Political Potpourri VIII

BWhite · 2005-07-28 08:21:29

What http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/war-on- … on.html]he said:

As for the jihadis, who do wish us harm, former CIA analyst Marc Sageman estimates the number of radical Muslims who can and would do significant harm to the US in the hundreds.
That's right. The old "war on terror" was a war of the world's sole superpower on a few hundred people. (I exclude Iraq because it is not and never was part of any 'war on terror,' though the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration has contributed to the ability of terrorists to operate there.)

And how to fight terror, how do we fight the "few hundred" people willing bring jihad to the West?

If you try to "profile" the terrorist using such social markers as class or ethnicity, maybe even religious background, you will go badly astray.
What then do they (terrorists) have in common? They got the software installed in their minds. Why? Because they met the installer, and were susceptible to his worldview. That's all they have in common.
So the young man goes to the Finsbury Mosque in the old days and hangs out with Imam. And he points out that the Israelis had fired a huge missile into a residential apartment building to get at a Hamas leader, and had killed 16 civilians, including a little baby. And nobody said "boo" to the Israelis. The US actually gave them more money after that. Tony Blair deplored it, but did nothing practical. Then, the Imam will tell him, the Americans destroyed Fallujah and killed hundreds of innocents. He might even have the photograph that circulated last December, of the dead baby at Fallujah. And nobody can say "boo" to the Americans, and they go on killing Muslims. In fact, the Imam intimates, pulling the young man close, almost whispering, tears in his eyes, the West is destroying Islam. Almost nothing is left of Islam, he will say. It will be completely devastated in our lifetimes. Nobody is lifting a finger to stop it.
So the young man says, what could anyone do? And the Imam says, there is something. But it isn't for ordinary people. It isn't for mere show-offs. And the young man says, sticking out his chest, I'm not showing off! I really want to help, to do something that would make a difference. The Imam says, a person who was really committed could change everything. He could save the Muslim Ummma from destruction. But, no, you are not ready. You don't have the training, the commitment. You are useless. And the young man protests, until he is put in touch with the trainer and given the mission. His new friends all agree on this view of the world. He hangs out with them, at the mosque, at the gym, even socially. They reinforce each other. They tell each other the stories of the harm done to Muslims. They get angry. They swear. They are determined not to be like the rest, who just let it happen. The young man gains in determination. The mission inflates his ego. Maybe he had low self-esteem, maybe not. But he is about to save the world, he is told.
The software is of course a hugely distorted view of the universe. It lets the young man see Israeli atrocities, but not those of Hamas or the Aqsa Brigades. It lets him see American atrocities but not those of Saddam Hussein, Izzedin al-Duri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The software is fatally one-sided. It also exaggerates. The Muslim world is not in danger of being destroyed, least of all by the United States, a warm friend of most Muslim countries. But the software configures a dire crisis, almost apocalyptic, which can only be averted by an ethical hero who is willing to sacrifice himself. The software hides from the convert that he is to become a monster and kill innocents. It tells him he is a noble soldier, and his victims are wicked enemy soldiers, that there are no innocent civilians.
So how do you fight this form of terror? You disrupt the installation of the software in more and more minds. You adopt policies that make the story the software tells implausible. And you reach out to make sure people hear the implausibility.

= = =

And we run the opposite side if this:

The Muslim world is not in danger of being destroyed, least of all by the United States, a warm friend of most Muslim countries. But the software configures a dire crisis, almost apocalyptic, which can only be averted by an ethical hero who is willing to sacrifice himself.

We are told that only by our trusting a STRONG leader can we be protected.

The West is not in danger of being destroyed by al Qaeda. Okay, they desire that but they lack the means.

However, some people benefit when we believe we are in danger of being destroyed.

reddragon · 2005-07-28 09:12:29

As for the jihadis, who do wish us harm, former CIA analyst Marc Sageman estimates the number of radical Muslims who can and would do significant harm to the US in the hundreds.

I know that most can't and wouldn't, but the number still seems a little low. I would be more inclined to guess in the thousands. But that's just a guess, without much of anything to back it up.

They cover the actual costs above a certain level, every worker can opt to pay into the system, or not at their discretion.

What about those who have no jobs or those who make too little to afford it. You will still have people "dying in the streets from TB," since the people in the streets don't have the money to pay into the program. Theoretically this program could provide a better alternative to private healthcare for middle class workers since it would not be concerned with making a profit, but considering that the government is running it, it would probably end up costing more. And it does nothing to solve the problems of those who cannot afford insurance.

Perhaps a system where the government makes sure that everyone has healthcare, but where it is not the only service provider would work well.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-28 10:18:49

What about those who have no jobs or those who make too little to afford it. You will still have people "dying in the streets from TB," since the people in the streets don't have the money to pay into the program.

Anyone with a job will be able to afford to pay into it because it isn't a comprehensive plan. It covers catastrophic medical issues only, far more people will be paying in than taking out and the market elements will reduce costs, keeping it manageable.

If someone doesn't have a job, my first question is why? If they've been laid off, make this coverage part of unemployment benefits. If they are incapable of working they're a special case not applicable to the vast bulk of the population and outside the general scope of this proposal. If they're just unwilling to work I don't much care, we can't do everything.

but considering that the government is running it, it would probably end up costing more.

The government wouldn't run it, they'd just sanction it. A decree goes out that this non-profit corporation has authority to provide catastrohpic healthcare benefits with such-and-such guidelines, end of government control.

The insurance agency wouldn't be the provider of healthcare either, merely a central, auditable source of funds to pay for that healthcare. Individual physicians and hospitals compete for the actual "providing." The individual is billed, they just submit the relevant sections to the insuring agency for payment. They pay minor medical expenses themselves, which will drive costs down.

DonPanic · 2005-07-28 12:28:51

LO

The West is not in danger of being destroyed by al Qaeda. Okay, they desire that but they lack the means.

You're much too omptimistic.
Destroy "The West", definitively not, but with little means, there can be tremendous wastes with sarin, anthrax, botulism, pleague, some students in biology can make a lab in a cellar, or even dirty nukes.

former CIA analyst Marc Sageman estimates the number of radical Muslims who can and would do significant harm to the US in the hundreds.
I know that most can't and wouldn't, but the number still seems a little low. I would be more inclined to guess in the thousands. But that's just a guess, without much of anything to back it up.

Agree, from Indonesia to Europe, several tenth of thousands would seem more appropriate a number.

BWhite · 2005-07-28 12:31:31

LO
The West is not in danger of being destroyed by al Qaeda. Okay, they desire that but they lack the means.
You're much too omptimistic.
Destroy "The West", definitively not, but with little means, there can be tremendous wastes with sarin, anthrax, botulism, pleague, some students in biology can make a lab in a cellar, or even dirty nukes.

My main point is that this is a police and intelligence "war" not like World War II where large armies are useful.

= = =

And http://apnews.myway.com/article/2005072 … .html]this - no "secret powers" for the Executive to overrule the Uniform Code of Military Justice or suspend the Constitution.

DonPanic · 2005-07-28 12:40:57

My main point is that this is a police and intelligence "war" not like World War II where large armies are useful.

If the opponents had balanced forces, they wouldn't be terrorists, they would lead a conventionnal war. Terrorism is the weapon of the weaks, and the weaker they are, the wilder are their means.
In Vietnam, VC led at first suicide terrorist attacks against US troops, then a guerilla war. It turned to conventionnal war when North Vietnamese army was strong enough to challenge US Army.

Palomar · 2005-07-28 12:57:13

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050728/us_ … ims_dc]U.S. Muslims issue anti-terrorism fatwa

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-28 13:04:58

LO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050728/us_ … ims_dc]U.S. Muslims issue anti-terrorism fatwa--Cindy

Muslims are by far the most numerous victims of extremist terrorists.
Then they are victims of native populations' retaliations in the countries they immigrated.
Tough to be between the hammer and the anvil :cry:

C M Edwards · 2005-07-28 14:03:45

Muslims are by far the most numerous victims of extremist terrorists.

It is a favorite rhetorical tactic of Al Qaeda and similarly reckless islamic terrorists to issue a blanket declaration that their muslim victims were apostate.

They believe that the rest of Islam is unworthy of consideration.

Palomar · 2005-07-28 14:22:56

Muslims are by far the most numerous victims of extremist terrorists.
It is a favorite rhetorical tactic of Al Qaeda and similarly reckless islamic terrorists to issue a blanket declaration that their muslim victims were apostate.
They believe that the rest of Islam is unworthy of consideration.

*I believe it. Not because they're Muslims, but because of the nature of radical fundamentalist religion: It really IS "my way or the highway (to hell, destruction, eternal damnation)" with those sorts of people. Regardless of which religion they adhere to.

CME wrote earlier:

I'll never forget the day I first heard the words, "Israel is God's chosen people, so I'll support them no matter what they do," in a sunday school class, and it wasn't the last. You might be amazed at how prevalent this sentiment is among evangelical christians here in the United States. There's also a very prevalent conviction among these groups that, because of the USA's unique position in history (most affluent, most powerful, etc.), the United States has been uniquely chosen by God for some purpose - and consequently is subject to divine judgement if we fail.

Yep. Jack T. Chick, of "Chick Comics" (can Google for it) stated in one of his publications his belief that England lost its superpower status in the 1940s because it failed to support Israel "as it should have" (by Mr. Chick's standards, of course). According to Mr. Chick, God punished England for "betraying" Israel and thereby conferred His power and blessings onto the U.S. instead. Whatev.

I have personally heard many Christians say they would support Israel no matter what; to them, Israel is the fulfillment of a very old prophecy wherein God made a promise to the Chosen Ones -- the children of Israel, who was the son of Abraham. Ishmael's offspring (the Arabic peoples), on the other hand, have no place in "the inheritance" and are viewed as nothing better than a race of illegitimates.

These are -NOT- my beliefs...I'm simply relating what other people believe, in conjunction with CME's post.

Some (probably all) fundamentalist Christian sects also believe Armageddon will begin in the Middle East. They're always on the lookout for the next candidate "Antichrist." Growing up I recall them having their sights set on Henry Kissinger and Gorbachev...I'll bet I know in which direction they're looking now. :?

--Cindy

P.S.: IIRC, dumbell Pat Robertson referred publically to Muhammad, the Prophet, as "demon possessed" and a few other choice insults. Oh yeah, that's a good way to smooth social relations. Not.

DonPanic · 2005-07-28 15:13:47

LO

It is a favorite rhetorical tactic of Al Qaeda and similarly reckless islamic terrorists to issue a blanket declaration that their muslim victims were apostate.
They believe that the rest of Islam is unworthy of consideration.

Seems that the first "strike wawe" wich commited London attacks were treated that way, "second class muslims" just good enough to be mules. Scotland Yard now believe they were unaware of the nature their loads, or at least, unaware of the hour the explosives should blast, if ever they kwew what they were carrying.
Strangely, they had identification papers, go and fro metro tickets, things suicide bombers shouldn't wear.
Second wave guys weren't suicide bombers and escaped or tried to escape.

srmeaney · 2005-07-29 04:55:42

Stupid kids,

Probably thought they were just delivering them to a safe house...

Young Stupid gits: 0
Old Senile madmen: 1

I'm realy beginning to apreciate the concept of dumping everyone over the age of 35 on an iceflow and leaving them to die.

clark · 2005-07-29 05:16:37

Logan's Run?

Carousel!

Palomar · 2005-07-30 09:02:58

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news/index.php]We need something like this in America

*Yeah, I'll probably get some flack for it. No, I'm not advocating hereditary monarchy. But I do occasionally check the Events at this web site, and they do make an attractive (IMO) couple. Going about overseeing awards, making personal congratulations, overseeing openings, taking a proactive social interest in community services and etc. I often feel America is too impersonal. The only time we see our representatives is during re-election; then they're coming off like pulpit-pounding hellfire 'n brimstone preachers...and/or hugging each other. Of course ours is a larger nation. But it seems what TRH are doing is morale-boosting, community enriching, etc. I like it, anyway. It's a much-needed personal touch, a sense of duty fulfilled and obligations met, without intrusiveness.

On a different note: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/ap_ … g]Congrats to this young man

He's been there, done that. The best of luck with this. The title of the song, though, is a bit "much." But I feel bad for even that minor criticism.

--Cindy

Stormrage · 2005-07-30 10:58:38

I heard in sweden that the MPs don't have bodyguards with them in public. They just act like normal people. The downside of this is that their is no one to protect them.

Gennaro · 2005-07-30 15:26:13

They have bodyguards nowadays, well not members of parliament but government ministers, well known political brass and the like. Still, the high ranking social democrat Mrs Anna Lindh was assassinated the other year by a vengeful Serbian immigrant because of her support of the USAF bombings in 1999.

By the way, what's the problem with free medicare? It's a service function if you ask me. People are little machines producing wealth, so if you have healthy people it will benefit the economy. Not very unlike the pistons of a steamtrain that occasionally needs greasing.
And besides, if it's finaced by the tax bill, rich and famous people won't get favourised. Equal civil rights for all.

DonPanic · 2005-07-31 11:15:30

Hi Gennaro
"Providence State" does a lot of good which can become economically valuable, as for example, unless in Sweden, in France, kids transportation isn't free. Metro and Bus authorities spend a lot of money tracking bus and metro fraud wich is at more than 80% the kids' facts. Should kids transportation be free, paid by taxes, there would be less anti-fraud employees need, more security agents, therefore more clients for public transports avoiding them because of insecurity fear, less traffic jams, less wasted fuel, better productivity.
Social helps can help maintaining low criminality rate as social money providing may avoid people getting it by illegal or criminal means.
Problem is that Providence State works when the rate of people taking abusely advantage of the system is very low.
When too many people coming from foreign countries with little law respect, as now, the system fails.
We see it in France with some Romania and former Yugoslavia originated peoples which take advantage of the lack of repression at under 15 years old children. Their parents don't send them to school, instead, send them to buglar, destroy and steal the parking meters money, train them picking pockets. As born in France, children have french nationality, so that the family cannot be sent back home...
When France created public obligatory and free schools by 1882, authorities didn't hesitate to threaten with jail parents which were reluctant to send their children to school.
Think you have this kind of problems in Sweden too.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-07-31 20:23:05

Hi Gennaro and DonPanic.
After a while, all political discussion comes back to basics and I think that's what's happening here.
DonPanic:-

Problem is that Providence State works when the rate of people taking abusely advantage of the system is very low.

-- The more a state provides a broad safety net, and the longer it goes on, the more the rate of abuse of the sysytem goes up. This is because the fraction of people willing to bleed society of resources, without making a contribution themselves, takes full advantage of the state's generosity at every turn. The fraction of people who are not initially inclined to take advantage, see the ones who are so inclined doing well out of it. This second group then starts to wonder why they're working hard while others relax and decide to seek as many handouts as they can, too.
-- Politicians, always looking for votes of course, see a 'handout platform' as the way to gain or retain power and welfare expands in all directions. Soon state welfare becomes a right rather than a privilege and the structure of the welfare system becomes inextricably linked with every facet of life in that state.
-- Paying for all this takes high rates of taxation. This further undermines the incentive to work hard and makes welfare scavenging even more attractive to even more people. More people wanting more welfare makes more politicians see electoral advantages in yet more welfare ... and so on and so on.

I saw this process in action here in Australia between 1983 and 1996, when the Australian Labor Party pursued centralized wage negotiation, universal healthcare, and encouragement of unionism.
-- It was a great system in principle, but the economy experienced severe drag, despite the ALP's good work in other directions - such as currency initiatives (floating the dollar) etc.

Anyhow, Gennaro and DonPanic are right in saying that a socialistic government system is a good sysytem in many ways. But it is inevitably corrupted because of greed, laziness, and political expedience.
-- The U.S.A. became fabulously wealthy during the 20th century partially, but substantially in my view, because it eschewed socialism and pursued rugged individualism and a strict meritocracy. Its current pursuit of greater social welfare, while just and very understandable, will ultimately spell the end of its economic dominance and a gradual decline into 'former superpower' status, like Britain before it.

This is not purely a diatribe against the weaknesses of socialism but it's my assessment of America's future, as it follows the path of all great powers from supremacy to relative obscurity.

Just some thoughts.

BWhite · 2005-07-31 23:08:15

The U.S.A. became fabulously wealthy during the 20th century partially, but substantially in my view, because it eschewed socialism and pursued rugged individualism and a strict meritocracy. Its current pursuit of greater social welfare, while just and very understandable, will ultimately spell the end of its economic dominance and a gradual decline into 'former superpower' status, like Britain before it.

General Motors and US Steel are hardly paragons of rugged individualism.

= = =

Many of America's best decades of economic performance came after the New Deal, which I believe was an effort to blend the best attributues of capitalism and socialism.

It has also been argued that liberal (meaning easily available) bankruptcy laws allow American business folk to take risks Europeans would never dream of taking.

Is easy access to bankruptcy protection (debt relief) free enterprise or socialism? I say that's a hard question to answer.

srmeaney · 2005-08-01 01:21:18

I saw this process in action here in Australia between 1983 and 1996, when the Australian Labor Party pursued centralized wage negotiation, universal healthcare, and encouragement of unionism.
-- It was a great system in principle, but the economy experienced severe drag, despite the ALP's good work in other directions - such as currency initiatives (floating the dollar) etc.

Actually it sucked. Labour was picking up the singular bad habit that it was better to court big business interests and have a caviar and brandy lunch than a fish and chip/beer experience with the Unionists. That mentality has spread deeply into government departments and is precisely why government has been guilty for the last thirty plus years of violating the laws of the Commonwealth. Sedition is the violation of the right of the Commonwealth and its people to freedom from acts causing government, law, constitution, and/or sovereign to be held in hatred and or contempt. The Government is not exempt from that law, infact it is over ruled by it.

This is precisely why Pauline Hanson and the one nation movement got a sudden pull of popular support. She could have been the first female Prime Minister if she hadn't caught the caviar lunch disease and politicaly assassinated herself.

BWhite · 2005-08-01 07:28:11

US & UK disagree (somewhat? considerably?) concerning http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7083c7e8-0228- … 8.html]War on Terror:

Experts said the recent disagreements follow a history of differing approaches towards international intelligence gathering and law enforcement that have marked an otherwise seamless relationship.
Former US intelligence officials say the UK intelligence services tend to spend more time watching suspects, whereas the US tends to prefer to close in more quickly. One UK official said co-operation between US and UK intelligence officials over the London bombings had been "superb". But he said the UK had a different view of the war on terrorism than the US.
"One of the distinguishing characteristics of [the US] is that they think they are at war, and we don't. It is very difficult to persuade people in London, even after the bombings, that there's a war on. This is a big psychological difference."

Is fighting terror "war" or is fighting terror something else? Maybe like robust police and intelligence work?

It also seems we Americans gave the news media photos the British wanted to be kept secret:

The rifts rose to the surface last week when Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan police commissioner, expressed thinly veiled annoyance at his US counterparts following the airing of sensitive crime-scene photos by a US television network.
Speaking at a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Sir Ian said he had expressed "concern" about the publication, saying the photos had been "supplied in confidence to some of our colleague agencies".

DonPanic · 2005-08-01 08:22:53

LO

Many of America's best decades of economic performance came after the New Deal, which I believe was an effort to blend the best attributues of capitalism and socialism.

I think there is not a good or perfect system in the absolute, each system creates its own "antigenes" such as the more its goes, the closer its reaches to a breakdown point.
Capitalism tends to unbearable inequalities between peoples, socialism tends to unproductivity as seen with the english industry in the years 1970.
Right now, I think that power of money owners have gone too far, and that soon or later, there will be a clock beam return, be smooth or brutal.
Economists know that for a long term period, the average industry profit rate is about 3.25% (over inflation rate). Now investissors seek for profits rates over 10%, then they act as predators, throwing attacks at industrial groups, dismanteling them, keeping only the most valuable departments, closing the less profitables ones, without any consideration on their market positions, firing as many workers as possible, without thinking that wrecked employment regions become marketless regions. At least Mr Ford 1 had the intelligence to consider his employees as his enterprise best clients.

Grypd · 2005-08-01 08:41:50

It is a difference in how the terrorism attacks are viewed and how it should be treated. The USA calls it a war on terro the UK though has always treated it like a police action against international criminals

The USA in 9/11 was attacked by foreign nationals which where linked very closely to the ultra religous Taliban regime in Afghanistan. They also had apparent state collusion in training in places like the Sudan etc. America called it a war on terror as it was certainly in this case the USA attacking foreign powers and internationals. These powers posed a threat to all and it was clearly the duty of the UK and others to support the USA in tackling these viscious regimes and the instruments of terror. When the USA captures someone it treats them like unlawful combatants and as such in a way gives them legitimacy. Its how they can be called insurgents by the press as if they where soldiers.

The UK though has been attacked recently by people who where UK nationals and or been allowed to stay here by our laws as long as they obeyed those laws. In this case they breached those laws and as such are liable to arrest these people we class as criminals nothing more nothing less. Gathering intelligence on people who are suspected of being involved in criminal acts is allowed under the various countries laws in the UK but only when a crime has been commited can these people be arrested. In the belief of the UK these people are nothing more than international criminals backed by the drug trade and other illegal means to pay for their neferious deeds.

Announcing to the world what evidence is to be used against someone is to create an atmosphere prejudicial to that person getting a fair trial. And as much as people may want to simply throw them in jail and lose the key that in itself would be a defeat to these people. We will not give them this they will be treated in what they are people accused of a serious crime and if found guilty they will be treated like any criminals found guilty. In this one thing at least victims families deserve a chance to see justice done and to gain some comfort there.

DonPanic · 2005-08-01 09:00:05

It is a difference in how the terrorism attacks are viewed and how it should be treated. The USA calls it a war on terror, the UK though has always treated it like a police action against international criminals

LO
Wisdom of the "Habeas Corpus" country...
In chinese strategy books, if you treat fairly your ennemies, they know that, surrounded, they will better surrender than eagerly fight up to the end, then bringing more casualties and wastes.
Doesn't work with suicide terrorists, but anyways, it works for those which fear for their lives which are a majority.

Grypd · 2005-08-01 10:09:50

It is a difference in how the terrorism attacks are viewed and how it should be treated. The USA calls it a war on terror, the UK though has always treated it like a police action against international criminals
LO
Wisdom of the "Habeas Corpus" country...
In chinese strategy books, if you treat fairly your ennemies, they know that, surrounded, they will better surrender than eagerly fight up to the end, then bringing more casualties and wastes.
Doesn't work with suicide terrorists, but anyways, it works for those which fear for their lives which are a majority.

But with the recent capture of the bombers who failed is this not show that though suicide bombers are quite happy to do there acts it is interesting that if stopped they can be captured. Like everyone they have to "psyche" themselves up to do it. And capturing them has given the UK a lot of intelligence that can be used to stop the future planned attacks on the UK and incidentally from the intelligence gained Frances metro as well.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-07-28 08:21:29

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#127 2005-07-28 09:12:29

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#128 2005-07-28 10:18:49

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#129 2005-07-28 12:28:51

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#130 2005-07-28 12:31:31

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#131 2005-07-28 12:40:57

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#132 2005-07-28 12:57:13

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#133 2005-07-28 13:04:58

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#134 2005-07-28 14:03:45

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#135 2005-07-28 14:22:56

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#136 2005-07-28 15:13:47

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#137 2005-07-29 04:55:42

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#138 2005-07-29 05:16:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#139 2005-07-30 09:02:58

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#140 2005-07-30 10:58:38

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#141 2005-07-30 15:26:13

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#142 2005-07-31 11:15:30

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#143 2005-07-31 20:23:05

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#144 2005-07-31 23:08:15

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#145 2005-08-01 01:21:18

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#146 2005-08-01 07:28:11

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#147 2005-08-01 08:22:53

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#148 2005-08-01 08:41:50

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#149 2005-08-01 09:00:05

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#150 2005-08-01 10:09:50

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer