REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Where they get their talking points

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2008 19:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2493
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, October 9, 2008 5:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


whoZIT is channeling Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter: Pull the Hair Plug on This Guy
Rap is channeling Sarah Palin, Amanda Carpenter Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, among others
Amanda Carpenter : McCain Zings Obama at Debate (but refrained from mentioning Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers)
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: The Obama-Ayers Connection

***************************************************************

BTW: You can't handle the truth !

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 9, 2008 7:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Don't forget Stormfront - a lot of points seem to be culled from discussions there as well.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 9, 2008 6:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, having read the sites, I predict more of the same ... lots about Ayers and ACORN, some about others ...
... also people saying that all of the left-wing loonies are just too hypersensitive and the McCain campaign has never played the race card. Oh, and Obama is a 'radical'.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 9, 2008 6:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yeah, those darned hypersensitive liberals... Getting all bent out of shape about Palin allegedly being referred to in the "lipstick on a pig" comment.

I can't believe they aren't foaming at the mouth about Obama saying yesterday that "we need a steady hand" in the White House - CLEARLY he was slighting McCain for being old and frail!

Whoops. Now I've done it...

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Actually, when it comes to politics, I'm most likely to listen to a lot of talk radio, rarely ever watching cable news.

Bill Bennett starts the day, followed by Neal Boortz or Laura Ingraham. Dennis Miller comes on at 10, and then at noon, there's Rush Limbaugh. After that, I'm as informed as pretty much anyone outside of D.C.






It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 3:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Which is to say - clueless.

Instead of participating in the circle jerk, mutual ego stroke of dimwits preaching their ignorant little gospel to each other, perhaps you might consider collating your data from multiple sources that do not agree, or even hate each others positions, to clarify the truth of the matter.

Up till a couple years ago, the newswires I had access to would send the raw story data to local affiliates as-is, so they could put their own spin on it before expressing it to the public in desired form - thus giving rise to why I find Sinclair so despicable, but still, that was useful as a source of just the plain, bald facts of a matter, something no one seems willing to offer nowadays.

You're certainly not gonna be well informed if you go cherry picking folks who already tell you what you wanna hear, that's as moronic as trusting MEMRI for translations.

I've no issue with taking information from either end of the spectrum, nor muckrakers, or the radical fringe, but I make my own decisions based on personal investigation and confirmation of that information - a step which, if skipped, will always come back to bite you on the ass.

The good part about not taking sides is that you're less likely to succumb to willfull blindness on an issue.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 4:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I got no problem taking sides. I know from where I come on the issue, and why. Some fear what others will say if you take a strong position on an issue. I say those in the middle end up being painted yellow or road kill.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 4:38 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


The problem with going either Right or Left on any issue is that you end up being an extreemist.

The "middle road" is usually categorized as being lukewarm, mostly by the fringe, but it is in the middle where the truth is laid bare.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 4:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Some fear what others will say if you take a strong position on an issue. I say those in the middle end up being painted yellow or road kill.

On THAT, we have an accord, cause I'd rather someone actually express a position I disagree with, than tap dance around expressing any at all.

I hate that shit.

And Wulf, yer lookin at it all wrong, like a line, or a box, limited - when political position is in fact a canvass as infinate as the human mind.

I am neither left, nor right and yet both radical and extreme, in a fashion that doesn't quite fit into those pre-established boxes.

In practice, I guess you'd call me a rabid constitutional minimalist - which the closest paralell in the line or box school of thought would be "Militant Centrist", which in fact, I ain't.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 4:54 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


I was looking at if from a perspective of finding the truth. Which, unfortunatly, is hardly ever found and ALWAYS up for debate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 5:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I was looking at if from a perspective of finding the truth. Which, unfortunatly, is hardly ever found and ALWAYS up for debate.




Hard to reign in something like 'TRUTH' in that game of politics. What usually happens is folks lean toward that which best supports their political view point. But how a person arrives at choosing a particular view ponit is another matter. Much of it has to do w/ how they perceive the world, and what they think is the best way to achieve some idealistic goal. Problem is, we don't all see things equally. Some say giving clean needles to a drug addict is an act of 'kindness' Others view it as enabling a horrible disease, which will end up only destroying the drug user and hurting those closest to them.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 7:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

I was looking at if from a perspective of finding the truth. Which, unfortunatly, is hardly ever found and ALWAYS up for debate.

Ah, Political Deism, always a solid choice.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 7:33 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The "middle road" is usually categorized as being lukewarm, mostly by the fringe, but it is in the middle where the truth is laid bare."

And sometimes the truth is extreme, and your middle of the road path will miss it completely. Truth is where you find it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 7:41 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
whoZIT is channeling Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter: Pull the Hair Plug on This Guy
Rap is channeling Sarah Palin, Amanda Carpenter Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, among others
Amanda Carpenter : McCain Zings Obama at Debate (but refrained from mentioning Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers)
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: The Obama-Ayers Connection

***************************************************************

BTW: You can't handle the truth !

Can I channel Summer Glau instead?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 7:47 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Political Deism"? What do you mean?


Also, Rue, tell me one issue where the truth or the solution is NOT somewhere isn the middle of 2 opposing viewpoints?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 8:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Actually, when it comes to politics, I'm most likely to listen to a lot of talk radio, rarely ever watching cable news.

Bill Bennett starts the day, followed by Neal Boortz or Laura Ingraham. Dennis Miller comes on at 10, and then at noon, there's Rush Limbaugh. After that, I'm as informed as pretty much anyone outside of D.C.



And you say WE listen to biased sources!

Just kiddin' ya. You have a point - we DO tend to listen to the news shows that reinforce our beliefs. I do it too. Probably the most bipartisan show I listen to is "Fresh Air" on NPR, because Terry Gross will often have two guests on the show - one from each side of an issue, back to back in the same one-hour show.

I wake up to Morning Joe on MSNBC (Don't freak out - he was a REPUBLICAN Congressman) and CBS's morning show if I can stomach it, then NPR for the drive to work. At work, I have my pick, since I put satellite radio in the warehouse. I generally go with CNN or NPR, occassionally trying Sirius Left - which I really hate becuase it's NOT left-wing liberal radio, it's just a bunch of talking heads bashing every Democrat out there and saying that THEIR Democrat is better than YOUR Democrat.

At 3:00pm, it's back to NPR for Terry Gross's "Fresh Air" interview show, followed by "All Things Considered".

5:30 I've got the network news on while doing chores and getting dinner ready. Usually it's NBC or ABC, since Couric really gets on my nerves.

I Tivo "Countdown" and Rachel Maddow's show to watch later, and I'll check in with O'Reilly and Hannity to see what they're babbling on about. And I'll mix in a bit of CNN just for spice, with some BBC News on the side.

And that's just the radio and TV. What can I say? I'm a news and politics junkie. Mix in local newspapers, Time and Newsweek, The Nation, Vanity Fair, etc., and I've covered just about every side of the issue.

And online, I tend to check in with the Huffington Post once a week maybe.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 8:17 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Actually, when it comes to politics, I'm most likely to listen to a lot of talk radio, rarely ever watching cable news.

Bill Bennett starts the day, followed by Neal Boortz or Laura Ingraham. Dennis Miller comes on at 10, and then at noon, there's Rush Limbaugh. After that, I'm as informed as pretty much anyone outside of D.C.



And you say WE listen to biased sources!

Just kiddin' ya. You have a point - we DO tend to listen to the news shows that reinforce our beliefs. I do it too. Probably the most bipartisan show I listen to is "Fresh Air" on NPR, because Terry Gross will often have two guests on the show - one from each side of an issue, back to back in the same one-hour show.

I wake up to Morning Joe on MSNBC (Don't freak out - he was a REPUBLICAN Congressman) and CBS's morning show if I can stomach it, then NPR for the drive to work. At work, I have my pick, since I put satellite radio in the warehouse. I generally go with CNN or NPR, occassionally trying Sirius Left - which I really hate becuase it's NOT left-wing liberal radio, it's just a bunch of talking heads bashing every Democrat out there and saying that THEIR Democrat is better than YOUR Democrat.

At 3:00pm, it's back to NPR for Terry Gross's "Fresh Air" interview show, followed by "All Things Considered".

5:30 I've got the network news on while doing chores and getting dinner ready. Usually it's NBC or ABC, since Couric really gets on my nerves.

I Tivo "Countdown" and Rachel Maddow's show to watch later, and I'll check in with O'Reilly and Hannity to see what they're babbling on about. And I'll mix in a bit of CNN just for spice, with some BBC News on the side.

And that's just the radio and TV. What can I say? I'm a news and politics junkie. Mix in local newspapers, Time and Newsweek, The Nation, Vanity Fair, etc., and I've covered just about every side of the issue.

And online, I tend to check in with the Huffington Post once a week maybe.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

It's Hannity & Combs, they put a lib in there just for you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 9:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I got no problem taking sides.
No shit.
Quote:

I know from where I come on the issue, and why
Really? Because when I drill you with questions, you typically have no answers.
Quote:

Some fear what others will say if you take a strong position on an issue. I say those in the middle end up being painted yellow or road kill.
This is your problem- you see the world in terms of "sides" ... "my side", "your side".

Well, guess what- The world doesn't take sides. It is as it is. By reducing everything to "agrees with my side- accept/ disagrees with my side- reject" you miss vital information about what's really going on. And therefore your opinions about what is wrong and what to do about it are often horrifically off-the-mark.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 10:23 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Deism, is a religious belief that's essentially...
"I don't know, but I mean to figure it out, by myself, and for myself."

Once you strip away all the flowery words, that's prettymuch what it is.
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

And it's not a bad attitude to take towards politics at all, as doesn't require one to accept the value judgements of anyone else above their own.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 11:42 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

It's Hannity & Combs, they put a lib in there just for you.




Actually, it's Hannity & COLMES. And Colmes just freaks me right the fuck out. Something about him. He reminds me of that creepy-ass actor that played the Sheriff in "Invasion". Never liked that guy.

Mike



This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 11:45 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

It's Hannity & Combs, they put a lib in there just for you.




Actually, it's Hannity & COLMES. And Colmes just freaks me right the fuck out. Something about him. He reminds me of that creepy-ass actor that played the Sheriff in "Invasion". Never liked that guy.

Mike



This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

Then MSNBC is where you want to be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 1:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Then MSNBC is where you want to be.



Oh, I get plenty enough of them, but that's more in the entertainment vein than it is real news. Countdown, Maddow, occasionally Hardball with Chris Matthews or David Gregory's Race for the White House. All can be entertaining, but can't take too much of them on the same night, since they all cover the same things ad nauseum.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 3:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Really? Because when I drill you with questions, you typically have no answers.


Sig, I have answers that you don't like, but that doesn't dismiss them from being answers.
And seldome do you " drill me with questions " , they're more ad hominems in the form of a question, which is a world of difference.


Quote:

This is your problem- you see the world in terms of "sides" ... "my side", "your side".

Well, guess what- The world doesn't take sides. It is as it is. By reducing everything to "agrees with my side- accept/ disagrees with my side- reject" you miss vital information about what's really going on. And therefore your opinions about what is wrong and what to do about it are often horrifically off-the-mark.


I tend to see the world as it IS, not as how some want to tell me it is. Folks don't always like my answers, because they aren't always the easy answers.
Name for me ONE opinion about which I'm " horrifically " off - the - mark, and explain WHY.

If ya can, that is.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 3:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Rap,

May I suggest that if you have to propagandize yourself so heavily to keep your worldview pure and your beliefs intact, then neither is very well founded.



***************************************************************

BTW: You can't handle the truth !

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 6:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sig, I have answers that you don't like, but that doesn't dismiss them from being answers.
I have asked you repeatedly to quote the part of Resolution 1441 that either directly authorizes the invasion of Iraq or allows authorizaiton under previous resolutions. You have never, and CAN never, because it's not there. But, hey... feel free to show me the evidence for your "point" that the UN authorized the invasion of Iraq.

I could go on at length about the other questions that you haven't answered, but everybody here knows what I'm talking about except you.
Quote:

I tend to see the world as it IS, not as how some want to tell me it is. Folks don't always like my answers, because they aren't always the easy answers.
Name for me ONE opinion about which I'm " horrifically " off - the - mark, and explain WHY.

I could name you a half-dozen off the bat.

The so-called UN authorization of the Iraq invasion. As of Resolution 1441, which was their last resolution on the topic, you have been unable to quote the part of the resolution which authorizes what you so fervently believe. Lookit- It's either there, or it's not. If it's there, quote it.

The economy being "on fire" and Federal revenues being up thanks to Bush's tax policies. In fact, in real (ie inflation-adjusted dollars) Federal revenues went DOWN and the stock market was flat. The REAL engine of the economy was not Bush's tax policies but the Fed's low low low interest rates which caused a housing bubble. As house prices inflated way beyond any reasonable price they were used to finance credit for other purchases. It's simple math: for the average homeowner, Bush's tax cut meant about $600. That simply does not compare to a rise in home value of $200,000, $300,000 $400,000 or more (in our case $660,000).

Your blaming Fannie and Freddie for the whole mess. Fannie and Freddie did NOT WRITE LOANS. In actual dollar amounts, they purchased only a fraction of the "toxic loans" that were ultimately purchased, packaged, and re-sold "off books" by banks and investment houses here and across Europe. In fact, it was Bernanke raising interest rates that popped the bubble, and the fact that CDOs and SIVs and CDSs has spread everywhere through a highly leveraged system caused the dominoes to all fall quickly.

I could go on, but I'm tired of typing. So address these in detail.

If you can.







---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 7:07 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Probably the most bipartisan show I listen to is "Fresh Air" on NPR, because Terry Gross will often have two guests on the show - one from each side of an issue, back to back in the same one-hour show.



You know, I like Terry Gross. She's a good interviewer and I tend to enjoy Fresh Air. But this 'one from each side' crap is a real pet peeve of mine. It's become the modern substitute for objective journalism. 'Bipartisan' does not mean 'fair' or 'objective' and it hardly ever gives us a thorough look at an issue. All too often, left and right are of a like mind on an issue that's totally screwing the public. Can you say "Paulson Bailout"?

This was the whole point of Jon Stewart's amazing confrontation with the Crossfire goons a few years back. Unfortunately the very sobering point he was trying to make was lost in the spectacle of it all, but at least they did end up canceling the show. But the concept behind it is still accepted as an "objective" way to present contentious issues.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 8:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA


See, that's the thing - that particular kind of "objective"... it ain't.

Especially when they're offering hard-right, and right-light, as if they were opposite ends of the spectrum or that old trick of Sinclair, which seems to have fallen out of favor these days, of offering a moderate conservative up against someone so far left they're downright screwy, or someone who's out and out screwy and simply assigning them to the left, more or less strawmanning a loaded discussion in the first place.

But really, what sense is there in offering the choice of Coke or Pepsi to someone who's lookin for a bottle of Sprite ?


Now me, I don't even pretend to be objective, hell yes I have an agenda, and it would be a foolish thing to take my word for what it is, if I even bother to express it in the first place.

Call it obscure if ya like, but that's a hell of a lot more honest an answer than you'd ever get outta most folk, when you think about it.

Everyone's got an agenda, and most of em will lie to you about it, if they admit to having one at all - far better to be up front about it and by that enable alliances on points where yours runs concurrent with someone elses, like second amendment rights, or corporate personhood, without requiring either side to sell themselves short for your other interests or vice versa.

Deception is never a good way to gain or keep alliances, because the very act itself poisons the level of trust needed to work functionally on an issue.

And that is why folk with disparate interests are so damn ineffective even when they try to work together - it's the lies, you see, that we tell each other, and even ourselves, and by that action destroy our own effectiveness.


It's also why the mainstream media, especially newspapers, is in a death spiral - folks have been lied to, and thanks to the internet, and those media companies no longer having a total lock on the information that reaches the public, something they're very much wailing and gnashing teeth about while trying to strangle the net with legislation...

They got caught at it, repeatedly, and much of the public no longer trusts them, whereas the folks who did try to expose the truth, even if they failed or mucked it up badly, have seen an explosion in popularity as a direct result, and most of those sites - they don't hold a pretense of being "objective" either, they tell you right up front which way they lean, most of em.

So false objectivism is a dead-end street, and it's time most folk acknowledged that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 10, 2008 10:16 PM

KHYRON


Off topic, but SignyM, somebody stole your signature:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-stein/party-like-its-1929_b_1319
44.html


------------------------------

Trolls Against McCain, my friends.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

May I suggest that if you have to propagandize yourself so heavily to keep your worldview pure and your beliefs intact, then neither is very well founded.





You may do as you wish, but you'd be ever so wrong.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Sig, I have answers that you don't like, but that doesn't dismiss them from being answers.
I have asked you repeatedly to quote the part of Resolution 1441 that either directly authorizes the invasion of Iraq or allows authorizaiton under previous resolutions. You have never, and CAN never, because it's not there. But, hey... feel free to show me the evidence for your "point" that the UN authorized the invasion of Iraq.



You're right, I can't quote what you're asking or, because that's not how the Resolutions were written. Don't blame me, blame the U.N. But I have answered your question as to how the various Resolutions all refer back to each other, and that 'ANY MEMBER NATION' may take necessary force to see to it that Saddam complies. The USA, along with 30 some other member nations, did EXACTLY THAT. Sorry you don't like the answer, sorry it's not how you wanted it packaged, but that's exactly how it is.

Quote:


I could go on at length about the other questions that you haven't answered, but everybody here knows what I'm talking about except you.
Quote:

I tend to see the world as it IS, not as how some want to tell me it is. Folks don't always like my answers, because they aren't always the easy answers.
Name for me ONE opinion about which I'm " horrifically " off - the - mark, and explain WHY.

I could name you a half-dozen off the bat.

The so-called UN authorization of the Iraq invasion. As of Resolution 1441, which was their last resolution on the topic, you have been unable to quote the part of the resolution which authorizes what you so fervently believe. Lookit- It's either there, or it's not. If it's there, quote it.

The economy being "on fire" and Federal revenues being up thanks to Bush's tax policies. In fact, in real (ie inflation-adjusted dollars) Federal revenues went DOWN and the stock market was flat. The REAL engine of the economy was not Bush's tax policies but the Fed's low low low interest rates which caused a housing bubble. As house prices inflated way beyond any reasonable price they were used to finance credit for other purchases. It's simple math: for the average homeowner, Bush's tax cut meant about $600. That simply does not compare to a rise in home value of $200,000, $300,000 $400,000 or more (in our case $660,000).



First, the economy was doing extremely well, according to some economist. ( And yes, we know all about opinions of economist ) It was expanding at a healthy, but not explosive clip, which is actually more desireable to the health of a country's economy. Too much expansion, runs the risk of inflation. You can't argue that there wasn't any growth, as there was. Regardless of whether you adjust for inlfation or not, it's the same way it's been calculated for ever, so that anlge won't fly. Low unemployment, expansion in the GDP, high end factory orders in big ticket items, and a strong growth in the stock market after the recession of 2001, there' no question the economy was healthy. Funny how in just 2 yrs after the Dems took over the Congress / Senate, we ran into troulbe. Just about the length of time it took for their management style to take effect. Imagine that.

Low interest rates may have lead to the houseing bubble, but don't blame that for what Fannie and Freddie did.

Quote:

Your blaming Fannie and Freddie for the whole mess. Fannie and Freddie did NOT WRITE LOANS. In actual dollar amounts, they purchased only a fraction of the "toxic loans" that were ultimately purchased, packaged, and re-sold "off books" by banks and investment houses here and across Europe. In fact, it was Bernanke raising interest rates that popped the bubble, and the fact that CDOs and SIVs and CDSs has spread everywhere through a highly leveraged system caused the dominoes to all fall quickly.




I never said Fannie/ Freddie 'wrote' loans, but they did buy them up, and then inflated their value, which is a real bad thing to do. Bush tried back in '03 to set up stronger Gov't overview of Fannie and Freddie, but the Dems blocked it, saying all is well. I trust I need not post Barney Frank's infamous quotes.





It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 11, 2008 6:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You're right, I can't quote what you're asking or, because that's not how the Resolutions were written. Don't blame me, blame the U.N. But I have answered your question as to how the various Resolutions all refer back to each other, and that 'ANY MEMBER NATION' may take necessary force to see to it that Saddam complies. The USA, along with 30 some other member nations, did EXACTLY THAT. Sorry you don't like the answer, sorry it's not how you wanted it packaged, but that's exactly how it is.
And I get back to: Did you READ the Resolution? Because they DO refer back to each other, but Resolution 1441 refers back to the others to PREVENT member nations from acting on the old Resolutions. It says, basically Recalling {all previous Resolutions on the topic and mentions them by number} and Deploring {that Saddam is a bastard who didn't keep up his end of the bargain and who terrorizes his own people} we now decide {to give him one last chance to show that he doesn't have WMD} In other words... how can I possibly make it any clearer?... all that shit happened in the past so this is what we do from now on. Get it????

Here, read it for yourself and show me how that Resolution can possibly be interpreted any other way. If you can't, deal with it, and square your mind up to reality.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

I'll get back on the other stuff.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 13, 2008 10:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

This was the whole point of Jon Stewart's amazing confrontation with the Crossfire goons a few years back. Unfortunately the very sobering point he was trying to make was lost in the spectacle of it all, but at least they did end up canceling the show.

I went and dug up the transcript to have a looksee, and I must say, he really cranked em in the balls, didn't he ?

They had it comin though.

Read it for yourself, if ya like.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htm

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:09 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
And I get back to: Did you READ the Resolution? Because they DO refer back to each other, but Resolution 1441 refers back to the others to PREVENT member nations from acting on the old Resolutions. It says, basically Recalling {all previous Resolutions on the topic and mentions them by number} and Deploring {that Saddam is a bastard who didn't keep up his end of the bargain and who terrorizes his own people} we now decide {to give him one last chance to show that he doesn't have WMD} In other words... how can I possibly make it any clearer?... all that shit happened in the past so this is what we do from now on. Get it????

Wow. That’s wishful thinking, much like the bending the interpretation of the Second Amendment to apply only to military. 1441 basically says given the past events and Saddam’s unreliable nature, we now give him one last chance. That was the nature of the resolution. The ambiguous wording was forced by the French and Russians who of course were willing to let Saddam do anything he wanted to do to sustain their lucrative oil contracts. But the idea that 1441 forgives Saddam Hussein of has past transgressions is such a twisted interpretation it could only come from desperate mind. Just to reiterate, 1441 does not nor was it ever intended to forgive Saddam Hussein of his past deeds, as Signym claims. That was never, never the case.

1441 stated that Iraq was not only in material breach of the ceasefire, but also relating to WMDs and illegal import of weapons and in its refusal to compensate Kuwait (all previous resolutions). 1441 stated that Iraq made false statements and omissions to avoid cooperation with weapon’s inspectors and in fulfilling obligations to previous resolutions. 1441 did NOT forgive Saddam Hussein of past resolutions, 1441 condemned Saddam Hussein of failure to comply with those past resolutions. And in failure to comply to those past resolutions we give him one final opportunity to do so.

From Resolution 1441:
Quote:

1441 "[d]ecides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"

1441 "[d]ecides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"





Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 6:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, but one last chance means ONE LAST CHANCE, NOT "invasion". UNMOVIC was there to determine if Saddam had met the terms of that last chance. We interrrupted that determination by invading. You may not like the Resolution, you may feel that it should have said something else, and you can blame Russia and France all you want, but the fact is the Resolution said ONE LAST CHANCE so deal with it already!

BTW, there is nothing "ambiguous" about Resolution 1441 and only your wishful thinking makes it seem so. If you want to see what UN Resolutions look which ACTUALLY authorize use of force, read these:
Quote:

The Security Council tonight, acting in response to the deteriorating political, security and humanitarian situation in Haiti, authorized the immediate deployment of Multinational Interim Force for a period of three months to help to secure and stabilize the capital, Port-au-Prince, and elsewhere in the country.


www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8015.doc.htm
That was pretty clear, right? How about this?
Quote:

Reaffirming its resolutions 713 (1991) of 25 September 1991, 721 (1991) of 27 November 1991, 724 (1991) of 15 December 1991, 727 (1992) of 8 January 1992 and 740 (1992) of 7 February 1992,

Noting the report of the Secretary-General of 15 February 1992 (S/23592) submitted pursuant to resolution 721 (1991), and the request of the Government of Yugoslavia (S/23240) for a peace-keeping operation referred to in that resolution,

Noting in particular that the Secretary-General considers that the conditions permitting the early deployment of a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) are met and welcoming his recommendation that this Force should be established with immediate effect,

Expressing its gratitude to the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy for their contribution to the achievement of conditions facilitating the deployment of a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and their continuing commitment to this effort,

Concerned that the situation in Yugoslavia continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security, as determined in resolution 713 (1991),

Recalling its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling also the provisions of Article 25 Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations,

Commending again the efforts undertaken by the European Community and its member States, with the support of the States participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, through the convening of a Conference on Yugoslavia, including the mechanisms set forth within it, to ensure a peaceful political settlement,

Convinced that the implementation of the United Nations peace-keeping plan (S/23280, annex III) will assist the Conference on Yugoslavia in reaching a peaceful political settlement,

1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General of 15 February 1992 (S/23592);

2. Decides to establish, under its authority, a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in accordance with the above-mentioned report and the United Nations peace-keeping plan and requests the Secretary-General to take the measures necessary to ensure its earliest possible deployment;

www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres743.html

The reason why I quote so much of that resolution is to show you that UN Resolutions are typically written as ...

Recalls that...
Noting that....
Commends....
Deploring that...
etc. etc....
Decides

So previous Resolutions and past history ARE referenced in UN Resolutions, but the "action" part is the one that follows the phrase Decides.

Capice? (Prolly not but- oh well. I tried.)


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well Finn and Rapo, I see you decided to let this sink into ingominious history.

Good choice!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Okay guys... one last chance to get your licks in! Otherwise, can we please consider the subject closed?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay guys... one last chance to get your licks in! Otherwise, can we please consider the subject closed?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.



I already closed this subject YEARS ago. Why you keep trying to make it an issue, is beyond me.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:



Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.


Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01122004.html




It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Saint Rap, self-appointed martyr for the 'truth', hypocrisy practitioner and racist bigot

You apparently don't understand that later resolutions supersede earlier ones. Also, as a matter of FACT (something you seem to have trouble with) NO nation is allowed to go to war under guise of UN authority without a SPECIFIC mandate from the UN.

***************************************************************

BTW: You can't handle the truth !

You really can't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yep. Apparently neither Rapo nor Boortz understands "supersede".

RAPO (HINT)- Supersede: replace, supplant, set aside or cause to be set aside as void, make obsolete, succeed to the position, take the place of, displace in favor of another....

Might want to ask Hero about that!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So... Is it dead yet?????

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sorry, they don't automatically supersede if there's a direct reference towards other resolutions, as is written.

You have no case.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:40 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So previous Resolutions and past history ARE referenced in UN Resolutions, but the "action" part is the one that follows the phrase Decides.

Capice? (Prolly not but- oh well. I tried.)

Yes, you have no case. You’re desperately grasping at straws, and still falling flat. I understand perfectly.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 6:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess you don't understand the concept of superseding either?

Resolution 1441 supersedes all previous resolutions. And Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a last chance. Whether of not they met those "last chance" conditions was in the process of being determined by UNMOVIC. OUR INVASION interrupted that determination.

It's really quite simple, and I don't see what you don't understand about it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW- For your information, even the Bush administration recognizes that the Resolution 1441 timetable supersedes all previous resolutions:
Quote:

... "That deadline was part of a 1999 resolution that has been superseded by the timetable laid out in resolution 1441, " a White House official told The Sunday Tribune.
There are many examples of later UN Resolutions superseding previous ones:
Quote:

However, in the UN, resolutions can be superseded by newer resolutions and it is obvious that claims of "right to return" in resolution 192 (1948) are superseded by section 2b of resolution 242 (1967), where the refugee problem is to be solved with a "just settlement" which is likely to include compensation, but unlikely the "right of return".

http://israel-arab_conflict.tripod.com/UNresolutions.html
Quote:

While it remains to be seen whether or how UN Security Council Resolution 1696 will be enforced, the resolution itself renders Iran’s legal arguments hollow. Whatever the merits of these arguments before UN Resolution 1696, the resolution itself supersedes them.

www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18636&prog
=zgp&proj=znpp



---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess you don't understand the concept of superseding either?

Based on what you’ve said here, I know you don’t. A resolution does not necessary supersede any previous resolution, certainly not just simply because it’s necessary to fit in your ideology. You underlined the truth in your own post, but still don’t seem to grasp it. In the end, this is just all about a desperate need to see something a certain way, regardless of how it actually looks.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Based on what you’ve said here, I know you don’t. A resolution does not necessary supersede any previous resolution, certainly not just simply because it’s necessary to fit in your ideology.
I guess you were incapable of reading the quote FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION that I posted, which AGREES that R1441 superseded previous Resolutions? The Blair administration agreed on that point as well.

R 1441 supersedes the previous Resolutions because of the way it was written. I found several DIRECT quote on R1441 (altho I only posted one) and a couple of other examples on supersision. You can find more, if you're at all interested in the truth. So deal with it, alright already! You look like a moron.



---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Based on what you’ve said here, I know you don’t. A resolution does not necessary supersede any previous resolution, certainly not just simply because it’s necessary to fit in your ideology.
I guess you were incapable of reading the quote FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION that I posted, which AGREES that R1441 superseded previous Resolutions? The Blair administration agreed on that point as well.

R 1441 supersedes the previous Resolutions because of the way it was written. I found several DIRECT quote on R1441 (altho I only posted one) and a couple of other examples on supersision. You can find more, if you're at all interested in the truth. So deal with it, alright already! You look like a moron.

So suddenly, you’re a believer in the Bush Administration, and in George Bush no less. I guess that makes you a neocon.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So suddenly, you’re a believer in the Bush Administration, and in George Bush no less. I guess that makes you a neocon.
No, what I'm saying is that the interpretation that R1441 superseded previous Resolutions was a universal interpretation, which even Bush and Blair agreed with, so they have no reason to point backwards to previous Resolutions, which were rendered moot.

So everyone agrees except you. And you are the ultimate expert.... how????

You can't fight facts, Finn. (Well, you CAN, but that just makes you delusional and unhappy.)



---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:57 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Well, Signym no one can master your expert understanding of the word “decides.”



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL