Obama General Discussion - Page 35 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-14-2010, 05:04 PM   #511
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

MOST ABSURD THING EVER SAID ON INTERFERENCE IS YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE MURDER RATES IN IRAQ AND THE US ARE EVEN COMPARABLE: FOXNews.com - Iraq Homicide Rate 10 Times New York City's - U.S. & World
Informed Comment
Iraq Body Count
HELLO, EARTH TO U2387, I'M comparing January 2010 murder rate for civilians in Iraq to the average murder rate for any given month in the United States!!!

The links you just posted are from 2004, YES THAT WAS THE CASE IN 2004, the murder rate was 10 or 15 times higher in Iraq. BUT I'm TALKING ABOUT JANUARY 2010 IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here are the number of civilians murdered in January of 2010 from www.icasualties.org:

118 civilians murdered in Iraq in January 2010.

ON AVERAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, over 1,000 people are murdered EVERY MONTH

Even when you adjust to a per capita basis, this is roughly the same murder rate for Iraq in 2010 as the United States! No matter how you stack it, violence in Iraq has been heavily reduced thanks to the policies of George W. Bush!


Quote:
Take the total number of 2008 murders, divide by the population of Iraq: .012 The US: .0054: No time to work out the exact per/100,000 rate, but it is clear from this that the murder rate is exponentially lower here.

Common sense, Strongbow, is America a war zone? Do you need a tank to go down any streets here? Do we have a functioning government with the capacity to defend and enforce its laws, or are we like Iraq? Are we the most dangerous place in the world for any religious group? Iraq: The most dangerous place in the world for Christians – Telegraph Blogs

You really show your ignorance when you make statements like this. If you really think Iraq is safer than here, maybe you should go live there! You'd want this country back pretty damn quick.
Common sense is using sources from 2010 to study the murder rate in Iraq VS the murder rate in the United States currently. You don't go back to 2004 and look at the murder rate in Iraq then and compare it to now! IN 2010, you want to use sources about Iraqi casualties THIS YEAR, NOT from 6 years ago, to assess whether the US or Iraq has the larger murder rate TODAY! Yep, common sense.

I'm not sure if you actually know what I tank is, because the vast majority of Iraqi military and police patrols throughtout Iraq are done without any tanks at all. Most US tanks sit on the big bases as they are usually not needed these days. The operations to search for remaining insurgence and Al Quada resemble more the situation in Northern Ireland back in the 1980s than they do what is typcially regarded or refered to as a war zone.

Guess what Iraq today provides for all of its security. The US although still having combat forces in Iraq, is in and advisory/training mode as well as providing logistical support for the Iraqi military. The Iraqi government does today provide the services you claim it does not. Its time that you fast foward to the present, THIS IS NOT 2004, IT IS 2010, WELCOME TO THE NEW IRAQ!

Also, according to the figures from the latest UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, Iraq has a standard of living now higher than Morocco!

When it comes to "ignorance" your the one that is using figures from 2004 to make a comparison on the homocide rate between Iraq and the United States in 2010!
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 05:28 PM   #512
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

My parting suggestion to you before I add you to my ignore list as I should have done before: Stop the cutting and the pasting of material you clearly do not understand from discredited Republican sites.
I fully understand the material I have posted even though it appears that you do not. NONE OF IT WAS TAKEN FROM ANY SORT OF A REPUBLICAN WEBSITE!


Quote:
Step away from the propaganda, pick up an intelligence report, pick up Congressional hearings testimony, google intelligence officials and world leaders who have testified to Bush's lying or blatant misrepresentation of Iraq intelligence, read the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union address and Bush getting called out by Tenet for this, etc.
GUESS WHAT, I don't use propaganda, and the information that I report comes from intelligence reports, has been used in congressional hearings, is factual and sourced, has come from US CENTCOM and reported by the US military.

Also, www.icasualties.org is NOT A REPUBLICAN WEBSITE. IT IS AN UNBIASED WEBSITE USED TO REPORT CASUALTIES, MILTARY AND CIVILIAN AS WELL AS NEWS ON IRAQ!

The professor I qouted is not from Liberty University. He is from DUKE UNIVERSITY which most people would LOL if you suggested it was a bastion of REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA!

There has never been any evidence presented to conclusively prove that Bush lied about anything. If there had been, it would have been easy to impeach the president. Nearly all of the information both pro and con about the run up to the Iraq war, was presented to the public BEFORE the NOVEMBER 2004 election. The Public looked at the information, and re-elected GEORGE BUSH by the first majority popular vote since 1988! Just goes to show that the claims and accusations against Bush for wrong doing did not amount to a hill of beans.

Oh and by the way, it was Tenet who cleared the state of the union speech for Bush. It had a mistake in it, but it was still cleared by Tenet. Tenet admitted it was his fault. No matter, that was already MONTHS after the US congress had give Bush authorization to use military force against Saddam as well as months after the United Nations approved military action against Iraq with resolution 1442.



Quote:
Long story short, look in the real world where the one man you are manically defending regardless of the facts has been repudiated many times over by credible people(not just liberal zealots) all across the political spectrum
Actually, the evidence has vindicated him time and again! He was re-elected by a majority of people in the United States. There are intelligent people all across the political spectrum that to this day still believe that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. He was a threat regardless of what you think his WMD capacity was in the year 2003.

Whats really strange is the people who manically defend keeping SADDAM in power after 2003. More and more people every day agree that he had to be removed, and as the years go by, the number of people defending keeping somewhat like Saddam in power will decline.

__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 05:52 PM   #513
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Of course it did. He accepted minimum wage, 9/11 recommendations and a time line. The Democrats did not get their way on the surge, which was a 23% increase, not 33 as you say. I'm not wrong here.
.
I'm not talking about domestic policy, I'm talking about policy on Iraq. Bush increased the number of US combat brigades in Iraq in 2007 by 33%. There were 15 US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq in January 2007, and by the end of the summer of 2007 there were 20. THATS A 33% INCREASE IN COMBAT STRENGTH!!!!!!!! The Democrats along with Barack Obama proposed withdrawing ALL US COMBAT BRIGADES by MARCH 31, 2008.

So, Bush increases the number of combat brigades by 33% while the Democrats in congress try to withdraw 100% of the combat brigades by March 31, 2008!

They went in to completely different directions and BUSH GOT WHAT HE WANTED WHICH IS WHY IRAQ TODAY IS IN RELATIVELY SUCH GREAT SHAPE!

Quote:

On to the ignore feature, Strongbow
I think this is like the 5th time you have stated this. The last time you made a promise never to respond to not only Strongbow but also STING2, LOL!

Trust me, I don't think this is ever going to happen.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 06:00 PM   #514
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 02:59 PM
you shout a lot
how does this still have to do with Obama?
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 06:11 PM   #515
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Here is some more video on OBAMA ON THE SURGE:


Funny to see that Obama and Biden are now eating their words spoken in this video:

YouTube - Obama Troop Surge Vs Bush Troops Surge



In this video, Obama claims that instead of reducing the violence in Iraq, that the surge will actually do the reverse and make things worse! LOL

YouTube - Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc



YouTube - Obama VS. David Axelrod on the surge




YouTube - Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge



Barack Obama was qouted just recently in the run up to his surge of troops in Afghanistan that the Iraq surge was a "GOOD THING".

Afghanistan has also been refered to as a "Civil War" and Obama is following Bush's Iraq strategy in Afghanistan with a surge in troops there.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 06:18 PM   #516
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 08:59 AM
STING are you like this in real life too?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-14-2010, 06:30 PM   #517
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:59 AM
desperation is a tender trap.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-14-2010, 06:38 PM   #518
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
desperation is a tender trap.
The only thing that is desperate here, are people that are willing to twist and contort themselves in order to defend something that has been factually proven false.

"The surge can't ever work because George Bush was the one who decided on that policy. We can't have George Bush succeeding in any policy, because after all he opposed Gay Marriage. He has to be the worst president ever in history. Who cares about the facts, he opposed Gay Marriage."

What could be more desperate than defending Saddam Hussian against George Bush.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 06:41 PM   #519
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 08:59 AM
I almost regret posting what I did about Biden's Iraq spin on Larry King, because it doesn't move the discussion forward. The politicians' evolving positions have been pretty well documented on foreign policy. My thoughts have changed too over time.

The big thing is that Iraq seems to be slowly improving, and that's good for everyone. Left, right, center, and all the Americans stationed there who want to come home. We should try to look ahead, not backwards.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 07:17 PM   #520
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Quote:
Well it would be easier than answering your "all over the place" posts. I applaud you for taking the time but there is something to be said for concise answers as well.
And your tone. Maybe it's just me but when you write "I think it was Bush who did whatever the f he wanted at all costs, pal," I feel like you're pushing me in the chest trying to provoke a bar fight or something. Are you auditioning to be spokesman for the "angry-Left" or something?
So now explaining myself instead of just going with general talking points is "all over the place" I admit, I struggle to be concise, I really should be more concise.

This is going to sound stupid, I know, but , I honestly try and work on my tone as well. I am far from an angry person, I know you are probably the same. You have my honest word now that you have brought it up that I will not take any kind of provocative tone in the future. I know you don't know me, but in person, I would be the last person to start a bar fight or even argue face to face about politics. When I find someone I disagree with, I usually just say "you'll agree with me that neither party really represents the people now."

I have no desire to be any kind of spokesperson for the angry left, they substitute foam flying for reason and facts.

As much as we can disagree, know this, I always appreciate the discussion and people who care about the country. It is not personal and I am sorry if it has looked that way.

Quote:
Dems held up what was to be a center piece of Bush's 2nd term. Social security reform. They also stymied banking reform. We're paying for both of those now.
All polls taken at the time showed overwhelming opposition around the country to Bush's plan. Even among many Republicans. It was the event that started to unravel Bush's Presidency. There was never a bill introduced to privatize social security in Bush's second term, therefore, there was no filibustering by Democrats. Democrats were uniformly opposed, but then again, so were a good amount of Republicans. Bush's privatization was not "reform" it would have gutted Social Security and put a good amount of it in the stock market(if you retired now, you'd be screwed). It messed with the guaranteed benefit, and that was something the country could not go for. I am all for people saving in the stock market and government incentives to do so, but it should not take away from the SS trust fund.

Banking reform, I assume you are talking about Barney Frank and regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Perhaps a link? Frank never opposed reform, Dems just had a different bill.

Quote:
You completely misread the internal fight in the GOP. The rebellion is against the "go along with big govnt, just get along" moderates, not the "extreme right wing," whatever that is.
I remember we discussed what big government was, and we could not come up with a workable definition of it that Republicans did a better job on. The extreme right: the Grover Norquist drown the government crowd, the GW Bush "cut taxes and spend wildly" group, the Santorum-Palin extreme social conservatism. This is what drove moderate Republicans completely out of the party- Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Jim Leach,etc.Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon even were put off by the chest beating, budget busting ideologues taking over the party in the last 30 years. This is not only reflected in individuals but in election trends. States and districts that were solidly Republican have been electing more and more Democrats to Congress, accounting for the large majorities we see now. The more competitive a district is between parties, the less extreme the representative from the district will be. The far left Reps in Congress come from districts where the Democratic Primary is the de facto election, same with the far right Reps and the Republican primary. The difference is most Dems are from competitive districts while most Republicans represent strong Republican districts and need only run to the far right to get re elected. The Dems have a built in bulwark against extremism here, while the Republicans are inviting it by becoming a regional, special interest party. The South is a very federal government dependent region, as is most of the Plains. Now that Republicans in Congress mostly represent these states, you see record amounts of pork when they are in power. Any fiscal responsibility that was ever present is gone due to regional interests of the people who control the party. A perfect example was Bush's 2002 farm bill. With Democrats, regional differences will work to counter act this kind of tendency to break the bank to satisfy the base. They have to speak to a broad cross section of the country to stay in power. Will they? Stay tuned.

You see very few Republican moderates in office these days, they have become an extreme conservative regional fringe, and that is reflected in who they have leading the party: Palin, DeMint, Cantor, et al. The whole tea party movement is extremely disingenuous, as they are supposedly against big government but where were they when Bush was in office? They pick a time when we literally had to spend money to avoid a depression to all of a sudden speak up? They are against a Democratic President.
Quote:
So can I. You have the socialists, the progressives, the liberals, the anti-capitalists, the militants, the radicals, the hyphenated caucuses, the truly unhinged and a few moderates on abortion or out-of-control spending.
The Democratic caucus has no Socialists, and no anti capitalists. Bernie Sanders is an independent. No one who's political views could be considered "radical" either. Radicals want to scrap the whole system. Republicans have hyphenated caucuses as well. The truly unhinged: Democrats:Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jim McDermott. The Republcians: anyone who has called Obama a socialist or attacked him for prosecuting terrorists in our courts like every other President. That's alot more.

Abortion we have flat out pro lifers(Stupak amendment), moderates and alot of Pro Choice. Republicans have some moderates, few pro choices and a bunch of extreme pro life, against rape and incest exceptions even.

Out of control spending: Again, look at the Democratic Party's overall history on spending. They spend less than Republicans, have since WW II. Obama represents no departure from this, it is just he had to come in and spend money to avoid a depression. His 10 year spending proposals, and those of the caucus are actually less than Republicans were proposing. The Democrats just voted for pay as you go, Republicans against it. The Democratic party has no more out of control spenders than Republicans.


Quote:
"We" have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, hawk conservatives, squishy moderates, the Maine gals, a maverick, a terminator, a Palin and of course an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, sexist, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees, aka Scott Brown.
Who in your caucus is truly fiscally conservative? How many people who buy the Grover Norquist idea actually take it through to its logical conclusion and propose to get rid of education, medicare, social security, the SEC, The Fed, you name it. None, so we have record deficits because they do the tax cutting and not the spending cutting. The Maine girls are moderates, but unlike Democratic moderates, they've gone right along the party line on any number of issues. They are not a pain in the ass to McConnell like Ben Nelson is to Reid or the Blue Dogs are to Pelosi. Not much maverick in John McCain these days, never really was absent on campaign finance reform and torture, things you all hate him for. The terminator is damn near out of the party he is so disgusted with the global warming deniers and stimulus opponents. Palin is an extreme conservative like the rest of them.

Keith Olbermann took many things out of context in that rant, I don't watch the man's show, I liked him years ago but prefer Matthews now. The only thing Brown can be accused of there is not knowing Obama's mother was married. Maybe he should not have sneered " I don't know about that" but it is in no way an indication he is racist. No big deal, I don't care about family history. However, Scott Brown has so far been, beside the fact that he is pro choice(which I don't consider abortion a deciding issue in the least, btw) a party line vote. His whole campaign was to be #41, so he is just like the rest of them.

Quote:
The Republicans only threatened the "nuclear option" in response to the Democrat's before unknown filibustering of judicial nominees. Republicans have respected the senate's advise and consent role whereas Democrats act more to block or embarrass. You can point to no Republican senate doing to a Clinton or Obama selection what Democrats did to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or judge Alito. The last 3 Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court passed with an avg of 14 no votes. The last 3 nominees of Republican presidents got an avg of 37 no votes.
That's fine, I never said they used it, just that they threatened it.

Bork, Thomas and Alito are all far outside the mainstream of American judicial thinking, by any metric. The national bar association, etc. The simple fact is that these guys are strong, pro executive power conservatives while Breyer, Sotomayor and to a lesser extent, Ginsburg, are moderates. It is a simple reflection of the fact that Republicans have nominated ideologues while Democrats have nominated moderates. Today's Republican party would not have given a good amount of votes to Breyer and Sotomayor if they were far left nuts. Clinton would actually go to Orrin Hatch with who he was considering and ask who was acceptable and who was not. Obama did the same thing with Republican judic committee members. It is the Democrats who have respected the advice and consent role by not nominating in the first place people many Republicans would deem unacceptable. It is Bush who tried to push anyone and everyone through, even people who were on record saying the civil rights acts and social security should be struck down.

Bork and Thomas did it to themselves through their views and personal shortcomings.

Plus, it is the Republicans now holding up routine appointments and legislation at a record pace. That is not advice and consent, that is pure obstruction, and they have admitted as much. They are taking a gamble that "no" will work in November.





Quote:
All I remember in detail is that the 2003 Democratic Drug Benefit was much more expensive and was to be government-managed whereas the final bipartisan bill passed in the Republican congress was much less expensive (400 billion) and insisted on private insurance plans.
What emerged was no bipartisan by any means. In the Senate, Baucus was the only Democrat they even let in, and he tried to work in good faith. Delay's house gutted the provisions Baucus put in and hijacked the entire bill. There was no Democratic representation in the house legislation, none whatsoever, that was the big controversy.

The Democratic plan was first floated by Gore, and the 2003 version was not going to be government managed any more than the current version is government managed. It was going to give subsidies to private companies. The difference is the huge "donut" hole put in the coverage by the Republicans in order to pay for huge direct payments to the pharmaceutical industry plus the banning of reimportation from Canada. As a final kick, they banned medicare from negotiating with companies from lower prices. All of these provisions were written back room by lobbyists in the House. This has been extensively documented.

The hand outs to pharma, ban on re importation and barring of negotiation combined helped to get us to the real cost, $1.2 trillion. Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion (washingtonpost.com)
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 07:56 PM   #521
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Quote:
I think it can get better, but we'll probably have to wait until the shenanigans of an election year are over. The jury is out on Scott Brown, but he has the chance to be an independent-minded guy. I was watching a little Meet The Press this morning, former Congressman Harold Ford was on, and he would be an excellent Senate candidate out of NY. Ford's on the Morning Joe show pretty often too, he makes a lot of sense and has a great presence.
Well, I do hope you are right! I'll watch Brown closely, I have commented on what he has done so far, but ultimately, who knows?

I like Harold Ford alot. I thought he was a great candidate in 2006, I just can't understand why he is making it so hard for himself by running in NY, where he just moved and doing so against Gillibrand, who is a moderate Democrat similar to himself. He'll have an uphill fight against Schumer and the establishment, and that would be a waste because he could go back to TN or somewhere else and be the establishment again. They need a guy like him up there.

Quote:

I agree, presidents can't push a button and magically create or destroy jobs. And that goes for the economy under Clinton, Bush, and Obama (since that's argued in here all the time). It's so much more complicated than simply attributing success or failure to the White House.
This is quite possibly the one thing I agree with the most that I say the least on here! Very true.

It is just like the mortgage crisis, you can pick out, based on your own political beliefs of course, a time where Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II were supposedly asking for this crisis through their actions. That would of course be subjective and useless, so whenever I argue with anyone about it I always say it was largely a set of economic trends and financial tools that were long emerging independent of who was in office.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 08:00 PM   #522
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
I almost regret posting what I did about Biden's Iraq spin on Larry King, because it doesn't move the discussion forward. The politicians' evolving positions have been pretty well documented on foreign policy. My thoughts have changed too over time.

The big thing is that Iraq seems to be slowly improving, and that's good for everyone. Left, right, center, and all the Americans stationed there who want to come home. We should try to look ahead, not backwards.
Agreed. Regardless of what Strongbow is probably saying about me even though I added him to my ignore list, I have no interest in seeing the country fail in Iraq.

Given everything else we have to deal with, in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and domestically, moving away from Iraq and leaving it somewhat stable can only be viewed as a positive.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 08:02 PM   #523
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
STING are you like this in real life too?
What is this hero still saying things about me even though I made clear to him I was putting him on the ignore list?

Drop it, Sting, and add me to your ignore list as well, please. No more interest in having another word to say to you.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-14-2010, 10:14 PM   #524
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
What is this hero still saying things about me even though I made clear to him I was putting him on the ignore list?

Drop it, Sting, and add me to your ignore list as well, please. No more interest in having another word to say to you.


good luck with that. i continue to get trolled, taunted, etc. i just feel sorry for everyone else who has to suffer through it.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-14-2010, 10:23 PM   #525
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 05:59 AM
Maybe if everyone actually did ignore him - including not reading, not responding, not getting sucked in when others replied to him, not even mentioning him, it would help.

In other words, actually ignoring him instead of just putting him on your ignore list.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com