Truth and Reconciliation

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Truth and Reconciliation

Postby dudejcb » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:22 pm

This ought hit a nerve or two... it takes on many of the issues we talk about so thought this might be intersting or enraging. you pick.

"Scott McClellan's book What Happened has been a feast for cable talk shows and commentators everywhere, with much discussion veering off on his motives. The Bush Team went into overdrive with its smear gear. Disgruntled? Money grubbing? Out of the loop? Off his rocker? A Manchurian author controlled by his North-Korean-like publisher? In a laughable attempt to blame the radar gun for the speeder, apologists Michele Bernard and Michael Smerconish actually argued on MSNBC that the big story was whether McClellan wrote the book in order to defeat McCain.

One who got it right was New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who wrote that the issue is not the author but a "scandal and a crime" called Iraq. So since it's not flak McClellan but commander-in-chief Bush with the power of war and peace, life and death over Americans and the world, let's now focus on George, not Scott.

Understandably upset with another source exposing his falsehoods, Karl Rove went on Fox to say that McClellan "sounds like a liberal blogger." Well...yes! In fact the liberal community -- Air America, MoveOn, the Nation, the Huffington Post and scores of others -- has been completely vindicated on Iraq and Rove et. al. completely discredited. Since the Far Right likes World War II and Hitler analogies, here's one -- the left was mocked and then historically vindicated about Iraq as much as an out-of-power Churchill was when he warned about the rise of Nazi Germany. Facts are stubborn things, said President Reagan.

And on the question of W's veracity generally, again we need only stipulate what scores of books, articles and probes have shown. As Lincoln once said of a rival, "he has such a high regard for the truth he uses it sparingly."

So most of the MSM may still feel the need to engage in on-the-one-hand-on-the-other hand journalism -- "let's hear from both sides on whether the earth is flat" -- the verdict is now in. It's not only McClellan but also a slew of books on Iraq (Fiasco, Hubris) and other administration memoirs and articles (Tenet, O'Neill, Clarke, Dowd)) which confirm that Team Bush misled the press and public by using propaganda to stampede America into a war that's spurred more terrorism and led to hundreds of thousands of lost lives and limbs.

This is now the majority view. And if some 25% of Americans disagree, it's probably the same quarter that believe that NASA staged the moon landing. The verdict is in.

But now what? How can we hold Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Woo and all of them accountable? For what we have here is not just a normal failed administration or even one Nixonian Watergate but a systematically corrupt group of people who shamelessly and serially lied and violated the law. America needs to make sure that some future administration doesn't assume that they too can dissemble and cheat since W got away with doing it for two terms and retired to a life of relaxing at the ranch and being feted by AEI and the Petroleum Club of Houston.

Until the President imitates the communist party boss of Mianzhu on his knees seeking forgiveness from mothers whose children died when their shoddy schools collapsed during the recent earthquake, here are four suggestions for those who a) understand that the Congress won't impeach Bush and Cheney and b) refuse to patiently wait for the verdict of historians in 50 years, as Bush urges:

*Vote Big. Americans have to use the franchise to reject Bushism by significantly increasing the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and electing a Democratic President with a big mandate. Record primary turnouts and wrong-track polls indicate that this is a realistic prospect. Revenge is a dish best served by 140 million voters. That's a recipe that the Republican Right will understand.

*Shame 'em. The mainstream media has to stop coddling this group and not allow them to escape scrutiny with a smile and a spin - Dan Bartlett on McClellan comes to mind. So, for example, when Bush tells the Air Force Academy last week that Iraq is like World War II, could a prominent network correspondent say: "You're kidding, right? For if it's similar, why did we draft millions in 1941 and no one in 2008? Would we have fought and won WWII with 150,000 soldiers?"

*Sue. While legal rules about "standing" have so far made it hard to legally uncover all the illegalities of this regime, the Federal False Claims Act allows individual citizens to sue (it's called "Qui Tam") if the government spent money fraudulently -- and then get a percentage of any recovery. Indeed, I'd guess that a private for-profit group could raise funds to create a law firm with the sole purpose of bringing False Claims Acts against federal agencies and complicit individuals for, say, Halliburton's illegal contracts or overruns or against government officials who unlawfully spent money appropriated for Afghanistan in Iraq. Hit them in the pocketbook.

*Create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This worked in a very different historical situation of South Africa and can work here as well. There, South Africans who engaged in murder and violence were given amnesty if they confessed under oath to their crimes and knowledge...but would be prosecuted if they didn't. Of some 7110 seeking amnesty, 849 were granted it for "politically motivated" crimes...which in turn provided evidence to pressure and prosecute others. The largely successful effort led to both truth and reconciliation.

If Richard Nixon had his Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor who sent 29 aides to jail, who will investigate George W. Bush? If massive prosecutions is too big a bite for a 44th president wanting to look to the future, here's a fair, workable compromise to make sure that the past doesn't become prologue.

In 2009 a new President could choose a new Attorney General who similarly announces that s/he will prosecute past officials for unlawful acts unless they first come forward and testify under oath. Because Bushies took literally their oaths to "faithfully execute the laws," their record amounts to a near executive coup d'etat (see Charles Savage's Takeover and my Losing our Democracy, chapters 2 & 3). Such examples include:

condoning torture;
ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act;
assigning officials to politically campaign in open violation of the Hatch Act;
refusing to enforce the Clean Air Act;
spending money for propaganda as the Pentagon did in gathering former brass to hit the airwaves;
violating contracting rules by giving lucrative contracts to favored firms,
engaging in cronyism and coercion to influence prosecutions in the U.S. Attorneys
abusing signing statements.

Indeed, even mere falsehoods could be investigated if they were under oath to Congress or if they legally vouched for false budgets, as Sarbanes Oxley explicitly does for CEOs attesting to annual reports.

If what we know about lies and illegalities is largely what managed to leak out or has been disclosed by a few insiders, imagine how much more may come out when a new administration turns over 43's rock of corruption?

A TRC for the Bush-Cheney administration would be unprecedented for the U.S. But so is a government of crooks and liars who misled us into a calamitous war and openly violated the U.S. Constitution. Or is it only consensual sexual misconduct by a president that warrants the attention of investigators? The way to deter the "culture of deception" in McClellan's subtitle is a combination of voters, lawyers, prosecutors and a Truth Commission -- to vote against it, sue it, prosecute it, or expose it. Do we believe in the Rule of Law or only the 'Law' of Rule? "

Quite a mouthful huh.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho


Postby jehler » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:05 pm

sounds alot like a liberal blogger
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17517
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby pennsyltucky » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:01 pm

regardless of what it looks like to either side, he didnt speak up when it was going on, and he is now gaining huge sums of money for it. he happens to side with the left, and he handily releases it only a few months before a presidential election. c'mon. like its all just coincidence. we already know bush sucks. did we need another book on it?
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby LIGHT12 » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:10 pm

Here is a truth for everyone. George Bush is not running for reelecdtion.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:53 am

It's not about whether or not GW is running again. It's about strengthening the separation of powers and the equality of powers between the branches.

this is about whether or not this sort of fraud can be perpetuated again. If nothing is done it is tantamount to tacit consent and it likely will be repeated at some pooint; perhaps by a president you don't like. If something is done it may also happen again, but there will be a precedent set to deal with it and the remedy might be appiled more readily. We cannot allow the presidency to become more important than the law or allow the office to perpetrate fraud that results in serious consequnces for the country.

It's about restoring and adhering to the principles and mechanics laid out for our system of governance by the founders. GW and Cheney came very close to making the Presidency unnaccountable as might be the case with an emperor or king, rather than the rule of law being king.
Last edited by dudejcb on Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby LIGHT12 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:15 am

You want to know the true problem. We should never have both parties run Congress and the White House.
I am sure crap has happened. But why is it that it is viewed as so much worse under Bush than other presidents. Did Clinton not put us in Kosovo which we have never left. Did he not hand Nuclear facilities to the North Koreans. Did he not botch Wacco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing, did he not purger himself, did his general Wesley Clark not sit down and have drinks with the enempy. He did nothing when Terrorists attacked the trade towers, nothing when they attacked the USS Cole, nothing when they were offered Bin Laden on a platter.

But you are angry at Bush for cleaning up a mess, and creating another at the same time. Last I check he wasn't rounding up huge chunks of american citizens and putting them in interment camps. Which FDR did without second thought and I'm sure he is one of your Hero\s.

Now Bush cleaned out the State Department. Many of those Buearocrats had been there in there comfy desks since Carter. They did not agree with the administration, were not working with it but undermining it. Condelissa Rice finally ran a bunch of them out. Then you started hearing crap from them.

Our problem today versus years ago is, people have an agenda, and other people want to believe it because they don't like the other side. And society no longer has a level of decorum that says don't be an ass. I promise you worse things happened under Clinton than have now.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:28 am

LIGHT12 wrote:You want to know the true problem. We should never have both parties run Congress and the White House.
I am sure crap has happened. But why is it that it is viewed as so much worse under Bush than other presidents. Did Clinton not put us in Kosovo which we have never left. Did he not hand Nuclear facilities to the North Koreans. Did he not botch Wacco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing, did he not purger himself, did his general Wesley Clark not sit down and have drinks with the enempy. He did nothing when Terrorists attacked the trade towers, nothing when they attacked the USS Cole, nothing when they were offered Bin Laden on a platter.

But you are angry at Bush for cleaning up a mess, and creating another at the same time. Last I check he wasn't rounding up huge chunks of american citizens and putting them in interment camps. Which FDR did without second thought and I'm sure he is one of your Hero\s.

Now Bush cleaned out the State Department. Many of those Buearocrats had been there in there comfy desks since Carter. They did not agree with the administration, were not working with it but undermining it. Condelissa Rice finally ran a bunch of them out. Then you started hearing crap from them.

Our problem today versus years ago is, people have an agenda, and other people want to believe it because they don't like the other side. And society no longer has a level of decorum that says don't be an ass. I promise you worse things happened under Clinton than have now.


Well that's quite a non sequitur rant. let's try to stay on point.

Clinton didn't lie about the resons for Kosovo. The issu is about whether lies and distortions or truthful reasons ar behind a Prsident's call to intervene militarily and put the lives of our armed forces at risk. (Also, there were no casualites in Kosovo and there really was an "army of the willing" involved along with us.)

If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too. I wasn't happy with his bonehead move to worry about gays inthe military right off the bat, and I didn't like the lack of integrity with Monica, but that brought he and his family shame... However, it didn't materially hurt the country or cost any lives. The only costs were to himself and the millions the R's spent fueling Kenneth Starr's witch hunt... chasing Whitewater, only to find nothing, and then settling for a sleazebag sex scandal. How far off base was that, and were those tax dollars well spent?

I guess i don't really expect you to get the fundamental issues here.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:28 pm

dudejcb wrote:If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Who did Nixon hurt? I don't remember anyone being harmed. He got us out of Kennedy's unjust war, and therefore I guess saved lives, despite making it appear that we would run when it got tough.

The number of people killed in ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which was a large part of the justification, was greatly exaggerated. Was this on purpose or flawed intelligence? I have know idea.

He did bomb an aspirin factory. Clearly, he lied when he said it was a chemical weapon site, when it has never been proven that it was. This just couldn't have been flawed intelligence or disinformation.

Starr put a lot more people in jail than most independent councils. He may have put more people in jail than all of them combined. It wasn't like these were meaningless probes.

Valerie Plame - no underlying crime but Scooter Libbey couldn't get his facts straight, whether purposefully or not, had no impact on the fact that an enemy of the neocons had released her name, which wasn't illegal to do anyways, which everybody already knew before the probe even started. I think this was the only Bush inner circle to be convicted of anything.

I don't understand what the President can and cannot lie about. We know for a fact that Clinton lied under oath. A crime that most of us would go to jail for. He made statements under oath that he absolutely knew were untrue. I think this is a career ender, but apparently that just makes you a beloved Democratic icon.

I still can't figure out what Bush said that he knew was untrue at the time he said it. The world thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. The British did think something fishy was going on when Iraqi was discussing economic relations with a country that pretty much only exports uranium.

What did he know that Bill Clinton didn't know? Why didn't Bill Clinton tell his wife that this is a crock and you shouldn't vote for it?
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby LIGHT12 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:48 pm

I think i was trying to stay on point. I am saying that a media run amuck, has decided to push far harder and undermine this administration than it did the previous, when it had plenty of oppertunity. Liberal is as Liberal does. Attacked Reagan, attack Bush Senior, for the most part let Clinton be, dispite Whitewater, Monica, a war not sanctioned by the UN, Chinese campaign money, etc, etc, etc, Attack Bush Jr. Anoint Obama the next coming.

I think I was very much on point.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:16 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Who did Nixon hurt? I don't remember anyone being harmed. He got us out of Kennedy's unjust war, and therefore I guess saved lives, despite making it appear that we would run when it got tough.
I take it you want to change subjects?

Nixon hurt himself and his party, and broke a few laws doing it. How is this relevant?

BTW: The Vietnam War was a huge mistake made for wrong reasons... I haven't tried to defend any part of it. that said I think the initial seeds for it and the Bay of Pigs were sown during Eisenhauer's time, when the country was struggling with how to contain the domino effect of spreading communism.

SpinnerMan wrote:The number of people killed in ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which was a large part of the justification, was greatly exaggerated. Was this on purpose or flawed intelligence? I have know idea.?
How do you know how many were killed versus your "exaggerated" number? What is the threshold number whereby ethnic cleansing becomes intolerable, and prior to which it's okay? Is there such a thing?

SpinnerMan wrote:He did bomb an aspirin factory. Clearly, he lied when he said it was a chemical weapon site, when it has never been proven that it was. This just couldn't have been flawed intelligence or disinformation.?
You're starting to scare me. this is some pretty random stuff you're throwing out.

SpinnerMan wrote:Starr put a lot more people in jail than most independent councils. He may have put more people in jail than all of them combined. It wasn't like these were meaningless probes.?
I think I recall at least two people going to jail (man and wife wasn't it), and I'm not sure it was Starr them there. memory fades but I don't recall Starr being a prosecutor in any trials. I think the State of Arkansas did the heavy lifting.

SpinnerMan wrote:Valerie Plame - no underlying crime but Scooter Libbey couldn't get his facts straight, whether purposefully or not, had no impact on the fact that an enemy of the neocons had released her name, which wasn't illegal to do anyways, which everybody already knew before the probe even started. I think this was the only Bush inner circle to be convicted of anything.?
Where do you get your misinformation? She was in fact undercover and therefore releasing her name was illegal if not treasonous. Scooter, Rove, Cheney all did it... not some enemy of the neocons. the neocons did it, and with GW's knowledge! Let's wait to see if GW pardon's Scooter on his way out... after the election.

SpinnerMan wrote:I don't understand what the President can and cannot lie about. We know for a fact that Clinton lied under oath. A crime that most of us would go to jail for. He made statements under oath that he absolutely knew were untrue. I think this is a career ender, but apparently that just makes you a beloved Democratic icon.?
You really have a Clinton fixation huh. That was along time ago at this point. But I guess the major diference between the two is in what the lies were about and the impact they had on the country. Can you see the distinction and why it matters? One set of lies cost lives and billions in treasure. the other didn't.

SpinnerMan wrote:[I still can't figure out what Bush said that he knew was untrue at the time he said it. The world thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. The British did think something fishy was going on when Iraqi was discussing economic relations with a country that pretty much only exports uranium.?
I guess you'll never figure this out. You refute it when it's put out plain as day and refuse to acknowlege it. go figure.

SpinnerMan wrote:What did he know that Bill Clinton didn't know? Why didn't Bill Clinton tell his wife that this is a crock and you shouldn't vote for it?
I think the clinton's were doing their ususal dumb stuff by thinking politically instead of logically. I think whe wanted to appear tough and not fall into the trap of weak on terror. who knows?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby LIGHT12 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:23 pm

Where do you get your misinformation? She was in fact undercover and therefore releasing her name was illegal if not treasonous. Scooter, Rove, Cheney all did it... not some enemy of the neocons. the neocons did it, and with GW's knowledge! Let's wait to see if GW pardon's Scooter on his way out... after the election.


If Libby did this why was he found guilty of purgery, and not Reason, or whatever the official charge was. And tihs after a long drawn out witch hunt.

And you and the media seem to forget this piece of news often.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/ ... index.html
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:30 pm

I haven't forgotten Armitage falling on his sword. Bob Novak admitted that he confirmed Armitage's story by calling the White house...

I think the reason they used the perjury count is that it's far easier to prove and prevented a long drawn out witch hunt. suppose they went after the leak violation head on. it might be that some of the witnesses would no be inclined to send Scooter down the river. they might be what's called a "hostile" witness and might even lie. some people will actually lie under oath you know. it's a bit ironic.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:35 pm

dudejcb wrote:If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too. I wasn't happy with his bonehead move to worry about gays inthe military right off the bat, and I didn't like the lack of integrity with Monica, but that brought he and his family shame... However, it didn't materially hurt the country or cost any lives. The only costs were to himself and the millions the R's spent fueling Kenneth Starr's witch hunt... chasing Whitewater, only to find nothing, and then settling for a sleazebag sex scandal. How far off base was that, and were those tax dollars well spent?

I guess i don't really expect you to get the fundamental issues here.


dudejcb wrote:Nixon hurt himself and his party, and broke a few laws doing it. How is this relevant?


I guess you just make it up as you go. Clinton should have stayed in office because nobody was hurt and only a few laws were broken. Then I guess Nixon should have stayed in office because no one was hurt and only a few laws were broke.

WRONG. Nixon got what he deserved. Clinton deserved the same, but didn't get it. Republicans were right and the Democrats were wrong.

Just trying to point out your completely biased view of the world and inconsistent set of rules for your guys and the other guys.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:55 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Nixon hurt himself and his party, and broke a few laws doing it. How is this relevant?


SpinnerMan wrote: I guess you just make it up as you go. Clinton should have stayed in office because nobody was hurt and only a few laws were broken. Then I guess Nixon should have stayed in office because no one was hurt and only a few laws were broke.
What have I made up? another randon accusation. Nixon's law breaks (conspiracy, etc) were a little more serious and threatening to the country. How does that type of criminal act compare to the one where a guy got a hummer (or whatever) and doesn't want to admit it... even under oath? You're still refusing to acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the facts behind these crimes and their impacts on the country.


SpinnerMan wrote:WRONG. Nixon got what he deserved. Clinton deserved the same, but didn't get it. Republicans were right and the Democrats were wrong.
Well, Nixon didn't really get what he deserved. he resigned so the impeachment wouldn't proceed. He ran.

Bill Clinton's impeachment was overturned by the Senate. I wish he had been tossed out of office. We'd be much better off now if Gore had taken over back then.


SpinnerMan wrote:Just trying to point out your completely biased view of the world and inconsistent set of rules for your guys and the other guys.
I believe you are familiar with the phrase... the pot calling the kettle black.

As far as my "biased views," do you read what it is I actually write. I'm not a Clinton fan. I just recognize the difference in the impact of his failings as opposed to GW's or Nixon's. That is not bias, it's called objective analysis. You shoul try it.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:28 pm

Talk about needing an English lesson. Bill Clinton's impeachment was NOT overturned by the Senate. He was impeached and will forever have been impeached. The second President to ever be impeached. Unfortunately, he was not convicted like he should have been and booted out of office like he should have been.

What the Clintons did was definitely on the same par as Nixon. Lying under oath, suborning perjury, completely undermine are system of justice and 100% of the Senate Democrats saying it OK didn't help. They had a whole pile of raw FBI files, which members of the Nixon administration went to jail for as they should have. Hillary's testimony in all the corruption in her law office showed her complete contempt for the law, either that or she had early onset dementia because the smartest women in the world couldn't remember anything.

Was Nixon or Clinton worse? Who cares. They were similiar and both should have gotten the boot.

Democrats just defend their own to the end. We don't like what he did, but it doesn't rise to some arbitrary level. Republicans do it to. Blah, blah, blah. If that helps you sleep at night, I guess you can keep telling yourself that nonsense. You will need to be telling yourself that a lot as all the skeletons keep rolling out of the Obama closet. My guess is the number of jailed cohorts will be on the same order as the Clintons. They've already started going to jail and he hasn't even gotten the nomination yet.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby LIGHT12 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:11 pm

I think

Call me when you have proof of your thoughts.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests