syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 12, 2007 0:54:14 GMT -5
How many people died in the civil war in Lincoln's army? At least 360,000. I woudn't say that Lincoln did a better job than Bush has so far...yes, Lincoln won the war, but at what cost?
If Bush eventually wins the war and it costs 10,000 soldiers lives...how does that make him doing a worse job than Lincoln or FDR?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 12, 2007 0:58:26 GMT -5
How many people died in the civil war in Lincoln's army? At least 360,000. I woudn't say that Lincoln has done a better job than Bush so far...yes, Lincoln won the war, but at what cost? I'll never take up for Lincoln. He took away state's rights.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 12, 2007 1:07:07 GMT -5
How many people died in the civil war in Lincoln's army? At least 360,000. I woudn't say that Lincoln has done a better job than Bush so far...yes, Lincoln won the war, but at what cost? If Bush eventually wins the war and it costs 10,000 soldiers lives...how does that make him doing a worse job than Lincoln or FDR? Not to take up for Lincoln, but Bush won't eventually win the war... And it's also possible that because of this ill conceived war in Iraq, there will be more than 360,000 of america's finest killed - and many of them won't even be in the army...
|
|
syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 12, 2007 1:10:54 GMT -5
I can't be so hard on him, excluding conspiracy theories and possible motives, and looking at it from a simple perspective, he wasn't in a good position no matter what. We don't know what would have happened if the Union allowed the South to secede...it could have been better or it could have been worse.
Would make an interesting book/movie. I know there have been some made for the, "what if Hitler won" scenario.
Cya later, Seacrest out.
|
|
syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 12, 2007 1:14:39 GMT -5
Twista,
How many have died so far? Even if you doubled the deaths along with the years, it would just reach the 10K mark. Whatever is going to happen there, it will be determined and over by the 08 election.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 12, 2007 1:19:48 GMT -5
How many have died so far? Even if you doubled the deaths along with the years, it would just reach the 10K mark. I can't buy into the whole "It's only 4,000 lives" argument. People like to cite the number of traffic deaths for the year and then say, "But there's only been 4,000 people lost in Iraq!" Yet when 10 people die in a housefire in rural Indiana, everyone thinks it's sad. Well, it IS sad because those 10 people MEANT something to their family and friends. Same with the troops that have been killed in Iraq. Those men and women meant the world to their mothers and wives and children.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 12, 2007 3:30:02 GMT -5
"War is hell."
(My fingers are not allowed to type the name of the Union general who said that.)
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 12, 2007 17:36:33 GMT -5
Isn't there a famous quote that goes something like 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic.'?
By any objective measure, the military portion of the war on terror has been a virtually unprecedented success.
I'll give you that the Taliban was a (comparatively) poorly-armed rabble. But then they weren't any better armed in the 1980s and they managed to defeat the Soviet Union...
But Saddam's army was a much more convention and formidable enemy, though it was not what it had been when it fought Iran (that eight year conflict plus Desert Storm did degrade it).
The point is that we defeated the armed forces of not one but two governments and then toppled the sitting governments they fought for, all with a casualty count of something like 500. That is an astonishing success by any historical comparison you want to make.
Much has been amde about the supposed similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.
But here's a comparison you won't see made anywhere (except here and by me):
Vietnam lasted some 13 years and resulted in the deaths of some 58,000 American troops. That would equal roughly 4400 per year.
Iraq has lasted 4 years thus far and has resulted in roughly 3300 US combat deaths, a rate of some 800 per year.
At that rate, we will surprass the death toll in Vietnam in the year:
>2077<
Tell you what...if the fight is still ongoing then and we're still involved, I'll concede that it is a "quagmire" at that point....
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 12, 2007 17:59:45 GMT -5
Tell you what...if the fight is still ongoing then and we're still involved, I'll concede that it is a "quagmire" at that point.... So in a mere 70 years, you would pull our troops out of Iraq. That sounds like taxmoney well spent.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 13, 2007 15:13:37 GMT -5
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 13, 2007 15:46:20 GMT -5
No brandon, I'm point out how the definition of "quagmire" seems to be rather amorphous and that the Left seems to be able to redefine the term (among many others) to suit them.
If a war that lasted thirteen years and cost the lives of almost 60,000 US troops qualifies as a quagmire, then how does a war lasting a comparatively short four year cosing the lives of 3500 US troops also a quagmire?
Is there an objective standard of measure? Or is it arbitrary depending on who is deemed responsible for the war?
How long were we in Somalia under Clinton? A month or two? And we suffered some 25 US troops killed. Quagmire, I say! Quagmire!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 13, 2007 16:07:55 GMT -5
No brandon, I'm point out how the definition of "quagmire" seems to be rather amorphous and that the Left seems to be able to redefine the term (among many others) to suit them. If a war that lasted thirteen years and cost the lives of almost 60,000 US troops qualifies as a quagmire, then how does a war lasting a comparatively short four year cosing the lives of 3500 US troops also a quagmire? Is there an objective standard of measure? Or is it arbitrary depending on who is deemed responsible for the war? How long were we in Somalia under Clinton? A month or two? And we suffered some 25 US troops killed. Quagmire, I say! Quagmire! One thing Viet Nam and Iraq have in common is that Congress did not declare either one of them therefore they were ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS. Your ignoring the root of the problem. You missed it again.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 13, 2007 21:49:02 GMT -5
Wrong yet again, solomon.
President Bush went to Congress and secured not one but TWO authorizations for the use of force in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
I had this same debate with another individual on another board and made this same point there.
If you'll check out Wikipedia's information on formal declarations of war, you'll see that America has gone to war far more often WITHOUT a formal declaration as they have with one.
Further, the question that you'd have to answer is:
Against >WHOM< would you have had Bush declare war?
The fact is that Al Qaida is not the armed forces of any particular country.
Yes, the particular faction of AQ that attacked us on 9/11 was located in Afghanistan....but the Taliban government of Afghanistan did not employ them as their officially sanctioned armed forces.
Should Bush have declared war against any and all countries that harbored AQ? Well, that's a pretty long list- including the United States, by the way. I wonder if Congress would have given him permission to attack ourselves.....
On second thought, as you already think Bush attacked the United States without permission, the irony of my point would be lost on you. Never mind.
Finally, need I point out that there is a very credible argument to be made that our invasion of Iraq was a lawful continuation of the 1991 Gulf War?
Saddam agreed to abide by certain conditions as a consequence of his 1991 defeat. Among those conditions was that he respect a southern and northern No Fly zone, he would dismantle his existing WMDs and not reconstitute either them nor the programs to develop them again and submit to international verification of compliance and that he was proscribed certain conventional weapons systems such as aircraft, missiles, tanks and the like.
And what was his track record on compliance?
Pretty abysmal.
His AAA forces continually shot at our patrolling aircraft inside the No Fly zones. Strike one.
All intel before and after the war from virtually any international or domestic intel service have concluded that he was seeking to restart his WMD programs immediately following the lifting of UN sanctions and that he had NOT accounted for his existing WMDs to the satisfaction of the IAEA. Strike two.
Saddam had either bought or developed missiles that had ranges far in excess of the limit imposed upon him by the 1991 cease fire. Strike three!
One can readily understand why the UN was loathe to back up their (rather meaningless) resolutions against Iraq- all seventeen of them, lest you raise that tired old "rush to war" canard:
They were being PAID to look the other way!
France, Russia, China, Germany and, of course, Kofi at the United Nations were all skimming billions off the "Oil For Palaces" program. When you're getting rich off kickbacks, why interrupt the gravy train by enforcing some silly resolution?
Whether you argue that the wars are illegal or unconsitutional, you're WRONG.
|
|
tusker
Cog in Training
Posts: 68
|
Post by tusker on Apr 14, 2007 1:06:42 GMT -5
How many people died in the civil war in Lincoln's army? At least 360,000. I woudn't say that Lincoln did a better job than Bush has so far...yes, Lincoln won the war, but at what cost? If Bush eventually wins the war and it costs 10,000 soldiers lives...how does that make him doing a worse job than Lincoln or FDR? I was not arguing that FDR and Lincoln did a better job of winning a war. I was stating that FDR and Lincoln did a better job of establsihing a 'police state' in the midst of a war. Bush's so-called police state isn't nearly as effective or pervasive than that of FDR and Lincoln's. Again, I argue that if the entire purpose of 9/11 or the wars was to establish a police state then the Bush Administration is doing a terrible job of fulfilling their goal. They obviously didn't have the Democrats on their side from the beginning because they haven't played along too well. Even some some of the Reps haven't been in lock step. I just don't see how this theory can be furthered.
|
|
tusker
Cog in Training
Posts: 68
|
Post by tusker on Apr 14, 2007 1:37:30 GMT -5
OK, you can't have smoking gun evidence of three differing events at the same time. Was the Pentagon hit by Flight 77 and the powers planned it? Was it a missile? Or was it a fighter jet or some other smaller aircraft? It can't be all three. Secondly, if 9/11 was an inside job then why bother reporting articles on how the Bush Adminstration along with the FBI was warned prior to 9/11? Only one conspiract theory can fit. If the intention of this author is to explain what happened on 9/11 then why is he taking so many angles?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 14, 2007 1:58:19 GMT -5
OK, you can't have smoking gun evidence of three differing events at the same time. Was the Pentagon hit by Flight 77 and the powers planned it? Was it a missile? Or was it a fighter jet or some other smaller aircraft? It can't be all three. Secondly, if 9/11 was an inside job then why bother reporting articles on how the Bush Adminstration along with the FBI was warned prior to 9/11? Only one conspiract theory can fit. If the intention of this author is to explain what happened on 9/11 then why is he taking so many angles? You just have to love it when logic and intelligence shines through a shit storm.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 14, 2007 7:47:04 GMT -5
OK, you can't have smoking gun evidence of three differing events at the same time. Was the Pentagon hit by Flight 77 and the powers planned it? Was it a missile? Or was it a fighter jet or some other smaller aircraft? It can't be all three. Secondly, if 9/11 was an inside job then why bother reporting articles on how the Bush Adminstration along with the FBI was warned prior to 9/11? Only one conspiract theory can fit. If the intention of this author is to explain what happened on 9/11 then why is he taking so many angles? It is called other POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS slick. If the government said Joe Blow got shot with a missile in the chest and we went to examine the body and found a hole larger than a 9mm round but smaller than a baseball it would be safe to reject the missile lie. You could say it a 40 cal, 45 cal or a few other similar sized rounds. You could even suggest he was stabbed with a thin metal rod that's girth matched those calibers. Just because you couldn't prove for absolute certainty which caliber it was in no way requires the missile to the chest lie to be the truth by default. Secondly to answer your "critique" of the foreknowledge it appears you are assuming that I believe all government employees were in on it or that a large portion was. I believe that only a small percentage had full knowledge of the whole conspiracy and others can be deceived, misled or dumb. I've worked with the FBI, ATF, ICE and other Federal agencies, I in no way believe the little men were involved. The FBI was pulled from following Al Qaida prior to 9/11 by president Bush (199eye or something close to that) the guys mission was codenamed Able Danger. In some cases the "debunkers" tend to lump every conspiracy "theorist" into one easy to beat bundle of straw so he can knock us down. That is not a honest way of discussing issues. Keep looking at those sites though. Buy a book (I'm currently reading 9-11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley) or some DVDs on the subject or something. Just hang in there and don't be so quick to join the crowd. I do not and can not prove everything I believe. But I can easily blast big holes in the official story.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 14, 2007 7:50:49 GMT -5
OK, you can't have smoking gun evidence of three differing events at the same time. Was the Pentagon hit by Flight 77 and the powers planned it? Was it a missile? Or was it a fighter jet or some other smaller aircraft? It can't be all three. Secondly, if 9/11 was an inside job then why bother reporting articles on how the Bush Adminstration along with the FBI was warned prior to 9/11? Only one conspiract theory can fit. If the intention of this author is to explain what happened on 9/11 then why is he taking so many angles? You just have to love it when logic and intelligence shines through a shit storm. Quit bragging on me. You are only going to give me a big head. I wish I could say the same for you but I think you are dumb as a brick. LOL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 14, 2007 7:59:08 GMT -5
You just have to love it when logic and intelligence shines through a shit storm. Quit bragging on me. You are only going to give me a big head. I wish I could say the same for you but I think you are dumb as a brick. LOL!!!! You are so funny! Imagine thinking I was calling YOU intelligent...Honey, I don't want to wound your feelings and hurt your heart, but you are just "SPECIAL"...Your bus at school wasn't shorter than the others because you belonged to a club, like the told you.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 14, 2007 7:59:22 GMT -5
Quit bragging on me. You are only going to give me a big head. She's WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too late for that.................
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 14, 2007 8:03:15 GMT -5
I am still waiting on the answer to my question on the other thread, freak.
What does something that happened in the 1960's under a government that had their own president killed (I think everyone agrees the CIA killed Kennedy) have to do with a terrorist attack in 2001? Connect the dots for the rest of us, genius.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 14, 2007 8:21:41 GMT -5
Wrong yet again, solomon. President Bush went to Congress and secured not one but TWO authorizations for the use of force in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He also went to get permission from the UN. I know he went on his own without them though. Piss on the UN Bush had no business going to them for approval anyway. If you'll check out Wikipedia's information on formal declarations of war, you'll see that America has gone to war far more often WITHOUT a formal declaration as they have with one. Lets do a hundred more then. Heck why even elect a congress to "represent us"? Two wrongs don't make a right (Murphy's law:If two wrongs don't make a right, try three. ) Further, the question that you'd have to answer is: Against >WHOM< would you have had Bush declare war? Any group that knowingly helped out. On second thought, as you already think Bush attacked the United States without permission, the irony of my point would be lost on you. Never mind. He could have, I don't know? Webster Griffin Tarpley in 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA, he seems to indicate that Bush had his life threatened on 9/11 by some deep rogue agents on 9/11 and other foreign intelligence agencies believed a military coup d etat took place on that day. I'm not sure about Bush. I know he is crooked but he did not commit any false flags while Governor in Texas that I am aware of and he might not have while President. Whether you argue that the wars are illegal or unconstitutional, you're WRONG. The founding fathers were isolationists not interventionists. Congress delegated their war declaring powers to the president sometime after WW2. We should not be fighting wars for other countries (except Israel, I know I'm a little bit of a hypocrite . I'm sorry that I called you a jackass in the other thread so quick. I got a little hot because I type slow and did not have time to pull up some info to back my point because my lunch break was nearly over. My bad. Brian Solomon John 6:68
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 14, 2007 8:26:00 GMT -5
Your bus at school wasn't shorter than the others because you belonged to a club, like the told you. It was a hybrid bus woman!!! I had better sense than to contribute to "global warming" ;D.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 14, 2007 8:45:49 GMT -5
I am still waiting on the answer to my question on the other thread, freak. What does something that happened in the 1960's under a government that had their own president killed (I think everyone agrees the CIA killed Kennedy) have to do with a terrorist attack in 2001? Connect the dots for the rest of us, genius. QUIETEN DOWN WOMAN!!! YOU ARE TOO IMPATIENT!!!! SUBMIT!!! LOL! Go fix your husband something to eat and give me time to reply. I have a job and wife and daughter and plenty other things that would require me to leave the forum for a while. Don't you dare even entertain the idea that I would avoid one of your simple questions (remember I rode the short hybrid bus by choice. I'm way ahead of you in the deep thought club [I'm ahead of Jack Handy] Girl just slow your horses). The rogue agents that did that have not been brought to justice so it would be safe and not a far stretch in logic to lean toward the possibility that maybe they still exist inside our bureaucracies. If a bear ate your Grandmother's dog 50 years ago it would be silly to think that bears are extinct because a few years have passed. Maybe that "bear" had some baby bears and they are still living happily ever after. REMEMBER THE MAINE!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 14, 2007 19:55:12 GMT -5
Agreed re: the United Nations.
However, he went to Congress and to the UN to get their sanction- whether or not he actually needed either or both- for the sole purpose of heading off these objections as to the legality of the military action.
Our legal structure does not provide a mechanism by which we declare a state of formal war to exist with a non- or extra-governmental enemy.
The closest historical precedent for the war we find ourselves in now was against the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s. The pirates themselves though were NOT the officially sanctioned military arms of the pashas of North Africa. The extent of the pasha's sanction was to look the other way when the pirates attacked our shipping (and probably to take a cut of the booty).
It is interesting to note that President Jefferson took a great deal of flack from Congress, many members of which held that the formal declaration of war was illegal because the pirates were not the lawful, official military of the pashas, as I pointed out above.
Which is exactly what he did.
The war is against the Jihadists and Islamofascists regardless of what nation in which they might be found.
President Bush made it very clear that he would hold those nations who aided or supported the terrorists in any way just as responsible for the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts as the terrorists themselves.
Afghanistan was the first step, Iraq the second. There are more to come (and indeed more steps are being taken right now in countries other than those). And not all of them will be military.
Correct as regards the Founders.
They could afford to be, what in a world where it took months to travel from Europe to North America.
Those days are long over. 9/11 proved that.
And, please, don't feel that you have to make any sort of apology for supporting Israel. We have no more stalwart ally in the world than they are.
No worries.
It's not like I've not said something I regretted once or twice. Just ask lawman....
I admire a passionate stating of one's views, without regard to whether I agree or disagree with them.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 14, 2007 23:00:16 GMT -5
I am still waiting on the answer to my question on the other thread, freak. What does something that happened in the 1960's under a government that had their own president killed (I think everyone agrees the CIA killed Kennedy) have to do with a terrorist attack in 2001? Connect the dots for the rest of us, genius. QUIETEN DOWN WOMAN!!! YOU ARE TOO IMPATIENT!!!! SUBMIT!!! LOL! Go fix your husband something to eat and give me time to reply. I have a job and wife and daughter and plenty other things that would require me to leave the forum for a while. Don't you dare even entertain the idea that I would avoid one of your simple questions (remember I rode the short hybrid bus by choice. I'm way ahead of you in the deep thought club [I'm ahead of Jack Handy] Girl just slow your horses). The rogue agents that did that have not been brought to justice so it would be safe and not a far stretch in logic to lean toward the possibility that maybe they still exist inside our bureaucracies. If a bear ate your Grandmother's dog 50 years ago it would be silly to think that bears are extinct because a few years have passed. Maybe that "bear" had some baby bears and they are still living happily ever after. REMEMBER THE MAINE! Uh Huh...Ok..... So, rouge agents from over 40 years ago are behind 9/11? I have a job, a husband, three kids, and a full course schedule for school, and I still have enough time to see you are a fool.
|
|
tusker
Cog in Training
Posts: 68
|
Post by tusker on Apr 15, 2007 2:55:41 GMT -5
OK, you can't have smoking gun evidence of three differing events at the same time. Was the Pentagon hit by Flight 77 and the powers planned it? Was it a missile? Or was it a fighter jet or some other smaller aircraft? It can't be all three. Secondly, if 9/11 was an inside job then why bother reporting articles on how the Bush Adminstration along with the FBI was warned prior to 9/11? Only one conspiracy theory can fit. If the intention of this author is to explain what happened on 9/11 then why is he taking so many angles? It is called other POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS slick. If the government said Joe Blow got shot with a missile in the chest and we went to examine the body and found a hole larger than a 9mm round but smaller than a baseball it would be safe to reject the missile lie. You could say it a 40 cal, 45 cal or a few other similar sized rounds. You could even suggest he was stabbed with a thin metal rod that's girth matched those calibers. Just because you couldn't prove for absolute certainty which caliber it was in no way requires the missile to the chest lie to be the truth by default. That's not what the author is trying to imply. He seems to be saying that we have 'smoking gun' evidence that the government has lied. 'Smoking gun' implies infallible proof of an actual event. All this guy is putting up is circumstancial evidence that the government isn't telling the whole story if all these eyewitness testimonies are true to a 'T' and everyone knows exactly what they're talking about. The problem is, he's throwing out evidence of several different conclusions for the same event. It can't be all of them. Either there is substantial proof of one theory over the other or we just don't know. I could put up just as much circumstancial evidence that 9/11 happened just like the government said it did. He's not putting up possible causes. He's putting up possible evidence that all of these things occurred. Was Flight 93 seen at the Cleveland airport or was it shot down? This stuff doesn't prove anything. Secondly, those reports about what was going on in the skies over Shanksville that day are wildly varying. This could prove nothing more than there were a bunch of people on the ground that though they saw different things and really weren't paying that much attention. Secondly to answer your "critique" of the foreknowledge it appears you are assuming that I believe all government employees were in on it or that a large portion was. I believe that only a small percentage had full knowledge of the whole conspiracy and others can be deceived, misled or dumb. I've worked with the FBI, ATF, ICE and other Federal agencies, I in no way believe the little men were involved. The FBI was pulled from following Al Qaida prior to 9/11 by president Bush (199eye or something close to that) the guys mission was codenamed Able Danger. It doesn't matter if you believe the little people were involved or not. They would have to be at some point, especially people with the airlines. Anyway, either Bush planned the whole thing or allowed Al Qaeda to do it. It's not both. And then there's the Afghanistan pipeline and the supposed great benefit Iraq's oil would bring. This is all Farenheit 911 stuff. It proves nothing.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 15, 2007 22:58:25 GMT -5
QUIETEN DOWN WOMAN!!! YOU ARE TOO IMPATIENT!!!! SUBMIT!!! LOL! Go fix your husband something to eat and give me time to reply. I have a job and wife and daughter and plenty other things that would require me to leave the forum for a while. Don't you dare even entertain the idea that I would avoid one of your simple questions (remember I rode the short hybrid bus by choice. I'm way ahead of you in the deep thought club [I'm ahead of Jack Handy] Girl just slow your horses). The rogue agents that did that have not been brought to justice so it would be safe and not a far stretch in logic to lean toward the possibility that maybe they still exist inside our bureaucracies. If a bear ate your Grandmother's dog 50 years ago it would be silly to think that bears are extinct because a few years have passed. Maybe that "bear" had some baby bears and they are still living happily ever after. REMEMBER THE MAINE! Uh Huh...Ok..... So, rouge agents from over 40 years ago are behind 9/11? I have a job, a husband, three kids, and a full course schedule for school, and I still have enough time to see you are a fool. Getting a GED shouldn't be that dificult for most people but I'll be praying for you. A woman's place is to be a keeper of the home. Stay home and take care of the family. Don't try to talk politics because sometimes it can get serious and we don't need any silly women in here. Even if you do pass your GED test you still are wrong about 9/11........ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Silly women.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 16, 2007 3:42:56 GMT -5
Uh Huh...Ok..... So, rouge agents from over 40 years ago are behind 9/11? I have a job, a husband, three kids, and a full course schedule for school, and I still have enough time to see you are a fool. Getting a GED shouldn't be that dificult for most people but I'll be praying for you. A woman's place is to be a keeper of the home. Stay home and take care of the family. Don't try to talk politics because sometimes it can get serious and we don't need any silly women in here. Even if you do pass your GED test you still are wrong about 9/11........ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Silly women. GED? We are not all in your rank and file. Some of us are actually college educated intelligent people. Sorry if you are jealous of the achievements we have made, but I will waste a little pity on you, after all, you are only a back woods inbred crack pot.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 16, 2007 3:54:02 GMT -5
I have a GED with honors woman don't be jealous because your tassle was black and mine was gold. You need to take a class on 9/11 being an inside job. This guy is hilarious www.theresistancemanifesto.com/
|
|