Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:55 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
Thinly veiled? Then I must not be expressing myself very well, as I did not intend that anyone should see my attacks on the right as being veiled at all. I detest what the Republican Party has become.


Then you should be happy to vote McCain and Palin because they are exactly what to fat do-nothing Repubicans in Washington are a bit uneasy about. I do not like the attitude that some Republicans take toward entitlement, which is the exact attitude Obama and the Democratic Party oozes. So we agree here, we want change in Washington, problem is, your guy(Obama) is just saying it, McCain and Palin are going to DO IT.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
With what army?

You want to see the Iranian government overthrown? Pass legislation requiring the doubling of fuel efficiency standards over the next 10 years, pour money into non-carbon energy research, and wait a short while. Iran's government can no longer survive oil prices of $50/barrel or so.


All the while, Iran develops Nuclear capabilities and puts them in the hands of a lunatic. Your rationale is sound, that would certainly destroy Iran's economy, I would like nothing more than to be free of energy dependency. Although on the flip side of the coin here, if we destroy Irans' economy, who will take care of the millions of innocent civilians that it would profoundly affect? Certainly not President Ahmadinejad, I believe he cares more about destroying the American way of life than his own people.

Daniel Pipes of the NY Post writes:
Quote:
Militant Islam is on the ascendant almost everywhere around the globe - except in the nation that has experienced it longest and knows it best. In Iran, it is on the defensive and perhaps in retreat.

This situation has vast potential consequences. It derives from the fact that (putting aside the exceptional case of Saudi Arabia), militant Islam first attained power in Iran in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Twenty-three years later, Khomeini's aggressive, totalitarian project has left Iranians deeply disillusioned and longing for a return to normal life.

The population wants freedom from a regime that bullies them personally, tyrannizes them politically, depresses them economically and isolates them culturally. As in Afghanistan under the Taliban, suffering the ravages of militant Islam means (Rob Sobhani of Georgetown University notes) that Iranians now "know evil when they see it up close."



David Stolinsky of Newsmax writes:
Quote:
When the Shah of Iran was in trouble, then-president Carter pulled the rug out from under our longtime ally. Carter's emissary met Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris, where he lived in exile, and pronounced him a "saint." Carter then told the shah's generals to stand aside and let the revolution proceed. The generals did as they were told, and most of them were killed when Khomeini seized power. Some "saint."


So if there is a desire for Democrats and Independants such as yourself to protect innocent civilians and protect the sanctity of human rights in the world, it would be in our best interest to act upon this Iranian leader sooner rather than later. Don't you agree?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
I honor you for your service.

Feel free to point out exactly what "anti-American BS" I've been spouting.

P.S. - I note that you failed to provide evidence linking Iraq with 9/11.


First of all, thanks for your appreciation.

As for the Anti-American sentiment, I shall get to that in another post because I don't want to take anything away from focusing your attention on this article written by R. James Woolsey on "The New Republic Online"(noted Liberal magazine) on September 13th 2001.

Quote:
R. JAMES WOOLSEY is a partner at Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C. He served as director of central intelligence from February 1993 to January 1995.

In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's attacks, attention has focused on terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden. And he may well be responsible. But intelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks--whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others--were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein.

To this end, investigators should revisit the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. A few years ago, the facts in that case seemed straightforward: The mastermind behind the bombing, who went by the alias Ramzi Yousef, was in fact a 27-year-old Pakistani named Abdul Basit. But late last year, AEI Press published "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America," a careful book about the bombing by AEI scholar Laurie Mylroie. The book's startling thesis is that the original theory of the attack, advanced by James Fox (the FBI's chief investigator into the 1993 bombing until his replacement in 1994) was correct: that Yousef was not Abdul Basit but rather an Iraqi agent who had assumed the latter's identity when police files in Kuwait (where the real Abdul Basit lived in 1990) were doctored by Iraqi intelligence during the occupation of Kuwait. If Mylroie and Fox (who died in 1997) are right, then it was Iraq that went after the World Trade Center last time. Which makes it much more plausible that Iraq has done so again.

According to the theory of the 1993 bombing embraced by federal prosecutors and the Clinton administration, Yousef/Abdul Basit was just another Middle Eastern student who became radicalized in his early twenties. But it is worth noting that the only two publicly reported items suggesting that Yousef and Abdul Basit are the same man could very easily have been products of Iraqi tampering with Kuwaiti police files: a few photocopied pages from earlier Abdul Basit passports that had clearly been tampered with, provided by Yousef in New York in 1992 to get a Pakistani passport in Abdul Basit's name, and fingerprints matching Yousef's found in Abdul Basit's police file in Kuwait. It is also worth noting that Abdul Basit and his family, who lived in Kuwait, disappeared during the Iraqi occupation, and the family has never reappeared. Was this a random tragedy of war or part of an effort to set up a false identity for Yousef?

Moreover, the Fox/Mylroie theory--that Yousef, via Iraqi intelligence, stole Abdul Basit's identity--would explain a number of troubling differences between Abdul Basit in the summer of 1989 (when he left the United Kingdom after three years of study) and Yousef in September 1992 (when he arrived in New York). If the two are indeed the same man, then, over the course of three years, he would have: (a) grown four inches (from five foot eight inches to six feet) in his twenties; (b) put on between 35 and 40 pounds; (c) developed a deformed eye; (d) developed smaller ears and a smaller mouth; (e) gone from being an innovative computer programmer to being computer-challenged; (f) aged substantially more than three years in appearance; and (g) changed from being a quiet, smiling young man respectful to women to a rather different one (a sound file in Yousef's computer, for example, includes his voice saying "Fuck, fuck, fuck" and "Shut up, you bitch").

What incentive would the U.S. government have had to overlook these changes, stipulate that Abdul Basit and Yousef were the same person, and turn away from any suggestion that Saddam was behind the first WTC attack? One can only speculate. But by arguing that the 1993 WTC bombing and a separate, FBI-thwarted plot to bomb New York tunnels and buildings were connected as parts of a common conspiracy, prosecutors made convicting the participants, under the very broad seditious conspiracy law, far simpler. As for the Clinton administration itself, there would be less need to confront Saddam, and perhaps less need to make hard choices, if it didn't finger him as being behind the WTC bombing.

And indeed, ever since Fox's ouster, federal prosecutors and the White House have hewed to the line that most terrorist attacks on the United States are either the products of "loose networks" of folks who just somehow come together or are masterminded by the mysterious and unaccountable bin Laden. Explicit state sponsorship, especially by Iraq, has not been on the agenda. The Clinton administration, meanwhile, treated Saddam--in former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's famous metaphor--like the mole in an international version of the "Whack-a-Mole" carnival game: If you bopped him on the head, he'd stay in his hole for a while. But what has he been doing while he's down there? If Fox and Mylroie are right, quite possibly planning, financing, and backing terrorist operations against the United States.

As of yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Does it not seem curious that bin Laden issues fatwas, pushes videotapes, quotes poems, and orders his followers to talk loudly and often about his role in attacks on us? Does someone want our focus to be solely on bin Laden's hard-to-reach self, and not on a senior partner?

If we hope to answer that question, the 1993 WTC bombing is a good place to start looking. No one other than the prosecutors, the Clinton Justice Department, and the FBI had access to the materials surrounding that case until they were presented in court, because they were virtually all obtained by a federal grand jury and hence kept not only from the public but from the rest of the government under the extreme secrecy requirements of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Now a new administration, a new attorney general, and a new FBI director should investigate the materials that Abdul Basit handled while in the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989, which were taken into custody by Scotland Yard. If those materials have Yousef's fingerprints on them, then the Fox/Mylroie theory is likely wrong. But if they don't, then Yousef was probably a creature of Iraqi intelligence. Which means that Saddam still considered himself at war with the United States in 1993. And, tragically, he may still today
.

Now this doesn't invariably prove that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11, but information from a CIA director that directly links Iraq to the WTC bombing in 1993 and a plea to the the new administration, attorney general and FBI director to investigate the likely involvement of Iraq on 9/11 certainly peaks my interest, how about you?

I cannot believe that in your heart of hearts that you believe Iraq to be innocent of all dealings on terrorism. In Bushs' speach:

Quote:
Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.


ALL of America signed on for this, including you I assume. Bush explained that the War on Terrorism was to be unlike any other war, far advanced in its tactics and far more lengthy than any other war. So, it is a war, one that many people like yourself have waivered and fallen away from. Many Americans have rightly remained vigilant and still support the the War on Terrorism while others have weakened and have allowed anti-war, human rights banter cloud their judgement. What happened to the rights of those Americans buried in the rubble in the WTC? Who defends their rights? Certainly not you. If you cannot stay with the program, if you cannot stomach the tough stuff that is involved with destroying terrorism or nations that support it, you are no use to the American cause, the cause of protecting our citizens from harm at home and abroad. We will protect Americans at ALL COSTS, and that is to include "ENOLA GAY" as you so cleverly referenced.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Leftist majority and some that call themselves independents, care more about the rights of terrorists and nations that support terrorism, than the rights of those that were murdered in NY, DC, and PA. Simple as that. These people use the guise of "supporting the troops, by bringing them home," as their vehicle to promote the anti-war agenda that really doesn't care much for the soldiers at all. Sisy, you say that you grew up in the Vietnam era, well what do you have to say to those that would spit on our troops when they returned home? Calling them baby killers, etc. These are the people that are leading the charge today in the leftist regime!

Stay the course, elect those that are going to keep the pressure on terrorists and their support. Do you honestly think that Obama has the stomach for it?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:31 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Piratefan13 wrote:
I cannot believe that in your heart of hearts that you believe Iraq to be innocent of all dealings on terrorism.


Especially considering he touts himself as a "gray" thinker.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
Why? To me it's always okay to be a war hero. To Republicans, it's okay now. It wasn't okay in 2004 when Kerry opposed them, and it wasn't in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush in the primaries.


You have to be kidding me... Are you speculating that Kerry was a war hero? Man, you are even more delusional than I thought. And frankly, the use of Kerry and McCain in the same sentence when it has anything to do with war and being a hero is extremely disrespectful to McCain and our intelligence.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
I have the feeling that the silence is about to become deafening.


What, you thought you got me??? What's funny about that, is your arrogance completely clouds your judgment, perceiving that if you write it, its gospel. That in itself is what I find amusing.

I read your posts on the Pirates and many of them I agree with, but I just can't get over the arroagance that exudes from your writing style. I would liken it to Bullishhitter, if he actually had more than one point.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
You served in the military. I assume that means that you were willing to die for your beliefs if necessary. The terrorists are willing to die for their beliefs, and that death is a certainty. That is not cowardice.


Ohhh, so now you are putting me in the same regard as a terrorist. Now you've really crossed the line, whatever credibility that you had with me is lost in this comment alone. My willingness to die for my country and for my beliefs are fundamentally different from terrorists in the simple matter of humanity. I would die to protect the very civilians and way of life the terrorists aim to destroy. Terroism aims to disrupt, to destroy, Americans aim to protect, to inspire. To die in the killing of defensless civilians is not honorable, its cowardice, through and through. Regardless of whose beliefs are right or wrong. The honorable way to die would be to fight armed Americans, toe to toe. That would allow me to have respect for their death. Otherwise, they are cowards to me.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
Apparently you are another one of those black and white Republicans. The kind who thinks that everything can be seen in black and white, and that there is no such thing as grey. Sorry, but it is quite possible to attack the right without being on the left. Or haven't you heard of the center? Of course, since I'm reacting so negatively towards the right, I can't be from the center, because that would mean that the world isn't just black and white, wouldn't it?


Its even possible to attack the Right from the Right, so what is your point. I am not thrilled with what some Republicans stand for, but the McCain/Palin ticket gives more credibility to word "change." Obama and his idea of change would be to obtain "power" for himself and his party only to apply it ways that would demoralize this great nation, turning it into the laughing stock of the world.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:53 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Piratefan13 wrote:
Quote:
Why? To me it's always okay to be a war hero. To Republicans, it's okay now. It wasn't okay in 2004 when Kerry opposed them, and it wasn't in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush in the primaries.


You have to be kidding me... Are you speculating that Kerry was a war hero? Man, you are even more delusional than I thought. And frankly, the use of Kerry and McCain in the same sentence when it has anything to do with war and being a hero is extremely disrespectful to McCain and our intelligence.


P13: Do we really want to get into debating the degree of "war hero"? I think McCain had it worse than most, but I'm not terribly comfortable saying Kerry wasn't a hero. There are conflicting reports for sure, but he was there, he suffered wounds, and he apparently served two tours. In my mind, either you were there, or you weren't. A cook who did his or her time behind the lines is a war hero in my opinion. I'm more interested in what he did when he got back to the States.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
That zipping sound you just heard was my point flying past your head.


That zipping sound is going to be the zipper closing up the coroner bag after you get caught in one of those "honorable" terrorist attacks here on American soil after Obama gets elected.


I don't need to prove that Iraq didn't have WMDs. George Bush proved that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

But I'll be glad to prove to you that Iraq didn't have WMDs if you'll do one thing for me first. Prove that there is not a live purple dinosaur living in my closet.

Whatever relationship that you and Barney have in your closet is not for me to address or judge, sorry man, that's your deal...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Argentum wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
Quote:
Why? To me it's always okay to be a war hero. To Republicans, it's okay now. It wasn't okay in 2004 when Kerry opposed them, and it wasn't in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush in the primaries.


You have to be kidding me... Are you speculating that Kerry was a war hero? Man, you are even more delusional than I thought. And frankly, the use of Kerry and McCain in the same sentence when it has anything to do with war and being a hero is extremely disrespectful to McCain and our intelligence.


P13: Do we really want to get into debating the degree of "war hero"? I think McCain had it worse than most, but I'm not terribly comfortable saying Kerry wasn't a hero. There are conflicting reports for sure, but he was there, he suffered wounds, and he apparently served two tours. In my mind, either you were there, or you weren't. A cook who did his or her time behind the lines is a war hero in my opinion. I'm more interested in what he did when he got back to the States.


OK Argentum, I am completely and inexplicably wrong in that statement, I was insensitive to the notion that Kerry actually did serve his country in war, and that itself qualifies him as a hero. Reprimand accepted.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
sisyphus wrote:
Argentum wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
In my opinion the best case scenario for this falls elections would leave us with Obama in the White House and the Republicans in control of either the Senate or the House. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to be committed to losing even more seats in congress.


Yeah sure, you hope the Repubs grab one of the chambers. I almost believe that. At least Palin refused the bridge. You're trying to sell me one! :lol:

You should have no problem believing that if you believe that Palin refused the bridge. I guess that you believed her when she said this:

"I signed major ethics reforms and I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

Congress killed the bridge to nowhere project in November of 2005, as outlined in this story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/polit ... ref=slogin

Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska, November of 2006, and took office in December.

You wanna tell me again how Palin refused the bridge when Congress killed it 13 months before she took office?



Jim Demint of the Wall Street Journal writes:
Quote:
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:24 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Piratefan13 wrote:
OK Argentum, I am completely and inexplicably wrong in that statement, I was insensitive to the notion that Kerry actually did serve his country in war, and that itself qualifies him as a hero. Reprimand accepted.


Not a reprimand at all. I've never served, so my opinion in this regard should not hold as much weight as yours, or Sisy's brother for that matter. I'm just a dude who thinks that anyone that makes the decision to serve their country is a hero. Sorry if I offended you, seriously.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Argentum wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
OK Argentum, I am completely and inexplicably wrong in that statement, I was insensitive to the notion that Kerry actually did serve his country in war, and that itself qualifies him as a hero. Reprimand accepted.


Not a reprimand at all. I've never served, so my opinion in this regard should not hold as much weight as yours, or Sisy's brother for that matter. I'm just a dude who thinks that anyone that makes the decision to serve their country is a hero. Sorry if I offended you, seriously.


No offense at all Argentum, I was wrong. SImple as that.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Oh what the hell. Why not add some healthcare, social security, and global warming to this discussion? :lol:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7288
and sprinkle in some abortion rights too, and top it with gay marriage!!!

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Image

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:07 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Well I'm glad to see people other than Sisy, P13, and myself are actually reading this thread to nowhere. But the comments were funny and added levity to a thread desperately needing it.

I'm a good sport, so I'll let Sisy have the last say and officially withdrawal from this arena with peace and honor............


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:11 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Willton wrote:
Image


Econo, that is a great picture. I had that EXACT exchange with my wife Tuesday night, no crap. My wife thinks I'm an idiot, Sisy would probably like her.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Argentum wrote:
Willton wrote:
Image


Econo, that is a great picture. I had that EXACT exchange with my wife Tuesday night, no crap. My wife thinks I'm an idiot, Sisy would probably like her.



Hah!! I'm guilty! Nice heated debate. I'm out too. My fingers hurt from typing so much.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits