Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 13:23:04

See, its like with the judicial nominations. The GOP hits first and then seeks to outlaw hitting, for the alleged good of the country.

Speaking of politics at the grade school level. . .

You hit me first!

But seriously, what's the first hit? Partisan fillibusters haven't been used for judicial nominees before. Fortas doesn't count, it was bipartisan, he was already on the court, and there were conflict of interest questions rather than mere political contentions.

Both sides have themselves convinced that they're being victimized when in fact they're both just being a$$holes about it.

Tag. You're it.

Everything boomerangs. That's why we're better off actually following this neat little paper I read once, the Constitution I think it was called. Some interesting ideas in there, someone should try it out.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 13:34:06

Actually, with Clinton's judges, there was this little thing called a Senatorial "hold" -- not a full blown filibuster, just one Senator blocked candidates from an up or down vote.

Speaking of upperdown - - some folks over at DailyKos have commented that Irish Coffee is a form of upperdown (caffeine and alcohol) and invented a drinking game. You watch cSPAN and everytime someone says "upperdown" in debate you take a drink.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 13:38:04

Bill Frist is http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/21/ … ex.html]so not going to be President.

After telling the truth about poor Teri Schiavo and now the Bolton disaster his base must be melting, melting, melting.

Frist: We can't get Bolton through.
Bush: If you don't try harder, I'm going to tell Dobson you aren't a team player.
Frist: But then I won't be Preznit in 2008!
Bush: I'm glad you see it my way.

Edited By BWhite on 1119382901

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 13:41:05

You watch cSPAN and everytime someone says "upperdown" in debate you take a drink.

Doesn't sound quite as good as Jagermeister with the Presidential debates.

Everytime Bush made up a word or smirked you drank. Twice if he did both in the same sentence.

Everytime Kerry contradicted himself you drank. Twice if he did it in the same sentence.

I hear it spread around a Naval base or two pretty quick. Plenty of drunken sailors that night I can tell you.

clark · 2005-06-21 13:56:00

Tack into the wind they say.

I have come to the firm conclusion that I am wrong. My assumptions are colored by partisan beliefs not fully predicated on the facts that are known, and are in fact substantiated by a belief in assumptions, derived from the varied hints and allegations that seem to continually surface as time marches ever onward.

With this realization I will accept your point of view, for within it, I see a rational and balanced approach to the available information, built upon a strong foundation of known facts and truth.

The war in Iraq is just. Never mind that the reasons for our engagement have changed from what they once were at the onset. We had credible evidence that Saddam Hussien was a threat to our way of life because he might provide religious fundamentalists within his secular state weapons of mass destruction, by which to harm America, or her allies. The Western World was immediately threatened because intelligence suggested that over ten years of crippling sanctions and continual UN inspections was not enough to curtail Saddam’s ambitions for weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence suggested that even if Saddam did not give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, he had weapons of mass destruction on standby that could be launched against Western Europe or American bases in the gulf in less than an hour. The suspicion of such threats, after the experience of 9/11, dictated that America become proactive and actively seek to remove any potential threat to its own security or that of our allies.

The war in Iraq is just, regardless of the actual facts derived from our intelligence, simply because the intentions and capabilities of that dictatorship were suspect. Suspicion alone justifies all that we have done, and all that we will do. This is the fair price we pay for our security, and the assurance that if future attacks are not prevented, they must at least be reduced.

It is with this realization that I also accept the necessary degradation, humiliation, and as events dictate, the systematic torture of prisoners within US custody. US soldiers, acting justly outside American borders, are engaged in a war to protect our way of life, and those who oppose American troops, even if they are nationals of their own country, represent a threat to the United States and have no real rights accorded by the Geneva Convention or by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Since I accept that suspicion alone justifies the invasion of another country, I also summarily accept that suspicion alone is enough to justify any and all means necessary to extract information from individuals we suspect of being enemies of America.

I also accept and applaud the current process of screening individuals within the United States, and holding those suspected of being a possible threat, indefinitely. I see no reason to charge individuals with crimes, or to allow them access to judicial proceedings and oversight. Suspicion will protect us. Suspicion will keep us safe.

I can’t say I am worried anymore about the US military’s inability to find WMD’s in Iraq. Not finding dangerous weapons in the hands of a known war criminal is a good thing. I am glad that President Bush had the will and perseverance to create a blue ribbon panel to search into the reasons for the intelligence failure. Hopefully such massive intelligence failures will not happen again, and at least this way our future suspicions will be better substantiated, thus allowing us not to doubt as some do.

I appreciate your patience with me as I slowly arrived at these conclusions. I thank you for showing me the value of suspicion in these times of turbulence. I do feel safe now, knowing that our leaders are acting in our best interests, for the betterment of not only our country, but the entire world. By actively engaging those threats that we suspect may be out to harm us, we make ourselves safer. The world will one day see the wisdom.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 14:15:02

Hey clark, you are now ready to follow Jesus]http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_patriotboy_archive.html#111933630881545776]Jesus]http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_patriotboy_archive.html#111933630881545776]Jesus]http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_patriotboy_archive.html#111933630881545776]Jesus' General!

They have purchased a booth at the upcoming Young Republicans' convention and will stockpile it with Defense Department enlistment forms for those patriotic young GOP-ers.

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/yrad.gif]One flyer

Edited By BWhite on 1119384960

clark · 2005-06-21 14:23:05

Gladly. Spreading Democracy into Iraq is well worth the sacrifice of my life. I am more than willing to do my part in securing our peace and liberty by killing or torturing fundamentalist muslims.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 14:31:22

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst … 1.html]Too weird

= = =

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown … 1.htm]Nice rant, this

Thousands of people — U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and civilians — died during the invasion.
No weapons ever were found.
People have been tortured looking for those weapons.
U.S. soldiers have died in the search.
Yet, there's Saddam sitting in a cell eating Raisin Bran Crunch for breakfast ("No Fruit Loops," he's told the guards).

and

For the past few days I've been receiving e-mails and phone calls from readers calling me a traitor to my country for suggesting the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should be treated humanely.
Like Saddam Hussein, for example.
They ought to have access to lawyers, just like Saddam.
They should be given a trial.
Saddam is going to get one.

and

Saddam snacks on Doritos and eats his Raisin Bran while the people of his country continue to suffer and die.
When Saddam had the power, would he have ever extended such treatment to a defeated and despised foe?
No. And that answer makes all the difference in the world.

Edited By BWhite on 1119390112

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-21 14:43:32

I think Jon Stewart's right. The Bush admin's real mission is to spread irony around the globe.

The whole initative created by Bush Jr's fascination with his mothers ironing. Someone misheard, "Let's spread ironing around the world!"

reddragon · 2005-06-21 15:58:21

Knowingly engaging in a war on false pretense and lying to the public is pretty good ground if ever there was one.
The war itself was legally justified, and the lying to the public is an interpretation based more on politics than on fact. Maybe it was the case, maybe not. But what the Lefties has is nothing. Like trying to convict someone for murder on the sole grounds that they denied it.

French kickbacks with "Oil for Food" are documented, though not totally ironclad proven to my knowledge.

So there is little evidence for Bush's lying and good evidence for a French Oil for Food scandal. I would be inclined to argue the opposite, although in truth I haven't really followed the Oil for Food story so am not really qualified to judge its validity. I simply can't say I've seen any proof, mostly just right-wing anti-France propaganda. Maybe there's some truth to the story, though, I don't really know. But on Bush's lying I believe there is very strong evidence. The British memo is just the latest document to point to a policy of adjusting the facts to justify invasion and trying to silence dissenting voices. If you say that the French connection to the Oil for Food scandal should be investigated, I certainly agree. So should other connections including any to American companies. However, I think there is enough evidence that the Bush administration lied about Iraq that we should take this accusation very seriously and investigate it thoroughly. And stop just saying "You did, did not, did too, etc."

Each side points to the scandals of its opponents and minimizes its own. This is a poor recipe for improvement.

dickbill · 2005-06-21 20:22:10

Tack into the wind they say.
I have come to the firm conclusion that I am wrong. My assumptions are colored by partisan beliefs not fully predicated on the facts that are known, and are in fact substantiated by a belief in assumptions, derived from the varied hints and allegations that seem to continually surface as time marches ever onward.
With this realization I will accept your point of view, for within it, I see a rational and balanced approach to the available information, built upon a strong foundation of known facts and truth.
The war in Iraq is just. Never mind that the reasons for our engagement have changed from what they once were at the onset. We had credible evidence that Saddam Hussien was a threat to our way of life because he might provide religious fundamentalists within his secular state weapons of mass destruction, by which to harm America, or her allies. The Western World was immediately threatened because intelligence suggested that over ten years of crippling sanctions and continual UN inspections was not enough to curtail Saddam’s ambitions for weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence suggested that even if Saddam did not give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, he had weapons of mass destruction on standby that could be launched against Western Europe or American bases in the gulf in less than an hour. The suspicion of such threats, after the experience of 9/11, dictated that America become proactive and actively seek to remove any potential threat to its own security or that of our allies.
The war in Iraq is just, regardless of the actual facts derived from our intelligence, simply because the intentions and capabilities of that dictatorship were suspect. Suspicion alone justifies all that we have done, and all that we will do. This is the fair price we pay for our security, and the assurance that if future attacks are not prevented, they must at least be reduced.
It is with this realization that I also accept the necessary degradation, humiliation, and as events dictate, the systematic torture of prisoners within US custody. US soldiers, acting justly outside American borders, are engaged in a war to protect our way of life, and those who oppose American troops, even if they are nationals of their own country, represent a threat to the United States and have no real rights accorded by the Geneva Convention or by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Since I accept that suspicion alone justifies the invasion of another country, I also summarily accept that suspicion alone is enough to justify any and all means necessary to extract information from individuals we suspect of being enemies of America.
I also accept and applaud the current process of screening individuals within the United States, and holding those suspected of being a possible threat, indefinitely. I see no reason to charge individuals with crimes, or to allow them access to judicial proceedings and oversight. Suspicion will protect us. Suspicion will keep us safe.
I can’t say I am worried anymore about the US military’s inability to find WMD’s in Iraq. Not finding dangerous weapons in the hands of a known war criminal is a good thing. I am glad that President Bush had the will and perseverance to create a blue ribbon panel to search into the reasons for the intelligence failure. Hopefully such massive intelligence failures will not happen again, and at least this way our future suspicions will be better substantiated, thus allowing us not to doubt as some do.
I appreciate your patience with me as I slowly arrived at these conclusions. I thank you for showing me the value of suspicion in these times of turbulence. I do feel safe now, knowing that our leaders are acting in our best interests, for the betterment of not only our country, but the entire world. By actively engaging those threats that we suspect may be out to harm us, we make ourselves safer. The world will one day see the wisdom.

Nice post. Are you drinking the hemlock again Clark ? (la cigue de Socrate). You survive so well this breuvage that I believe you are now addicted. Anyway, in your nice post you forgot the religious side of the situation.

One thing I don't understand is all these references to the christian God in the US republican policy. And I pray there, And you prey here for me, And Jesus Christ here and there, and Jesus would do that. And God this and That.
Well, I have a hard time to believe JC, with all his known background as a perturbator of the public order, would support so easily JWB policy. And the opposite : despite all his background as a claim born again christian (whats that a "born again" by the way), Dubya would not be St Peter, or even Mary Magdalen, I don't know, I see him more like the Great Priest of the Temple, or maybe Pilate ?

clark · 2005-06-21 20:45:01

I guess the Republican party, at least the christian fundamentalists, come off as a bit theocratic.

I was thinking today as I read an article about the Iranian elections- the Iranians were being faulted because a group of unelected clerics decide who can and cannot run for President.

I wondered how far that really was from what we do here in America.

It seems like not anyone can run, and to be a legitimate canadite in this country you have to have the backing of one of the two major parties (unless you are ungodly rich (or in the case of Bush, godly, and rich)).

Gross comparison I grant.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 21:09:55

See, its like with the judicial nominations. The GOP hits first and then seeks to outlaw hitting, for the alleged good of the country.
Speaking of politics at the grade school level. . .
You hit me first!
But seriously, what's the first hit? Partisan fillibusters haven't been used for judicial nominees before. Fortas doesn't count, it was bipartisan, he was already on the court, and there were conflict of interest questions rather than mere political contentions.
Both sides have themselves convinced that they're being victimized when in fact they're both just being a$$holes about it.
Tag. You're it.
Everything boomerangs. That's why we're better off actually following this neat little paper I read once, the Constitution I think it was called. Some interesting ideas in there, someone should try it out.

Fair enough.

So then, will you join me in rejecting calls to justify places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib by arguing "Well, they are worse?"

They (the Islamo-fascist nutjobs) ARE worse but that is still no excuse.

Palomar · 2005-06-21 21:24:02

So then, will you join me in rejecting calls to justify places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib

*Are they the same?

Abu Ghraib was a total disgrace, outrage, UNforgiveable.

Gitmo probably is not all that bad. I've read others' comments regarding the legality or illegality of it. Last I read, seems Gitmo is legal. Yes, let's DO send camera crews in -- from wherever. The detainees there are probably be treated very well.

What should we do with the Gitmo detainees? Would you feel comfortable and welcoming of them being released in your community, if such a thing were possible? No? Then what do we do with them? Release them to their native lands, to pick up weapons and kill our soldiers?

Probably some of the detainees are innocent and were wrongly picked up with a bunch of bad apples; innocent bystander, wrong place/wrong time situation. But most are probably dangerous genocidal nuts.

Now that we've got them...what do we do with them?

--Cindy

dickbill · 2005-06-21 22:09:34

Probably some of the detainees are innocent and were wrongly picked up with a bunch of bad apples; innocent bystander, wrong place/wrong time situation. But most are probably dangerous genocidal nuts.
Now that we've got them...what do we do with them?

No doubt about that. Plus, after a couple years at gitmo, some of the initially innocent bystander are now dangerous psychopat too.
Personnaly I see that : the innocents (say a guy picked up on the field, but which after 4 years at gitmo, provided he had survived, has still not been charged of anything) will be dealed like any judicial mistake : "oops sorry, here is 10 000 $ for compensation and good luck back home ".
The guilty (say a guy that has been proved to train in an Alquada camp) : deported to a muslim country other than afghanistan or iraq, where the US military has some control like maybe Pakistan ? I don't know.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 04:27:21

One thing I don't understand is all these references to the christian God in the US republican policy. And I pray there, And you prey here for me, And Jesus Christ here and there, and Jesus would do that. And God this and That.
Well, I have a hard time to believe JC, with all his known background as a perturbator of the public order, would support so easily JWB policy. And the opposite : despite all his background as a claim born again christian (whats that a "born again" by the way), Dubya would not be St Peter, or even Mary Magdalen, I don't know, I see him more like the Great Priest of the Temple, or maybe Pilate ?

*America goes through these "popular religious fits." In the mid-1970s there was a sharp upswing in religious sentiment (particularly of the "old-time Gospel variety"). In the very early 1970s "Hair" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" caused another acute outbreak of religious sentimentality (I barely remember that occurrence, being only around 6 years old at the time). The early 1980s saw another "fit" when Ronald Reagan, while first running for President, went on and on about his religious faith and devotion to Jesus Christ as his savior, etc.

We're currently having another popular religious fit, unfortunately; I don't like them. The Republicans especially feed into it -- hence Dubya and his Christian Coalition/evangelical pals.

What "born again" means is a rejection of the secular/carnal world and interests; accepting Jesus Christ into one's heart and life as one's personal savior; believing that eternal salvation (in Heaven, after death) is obtained only through faith in Christ's sacrifice (crucifixion) and resurrection, that he is not only the Son of God but also IS God. Salvation can't be obtained through works (merely going to church or being a good person or via baptism/confirmation). Etc. My parents were born-again Christians, hence my familiarity with it.

No doubt about that. Plus, after a couple years at gitmo, some of the initially innocent bystander are now dangerous psychopath too.

Not necessarily. Some people are, by nature, more gentle and/or reasonable. Doubtless they'd become more true to their religion or cultural/ethnic identity...but that wouldn't necessarily cause them to become genocidal and violent.

Again: What do we do with these people? Would anyone here care to have them incorporated into your neighborhood or community...and I mean as who they probably were before they wound up in Gitmo?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 05:17:48

So there is little evidence for Bush's lying and good evidence for a French Oil for Food scandal. I would be inclined to argue the opposite, although in truth I haven't really followed the Oil for Food story so am not really qualified to judge its validity.

That's actually kind of the point. On one end we've got information in the Deulfer report, compiled from numerous sources and names released by the Iraqi Oil Ministry of companies and national officials that were on the take for Saddam. A few American companies on there as well, incidentally. Halliburton isn't one of them, for the record.

On the other, we've got the Downing Street Memo. A single document whose accuracy is disputable, leaked by an anonymous source.

Why would anyone rationally accept the latter as fact and dismiss the former as bogus? Granted, the accuracy of the Oil-for-Food reports doesn't exonerate anyone if the memo is accurate, but it does draw the motives of the critics down.

Maybe they're both 100% accurate. Maybe they're both total fabrications. But to tout the Downing Street memo as proof of something while downplaying the other is intellectually dishonest.

Accepting what is is the first step toward real progress.

Fair enough.
So then, will you join me in rejecting calls to justify places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib by arguing "Well, they are worse?"

I have rejected such calls, just not with the same. . . religious fervor. :;):

What should we do with the Gitmo detainees? Would you feel comfortable and welcoming of them being released in your community, if such a thing were possible? No? Then what do we do with them? Release them to their native lands, to pick up weapons and kill our soldiers?

That's one of the dirty little secrets of treating them as POWs, should we decide to do so. POWs are supposed to be released to the country they fought for after hostilities cease. Al Qaeda has no nation and the "War on Terror" is another open-ended never-ending program like all the other "War on whatever" undertakings. We can hold them until they die, legally we'd almost have to.

Or we could release them to their country of origin after "hostilities" cease, as defined by that nation ceasing to support or condone terrorism. Which in a practical sense would usually be when the regime is replaced by one more friendly to the US. That's how you run an empire, give the critics exactly what they want, leading them down the path you want them to follow. When they finally figure out they've been suckered they have no case for complaint, they cooperated at every turn.

But alas, in America subtlety is dead.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 05:43:26

That's how you run an empire, give the critics exactly what they want, leading them down the path you want them to follow. When they finally figure out they've been suckered they have no case for complaint, they cooperated at every turn.
But alas, in America subtlety is dead.

*It sure is a good thing the America of today didn't have to deal with the Nazis/Third Reich. We'd be tip-toeing around on eggshells to be sure a fly doesn't land on Mein Kampf, much less that anyone sneeze the wrong way at it, and no matter how many Jews had been massacred we'd still be nervous about POW's not having enough pillows (and are we being inhumane monsters if they don't)...on and on. The America of today would probably have been overtaken/conquered by the Nazis.

Abu Ghraib was a disgrace, an outrage, unforgiveable.

The Guantanamo detainees are probably being treated very well.

Sorry, I just don't have the level of sympathy for genocidal nuts (who've stated they'd gladly butcher every living American citizen [infants, children, old people, EVERYONE] if they were able to do so) as some folks apparently do. I remember all those murders and rapes aboard all those domestic terrorist hijackings of Western airplanes in the 1970s and 1980s. You know, long BEFORE the Iraq war.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-22 05:58:23

"Detainee," that is such a lovely word.

Maybe their guards can be called "camp counselors". The interrogators, "the nurse". And perhaps the growling attack dogs should be called "little ponies".

Welcome to Guantanamo, err, I mean "Summer Camp".
:laugh:

Anyway, why not release them with the terms that if they are caught again, they will be shot. [shrug] It's like tag, you get caught once, and you're out of the game.

Either that or tag them and release them into the wild. We do it with animals. Are these people lower than animals?

clark · 2005-06-22 06:05:14

Anyway, in a bid to provide some political fodder that is thematically relevant, I suggest that a worthwhile 10 year plan for the pro-space community is to work towards moving NASA’s budget from Discretionary spending appropriations to Entitlement, or Non-discretionary appropriations.

What this will do is guarantee that the federal government will provide a reasonable budget to NASA, year in and year out. It also would demonstrate the American peoples dedication to space exploration and science.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 06:06:03

Anyway, why not release them with the terms that if they are caught again, they will be shot. [shrug] It's like tag, you get caught once, and you're out of the game.

Does the threat of death really work on a group of people known for blowing themselves up?

*It sure is a good thing the America of today didn't have to deal with the Nazis/Third Reich.

I'm going to catch all hell for saying this but. . . Mein Kampf had a few unflattering things to say about America that as time progresses seem to gain some credence.

I will have to reread the relevant sections for citations.

I remember all those murders and rapes aboard all those domestic terrorist hijackings of Western airplanes in the 1970s and 1980s. You know, long BEFORE the Iraq war.

In retrospect, we should have been swifter and more brutal in dealing with these matters.

clark · 2005-06-22 06:08:58

Does the threat of death really work on a group of people known for blowing themselves up?

Does interrogation really work on people known for fighting for their religion?

If they are known for blowing themselves up, how did they get caught? I think most, if not all, will not blow themsleves up.

In retrospect, we should have been swifter and more brutal in dealing with these matters.

Yeah, Regan was weak.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 06:16:12

Does interrogation really work on people known for fighting for their religion?

It depends on how it's administered.

We're not doing things right at Gitmo, but that doesn't mean we should just let them go.

Yeah, Regan was weak.

Little bit.

clark · 2005-06-22 06:18:59

Well CC, I got you all wrong. No way you can be too far gone if you’re willing to mock the Patron Saint of Republicans, St. Ronald Regan.

You’re all right. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-22 06:26:41

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/cole-on … .html]Juan Cole on the two sides of regime change:

In the run-up to the Iraq War, I had two values. One was justice I believed that the Saddam regime was genocidal and that the international community had a responsibility for doing something about it. That is why I said that removing Saddam would be a noble enterprise. In and of itself, it was, and I stand by that.
But the other value is the rule of law. The United States is signatory to the UN charter, and can't just get up in the morning and decide to go about invading other countries. I all along maintained that an Iraq war would be legitimate only if there were a UN Security Council resolution authorizing it.
Up until early March of 2003, I was not forced to choose between Justice and the Rule of Law because it appeared entirely plausible that the UNSC would pass a resolution authorizing the war, or that a majority, at least, would vote for it. It was during that period that I said I could not bring myself to protest the building war. It was because I knew Saddam's mass murders, and thought there was still a chance that he could be removed within the framework of international law.
When the UNSC declined to do either, very late in the game, it became apparent that I could have either justice or the rule of law. At that point I chose the rule of law. I did not see the invasion, the war, or the subsequent occupation as legitimate.
Just because I chose the rule of law over justice, however, does not mean that justice as a consideration had evaporated. The US troops who gave their lives to depose Saddam and free Iraqis from his yoke were helping achieve justice, which any Kurd or Shiite in Iraq will tell you. I stand by that, and I assure every grieving parent who has lost a child in the Iraq war that it was a meaningful sacrifice, because the Baath system was monstrous. But this achievement was deeply flawed (and may yet be undone) because it was done illegally.
Bush's turn to illegal aggression contained the seeds of the failure of his Iraq policy. If he had remained within international law, he would have either had to give up the invasion or he would have gone in with the full support the international community, which would have given him the kind of troop strength and administrative expertise that might have made a success of it all.

In a nutshell, Bush got greedy for personal political gain and FUBAR-ed it up.

Edited By BWhite on 1119443256

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2005-06-21 13:23:04

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#202 2005-06-21 13:34:06

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#203 2005-06-21 13:38:04

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#204 2005-06-21 13:41:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#205 2005-06-21 13:56:00

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#206 2005-06-21 14:15:02

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#207 2005-06-21 14:23:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#208 2005-06-21 14:31:22

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#209 2005-06-21 14:43:32

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#210 2005-06-21 15:58:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#211 2005-06-21 20:22:10

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#212 2005-06-21 20:45:01

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#213 2005-06-21 21:09:55

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#214 2005-06-21 21:24:02

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#215 2005-06-21 22:09:34

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#216 2005-06-22 04:27:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#217 2005-06-22 05:17:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#218 2005-06-22 05:43:26

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#219 2005-06-22 05:58:23

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#220 2005-06-22 06:05:14

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#221 2005-06-22 06:06:03

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#222 2005-06-22 06:08:58

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#223 2005-06-22 06:16:12

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#224 2005-06-22 06:18:59

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#225 2005-06-22 06:26:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer