'

Edited By BWhite on 1108930398

dickbill · 2005-02-20 16:49:38

This quote is classic Hobbes. Genuine peace comes when a single Leviathan dominates all political life and obtains a monopoly on the use of force:

It won't work that way. All occidental countries are already "democracies" , all are already "free society" and as a result, people of these countries vote.
Here is where the bill stops.
Will be Blair reelected ? what's the impact of the US votes on the EU votes ?
I personnaly think that one of the impact of the Bush policy, which is, in short, to promote war, is to strengthen the far right wings parties of all the european countries, including Russia. When the drums of war beat everywhere, people get scared, they start to listen more to the strong guys that could protect them, not the reasonable moderates with big brains but small muscles.

Palomar · 2005-02-20 18:19:23

*Here's a new item about Bills]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=517538]Bill's favorite President.

Heard it on ABC Nightly news. This article is short. The tapes were made in states where it's legal to secretly tape conversations.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-20 19:07:16

This quote is classic Hobbes. Genuine peace comes when a single Leviathan dominates all political life and obtains a monopoly on the use of force:
It won't work that way. All occidental countries are already "democracies" , all are already "free society" and as a result, people of these countries vote.
Here is where the bill stops.
Will be Blair reelected ? what's the impact of the US votes on the EU votes ?
I personnaly think that one of the impact of the Bush policy, which is, in short, to promote war, is to strengthen the far right wings parties of all the european countries, including Russia. When the drums of war beat everywhere, people get scared, they start to listen more to the strong guys that could protect them, not the reasonable moderates with big brains but small muscles.

Reading Thucydides is more important than ever. Especially if we start to see the Bush-ies attempt to support the right-wing parties across Europe. And US Democrats seeking to ally with the EU left-leaning folk.

Clash of civilizations overlaid with a raging cultural/political civil war throughout the West. It creates a mind-bending level of complexity. :;): (Oh where, oh where are the good 'ole Cold War days? US = good & Soviet = evil)

There was a time Athens considered itself the only power that mattered. Alas, had the Athenians been truly wise and not blinded by an arrogant presumption that their power was limitless (hubris) much suffering and waste could have been avoided.

Now, to preempt Cobra's anticipated criticism.

Yes, Cobra, I agree that history does not repeat itself in any strict or mechanistic fashion. However, learning the lessons of Thucydides remains marvelous instruction on human nature.

= = =

Balance of power is good, correct?

"American want Democrats to stand up to Bush," the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports. "Fully 60%, including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his party 'don't go too far.' Just 34% want Democrats to 'work in a bipartisan way' to help pass the president's priorities."

Just doin' my job, ma'am! Just doin' my job.

Edited By BWhite on 1108948405

dickbill · 2005-02-20 21:26:53

This quote is classic Hobbes. Genuine peace comes when a single Leviathan dominates all political life and obtains a monopoly on the use of force:
It won't work that way. All occidental countries are already "democracies" , all are already "free society" and as a result, people of these countries vote.
Here is where the bill stops.
Will be Blair reelected ? what's the impact of the US votes on the EU votes ?
I personnaly think that one of the impact of the Bush policy, which is, in short, to promote war, is to strengthen the far right wings parties of all the european countries, including Russia. When the drums of war beat everywhere, people get scared, they start to listen more to the strong guys that could protect them, not the reasonable moderates with big brains but small muscles.
Reading Thucydides is more important than ever. Especially if we start to see the Bush-ies attempt to support the right-wing parties across Europe. And US Democrats seeking to ally with the EU left-leaning folk.

That's not what I mean. I don't think that Bush policy is aimed at supporting the right wings, or any other political parties, of europe. Bush doesn't care about that. I mean that there is a trend in Europe, towards conservatism and nationalism, that despite not growing, stays surprisingly stable. People would expect it to recess below 5%, instead it float around 15%. I believe this is in part a side effect, a reaction if you want, to the US conservatism.
I read in the Dallas Morning News that Karl Rove said that Conservatism is now the major political force in the US. He's right, want it or not, Conservatism IS the political drive of the current US policy. And Conservatism didn't came a major player by chance, it is there to stay for a while too.

People in europe know that and think "so if it's OK to be conservative and nationalist in america, why not here ?"
In Europe, we have been teached that conservatism and nationalist are "bad" or at least retrograde values, just good for grand-grandpa.
One far-right political party of France understood that, it was part of the french Front-national before it splited and re-named itself party "republicain" "something" (I am not sure of the real name since I am not a member of any of these political party, but I remember that they introduced the word "republicain"). Just a matter of cosmetic wording, I know, but it works.

clark · 2005-02-21 09:34:58

Polical theory states, IIRC, that the various extreems swing back and forth, moving the middle.

The Conservatism we experience is in direct proportion to the Liberalism of the past. In a nutshell, each succeeding generation rebels against the values/moores of the preceeding generation.

The trick, in my mind, is to to prevent either extreeme from establishing doctrine that prevents any future change.

Gennaro · 2005-02-21 15:55:33

I've said this before and I'll do it again. In the eyes of a European Conservative, in America you don't experience Conservatism, you experience leftism. Believing one has a messianic mission to impose upon the world is leftism.
If it happens to promote the IMF, Reebook, the Evangelicals who've grown mad in the desert sun or the Jews in Tel Aviv is beside the point. It's still leftism, in a profound historical sense perhaps even more so.

While Europeans might react by turning to nationalism and the right because if it's okay in the US then it's okay over here, then that's not what's really happening. Rather, it's a feeling that the US demand for democracy everywhere might lead to violent consequences if not submitted to that makes people say, "enough with this arrogance!". It's because European Conservatives are at heart Social Conservatives or even Socialists and thus for example feel more sympathy for the Nationalism of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela - for the little guy - than for the dangerous clown in the White House.

The article referred to by Mr White is essentially correct in its assumptions about European sentiment. It was only slightly hypocritical about Hitler, but that's only to be expected. The guy aimed for continental hegemony, certainly not world hegemony, but such a goal, not least considered Entente agreements, and the methods used were unacceptable to Britain, which led to war. Thus the ghost of Adolf is not an apt parallell to current US policies which in terms of Utopianism and the global scope employed seems to have more in common with the Comintern of old.

Meanwhile, Washington tries hard to be upset about that tattered fourth rate power Iran, but from the perspective over here, that's even more comical considered the US along with Britain created the mess in the first place by ousting Mussadeqh and installing the Shah, who for all his reform programs, was essentially a puppet of oil gobbling Atlantic powers. Which led to the retarded Islamic revolution.

Democracy in action, no doubt.

Hm... just realized I've been away for months and when I return I simply spray a tag all over the place. Sorry if you feel like you've read this before.

dickbill · 2005-02-21 17:22:00

I've said this before and I'll do it again. In the eyes of a European Conservative, in America you don't experience Conservatism, you experience leftism.

Come on, Gennaro, Leftism in America ?
I know a couple of republicans in my family, they are not leftist, they are real conservative conservative, I mean, they believe in Bush more than in God.
They are exactly on line with the Le Pen ideology in France, called conservatism in the USA, I maintain that. That doesn't make them bad. Le Pen look bad because the french leftist media make Le Pen caricaturily bad.
Listen, in the Dallas Morning News the other day, I was reading that all sexually transmitted desease in America are coming from foreigners and that immigrants are a plague, more or less to be exterminated. You want other examples ?
The French support terrorism, litteraly, by Bill O'Reilly in Fox, just read his web site. At a WWWestler show in Iraq that I saw on TV, one of the westler (with a french name and a big french flag) get more booed by the GIs that even the worst iraqi terrorists. OK, I noticed that some of the boos were not really spontaneous (kind of, if you don't boo the french flag, you gonna go to the next patrol mission), etc.

But God damn O'Reilly and his french boycott propaganda, I'll bring my in laws in France to swim in a pool of wine this summer ! I hope the wine won't turn vinegar.

Palomar · 2005-02-22 11:00:32

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … mes_1]This is absurd, IMO

*This story pertains to Montana. Why -not- give gays this sort of protection? If we as a society frown on abusing and harrassing people based on other markers of identity, why not regarding sexual orientation as well? There have been so many instances of gay bashing. If someone is known to be gay and is beaten or harrassed, etc., on that basis -- it's a hate crime, IMO.

The backlash has been something else to watch, and it didn't surprise me. In the late 1980s there was a seeming greater understanding/acceptance -- and then the backlash. The SF mayor didn't do the gay community a favor last year, with him encouraging all those illegal marriages.

I'm often disappointed at the numbers of my fellow heterosexuals (married or not) who are silent about this issue.

--Cindy

P.S.:

But God damn O'Reilly and his french boycott propaganda

Yeah, O'Reilly's being a jerk about that issue. French cheeses are the best, as are French perfumes. I haven't boycotted French products and won't. And it has nothing to do with Voltaire, either.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-22 11:31:47

If someone is known to be gay and is beaten or harrassed, etc., on that basis -- it's a hate crime, IMO.

I generally don't think too much of so-called "hate crime" laws. As far as I'm concerned if someone is beaten for being gay, black, jewish or just an ass it's assault, pure and simple. "Hate crime" laws sound like a good idea but they end up being divisive by:
A) Drawing attention to race/creed/sexual preference whenever it can be applied.
B) They're used selectively, straight white men are almost never listed as the victims of "hate crimes" for example, even though they're just as likely to be assaulted by others as vice versa.

So I support the Montana House dumping this addition to their "hate crime" laws, and encourage them to drop those laws entirely.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1109093540

clark · 2005-02-22 11:43:05

I for one am conflicted on issues like this...

On the one hand, you have people being persecuted based on some type of identifier, and protection should be afforded them under the law. On the other hand, anybody can be persecuted by some type of identifier.

That leads to the question of whether or not we should simply outlaw hate.

Where do you begin, and where do you stop?

It's not illegal or wrong to be ignorant. It's sad, but bigotry of one derivation or another exsists, and any number of ammendments or proclamations will not reduce or stop acts of violence caused by hate.

We have exsisting laws that punish people for violently attacking others- isn't that enough? Does punishing the underlying reason differently make any difference?

Say you have a violent person, who lashes out at everyone and everything with no rhyme or reason, versus one who targets a particular type of person... is one worse than the other if both achieve the same result?

Take bullies of children for an example, they are legendary for picking on other children for small differnce's, usually some physical attribute that sets them apart, or for the sake of simply being younger and weaker than the bully themselves. Should bullies be prosecuted under hate crimes (granted, a juvenille version)?

Both sides end up having a point, and I feel that creating unneccessary laws that classify certain people for protection based on some types of indentifiers only serves to mark them as different, and does little more than make society feel like it's doing something when nothing is really being done.

Just my 2 cents. And no, I don't make change.

Palomar · 2005-02-22 11:48:48

If someone is known to be gay and is beaten or harrassed, etc., on that basis -- it's a hate crime, IMO.
I generally don't think too much of so-called "hate crime" laws. As far as I'm concerned if someone is beaten for being gay, black, jewish or just an ass it's assault, pure and simple. "Hate crime" laws sound like a good idea but they end up being divisive by:
A) Drawing attention to race/creed/sexual preference whenever it can be applied.
B) They're used selectively, straight white men are almost never listed as the victims of "hate crimes" for example, even though they're just as likely to be assaulted by others as vice versa.
So I support the Montana House dumping this addition to their "hate crime" laws, and encourage them to drop those laws entirely.

*Well, I see the points you're trying to make.

Gays are still being deliberately excluded. They're being treated like 2nd-class citizens. That's wrong. If MT and other States uphold hate crimes protection for everyone else and yet exclude persons based solely on issues of sexual orientation, that's discrimination.

Just reiterating my point. I do think I understand your POV.

So I support the Montana House dumping this addition to their "hate crime" laws, and encourage them to drop those laws entirely.

Did you mean to say "...and encourage them to drop those other laws entirely" -?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-22 12:00:53

Did you mean to say "...and encourage them to drop those other laws entirely" -?

To clarify, what I actually meant to say was that I support them dropping the amendments to the "hate crime" laws and further I encourage them to discard the laws themselves. Dump the amendment and the thing being amended on the grounds that the entire premise is flawed.

Palomar · 2005-02-22 12:59:59

Did you mean to say "...and encourage them to drop those other laws entirely" -?
To clarify, what I actually meant to say was that I support them dropping the amendments to the "hate crime" laws and further I encourage them to discard the laws themselves. Dump the amendment and the thing being amended on the grounds that the entire premise is flawed.

*Yes, that's what I thought you meant.

But you know that won't happen. Meanwhile, some people are worthy of protection based on identity...and some aren't.

The homophobia in this country has, like so many other issues, a schizophrenic quality. It even seems there's a double-standard against male homosexuals. Yet the "interest" in lesbianism (images, stories, etc.) seems to be increasing (and of course a lot of that seems geared for the pleasure of straight men). A gay male friend of mine a couple of years ago remarked ironically that the straight men who give him the most trouble (abuse, insults, etc.) are the same ones who drool with relish over lesbian pornography. Doesn't make sense to me -- if persons of the same gender engaging in sexual behavior is offensive on moral grounds, you'd think it'd apply to both genders. And that's enough said already.

Anyway, if we're going to keep our hate crimes laws, gays should definitely be protected too. I once heard of a man being beaten severely outside a restaurant in San Francisco; he almost died. His attacker saw this man briefly hug another man and say, "I love you." What was THAT all about? The victim was straight, was in a serious financial crunch, his male friend from years back loaned him some much-needed cash...it was a simple gesture of thanking a friend. Both men were straight. The attacker -- a moron -- prejudged the situation and made it his business; someone almost died because of it. ::shakes head::

It's sad.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-22 13:17:45

But you know that won't happen. Meanwhile, some people are worthy of protection based on identity...and some aren't...
...Anyway, if we're going to keep our hate crimes laws, gays should definitely be protected too.

I see your point, yet I still find it much more sensible to try and get those laws re-examined (possible, but difficult) then to accept and expand them. It's like saying we know the premise is nonsense then proceeding as though it's correct.

The problem with "hate crime" is that no matter how you try to define it, it's arbitrary. Is five white skinheads beating up a black guy a "hate crime"? What about five Arab men raping a white woman? Five gay men beating up a straight man, a diverse group of thugs threatening a homogenous group of Republicans? Communists iberating fascists? A white man shouting racial slurs? An off-color joke told between friends but overhead by others? Two blacks calling each other "nigga", overheard by a white liberal who takes offense?

The logical outcome of "hate crime" is censorship of all, any lesser application is at best too vague to stand as law.

On a more general note, I'm of the opinion that we have reached the point where what is needed to help the population is not new laws but the scrapping of some old laws.

clark · 2005-02-22 13:21:57

On a more general note, I'm of the opinion that we have reached the point where what is needed to help the population is not new laws but the scrapping of some old laws.

Might I suggest that ban on homosexual marriage?

Just poking ya in the eye, Cobra.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-22 13:34:22

Might I suggest that ban on homosexual marriage?
Just poking ya in the eye, Cobra.

Fair enough, though actually I'm for the abolition of marriage laws entirely, as I've argued in the past.

Laws to ban gay marriage, laws to allow gay marriage, or get government out of it entirely.

clark · 2005-02-22 13:42:19

Fair enough, though actually I'm for the abolition of marriage laws entirely, as I've argued in the past.

LOL! I know. I'm still trying to figure out if you're a feminist, or a masoginist for this view. Perhaps your wife could enlighten us.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-22 13:54:44

LOL! I know. I'm still trying to figure out if you're a feminist, or a masoginist for this view. Perhaps your wife could enlighten us.

Neither, I'm just lazy, cheap and dislike standing in government offices filling out forms.

If you need a piece of paper from the state to make your marriage real, it isn't.

clark · 2005-02-22 14:02:37

If you need a piece of paper from the state to make your marriage real, it isn't.

:laugh:

No, according to the state, you just need a person of the opposite sex.

BWhite · 2005-02-22 16:09:53

The homophobia in this country has, like so many other issues, a schizophrenic quality.

That's for sure. Now is this a http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ … .jpg]goose or what?

Palomar · 2005-02-25 15:48:35

The homophobia in this country has, like so many other issues, a schizophrenic quality.
That's for sure. Now is this a http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ … .jpg]goose or what?

*Not sure exactly what you mean by "a goose," although...

Anyway (politics aside) Tony Blair sure is a good looking man.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … se]Justice has been served.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … s_col_8]If North Korea decides to send nukes...

The opposition Conservatives mocked Martin's comments, saying they were totally unrealistic.
"This is delusional. There are only minutes available for a decision. How can the prime minister realistically believe the U.S. will consult him before firing their interceptor missiles?" party defense spokesman Gordon O'Connor asked Parliament.

The U.S. ambassador to Canada said he was perplexed by the decision, which he described as an abdication of Canadian sovereignty.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-01 18:32:00

Getting back to Darfur and the 'Non-Genocidal' killing of 70,000 innocent people by the Arab leaders in Khartoum.
I noticed http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … .html]this interesting article by Janet Albrechtsen in today's 'The Australian' newspaper.

It helps to clarify the U.N.'s failure as a world authority, both morally and practically. It also highlights the different attitudes of President Clinton and President George W. Bush over Rwanda (800,000 Tutsis killed by Hutu death squads) and Sudan, respectively.
On Rwanda:-

But the US, under president Bill Clinton, and the UN, with Kofi Annan as head of peacekeeping operations, refused to call it genocide so they could avoid intervening.

On Darfur:-

US President George W. Bush says this slaughter of black Muslims is genocide. Aid agencies at the pointy end of this terror agree. But the UN knows better.

And the whole dirty business hangs on how the killing is defined! If it's defined as 'genocide', the U.N. is bound to intervene militarily; if it's not 'genocide', the U.N. can sit back and pay it lip service.

I wonder whether it's comforting to know, just as an Arab butcher aims his rifle at your head, that your death won't actually be part of 'genocide', as such? ???

Palomar · 2005-03-01 21:00:18

Getting back to Darfur and the 'Non-Genocidal' killing of 70,000 innocent people by the Arab leaders in Khartoum.
I noticed http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … .html]this interesting article by Janet Albrechtsen in today's 'The Australian' newspaper.
It helps to clarify the U.N.'s failure as a world authority, both morally and practically. It also highlights the different attitudes of President Clinton and President George W. Bush over Rwanda (800,000 Tutsis killed by Hutu death squads) and Sudan, respectively.
On Rwanda:-
But the US, under president Bill Clinton, and the UN, with Kofi Annan as head of peacekeeping operations, refused to call it genocide so they could avoid intervening.
On Darfur:-
US President George W. Bush says this slaughter of black Muslims is genocide. Aid agencies at the pointy end of this terror agree. But the UN knows better.
And the whole dirty business hangs on how the killing is defined! If it's defined as 'genocide', the U.N. is bound to intervene militarily; if it's not 'genocide', the U.N. can sit back and pay it lip service.
I wonder whether it's comforting to know, just as an Arab butcher aims his rifle at your head, that your death won't actually be part of 'genocide', as such? ???

*UN = cowardly scumbags.

Yes, black Muslims are being slaughtered. By Muslims of -Arab descent-.

I've seen this on the news, too. Photos and videos.

It's an outrage.

Arab Muslim fundamentalists waste no time screaming their heads off with "Jihad!" whenever someone bats an eyelid the wrong way at them.

It's "okay" when they do it. Of course, of course. :angry:

How can Kofi Annan especially sleep at night? He's a black African.

It was one thing when atrocities occurred in parts of the world, generations ago, when perhaps only the 2 parties involved in the conflict knew the extent of the killing and brutality. Who else could step in to help, in the days before the printing press even; when the human population was considerably less and more spread out?

Nowadays? What is the excuse (they didn't give us a reason) nowadays? Video cameras, still cameras, cellphones, helicopters.

A survivor of the Holocaust said he came to believe that the absence of empathy IS evil.

Or, as King Solomon said: "Apathy is more cruel than hatred."

::shakes head:: Those poor people.

The UN is no better than the Nazis.

Where is the Leftist outrage about THIS?

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-20 10:54:33

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#2 2005-02-20 13:03:14

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#3 2005-02-20 16:49:38

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#4 2005-02-20 18:19:23

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#5 2005-02-20 19:07:16

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#6 2005-02-20 21:26:53

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#7 2005-02-21 09:34:58

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#8 2005-02-21 15:55:33

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#9 2005-02-21 17:22:00

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#10 2005-02-22 11:00:32

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#11 2005-02-22 11:31:47

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#12 2005-02-22 11:43:05

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#13 2005-02-22 11:48:48

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#14 2005-02-22 12:00:53

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#15 2005-02-22 12:59:59

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#16 2005-02-22 13:17:45

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#17 2005-02-22 13:21:57

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#18 2005-02-22 13:34:22

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#19 2005-02-22 13:42:19

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#20 2005-02-22 13:54:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#21 2005-02-22 14:02:37

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#22 2005-02-22 16:09:53

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#23 2005-02-25 15:48:35

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#24 2005-03-01 18:32:00

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#25 2005-03-01 21:00:18

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Board footer