quote:We received intel months before telling us Al Qaeda was going to try to hit the US, Condi ignored it. In fact, here's a video of her testimony, notice how she tries to talk through the man's entire alotted questioning time... so he can't ask more questions.
The video supports no such thing. The video is Condi Rice answering questions about whether or not the US Intelligence Agencies had proof refuting the widely held belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Al Queda isn't mentioned.
Maybe you linked to the wrong thing, Snowspot.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: [QB] I agree that sylvrdragon has consistently demonstrated that the pro-military stance he assumes here goes beyond reason.
I wouldn't say beyond reason. Perhaps just outside the scope of the current discussion. My being pro-military has very little to do with politics, or with the US at all. In my mind, I'm taking an objective stance from a point of view significantly farther away than the general scope of this thread. I won't get farther into that line of discussion unless asked to (via PM preferably), as I already know that my ideas won't be popular.
You may be happy to know that as I gain more information, my stance DOES change a few degrees at a time, but not always in the direction that people here seem to want. Thus far, my overall stance on War hasn't really changed.
My previous statement had absolutely nothing to do with my 'stance' however. I was merely drawing attention to what is, in my opinion, a faulty piece of logic. Nitpicking, if you will.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: [QB]Bush didn't directly cause the divorce. But it's one in a ludicrously long list of unintended consequences of the invasion, many of which were never contemplated at all.
They were never contemplated because they are all but impossible to predetermine. ANYTHING, even the most selfless and 'Righteous' act will likely garner unforeseen consequences. Such things CANNOT reasonably be used in a political debate. What I find most disconcerting was that you pretty much outlined my entire point and basically said 'but this doesn't apply to my case'.
I'm not going to address your case specifically though (any more than, or as much as, I already have), as I understand that it can be difficult to discuss personal matters objectively. I don't want to be misconstrued as attacking you or yours on anything resembling a personal level.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]We received intel months before telling us Al Qaeda was going to try to hit the US, Condi ignored it. In fact, here's a video of her testimony, notice how she tries to talk through the man's entire alotted questioning time... so he can't ask more questions.
The video supports no such thing. The video is Condi Rice answering questions about whether or not the US Intelligence Agencies had proof refuting the widely held belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Al Queda isn't mentioned.
Maybe you linked to the wrong thing, Snowspot. [/QUOTE0]
Yeah I definitely posted the wrong link sorry. I was thinking of another video that I will go dig up later. For some reason I combined what was in two videos in my head, then just figured this was it. Anyway... Don't you have anything to say about her testimony? I find it pretty shocking. What do you think?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't find it shocking at all. I thought she answered the Senator very ably. Whether what she said was true or not, I don't know; I do know that he seemed to be trying to make mountains out of molehills.
Basically, he was trying to equate 'untrue' and 'mistaken' with 'lying.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No, I don't find it shocking at all. I thought she answered the Senator very ably. Whether what she said was true or not, I don't know; I do know that he seemed to be trying to make mountains out of molehills.
Basically, he was trying to equate 'untrue' and 'mistaken' with 'lying.'
Even if they were "mistaken" as you put it, why do you want people who can't do their job in office? What's if they are mistaken again? Over and Over they are "mistaken" like Alberto Gonzalez can't recall anything.
It seems to me like you just want to make excuses for them.
What's if they did something you really disagreed with? You do realize at this point that because you support them, you're supporting the loss of your rights? Look at all the people protesting now and we even have democrats in office and still... no one can stop bush from doing whatever he wants. Can't you see that he has almost dictator-like powers? That even if you support his agenda, so much power cannot be concentrated in one place?
At this point Bush can do whatever he wants then call it executive decision... people who supported Bush have now given all future presidents that right. Just remember that when someone you don't like comes into office.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at all the people protesting now and we even have democrats in office and still... no one can stop bush from doing whatever he wants. Can't you see that he has almost dictator-like powers?
Actually, many of the Democrats in office, your would-be-if-Dubya-wasn't-so-awful saviors, are and have been doing an awful lot of pussyfooting around. It's not as though they've spent the past five years making heroic efforts only to be thwarted by the Almighty Bush.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: They were never contemplated because they are all but impossible to predetermine. ANYTHING, even the most selfless and 'Righteous' act will likely garner unforeseen consequences. Such things CANNOT reasonably be used in a political debate. What I find most disconcerting was that you pretty much outlined my entire point and basically said 'but this doesn't apply to my case'.
I'm not going to address your case specifically though (any more than, or as much as, I already have), as I understand that it can be difficult to discuss personal matters objectively. I don't want to be misconstrued as attacking you or yours on anything resembling a personal level.
9/11 could have happened with someone else in office. But it happened with Bush in office. The invasion of Afghanistan could have occurred with someone else in office, but it happened with Bush in office.
But Iraq? The occupation James Baker, the previous Bush, and numerous pragmatic Republicans have said they hadn't engaged in post-Desert Storm for very specific reasons? The occupation that caused Newt Gingrich to comment in dismay on the lack of planning?
That is the baby of the Bush Administration, in all it's monumentally ill-fated glory.
Yes, I can't know the results of a past that never happened. But if a different president had stopped at Afghanistan, the probability is that my brother-in-law would have spent the umpteen months as a missile technician in Germany (as he had re-trained to be) rather than a mental health counselor in Iraq.
I'm sorry to bring it up like it was some kind of a trump card. But if someone asks me how Bush has affected my life, what has become of his life looms large.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The price of being a soldier in any warring nation or even peaceful nation is always the same. The fact that Bush is in office simply meant that your brother-in-law is working in Iraq. If Bush wasn't in office then he could in fact be in Germany but is that really so much better? Every soldier, and I'm sure your brother would agree, knows that they are there to answer to that call of duty. Bush only made that call different by saying, "Hey, your in Iraq, not Germany." Which is really no difference at all.
People claim that being a soldier in Iraq is the worst thing in the world, but it really isn't. We are really doing well with this war (or occupation or rehabilitation or whatever it is you please). But working in, say, Germany wouldn't be any better. The location they are doing their work in doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are really doing some tough work and they know and knew what they are getting into.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democrats did their best, whatever that was, to stymie Republican efforts in the first few years of the Bush presidency, but I think their biggest problem then, and still somewhat now, is the idea that they have to apologize for being what they are. Democrats believe many things, and support and oppose many things, but they all too often let politics and their fear of what Republicans could do to them in the media and politically to effect the way they voted in Congress.
That's changed a bit since they got into power, but now a whole lot. They've managed to push through a very few things that would've never seen the light of day with a Republican Congress, and they've managed to tamp down measures that would've been easily passed in a Republican Congress, but for the most part they're letting the Republicans win pretty much across the board because they are afraid to mix it up.
I DO expect that to change after November. I suspect a lot of their pussyfooting is a result of fear of losing Congress ahead of hopefully getting a Democratic president. They want to hold on to power enough to actually USE it without being vetoed on everything and have it be sustained by a razor thin Republican minority. They might be in power, but it doesn't necessarily matter to have a 51/49 majority or even in the House, whatever their majority is, not when Republicans largely vote together and it takes much bigger numbers to break vetoes and in the Senate to bring items out of debate (Democrats regularly fail in cloture motions, and things die of filibuster) and onto the floor for a vote where they'd likely passs. Procedural technicalities make anything less than two thirds majority useless.
However. Pay Leahy in the Senate is attacking Bush like a bulldog on a lot of measures, most notably he hasn't let the fired US attorneys thing go. There are a LOT of things they could go after from his first term, but with less than a year left now, I really don't see there being time, and besides, Republicans will successfully spin that many investigations as pure partisan politics. Even now he's getting hammered all over the board from the minority leader's office to the White House for playing politics and "overstepping his authority." It's become less about the specifics of the case and more about power struggling between the Executive and Legislative Branches, which is exactly what is needed, so, they aren't doing NOTHING, they just aren't doing very much, and what they are doing, no one really talks about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think all the democrats are trying hard... but the ones that are trying are facing roadblocks that were seemingly put into place just by this administration. At every turn there has been some loophole or some clause, a signing statement, or an "executive decision" that has ended in failure for the dems. It just seems like there is no oversight.. I mean we have the president blatantly breaking the law with the telephone companies... and now we are debating giving the them immunity? WHY?!!?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Legatio: The price of being a soldier in any warring nation or even peaceful nation is always the same. The fact that Bush is in office simply meant that your brother-in-law is working in Iraq. If Bush wasn't in office then he could in fact be in Germany but is that really so much better? Every soldier, and I'm sure your brother would agree, knows that they are there to answer to that call of duty. Bush only made that call different by saying, "Hey, your in Iraq, not Germany." Which is really no difference at all.
People claim that being a soldier in Iraq is the worst thing in the world, but it really isn't. We are really doing well with this war (or occupation or rehabilitation or whatever it is you please). But working in, say, Germany wouldn't be any better. The location they are doing their work in doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are really doing some tough work and they know and knew what they are getting into.
Actually, he mentioned that his Brother-in-law's wife was in Germany. By being sent to Iraq, he was separated from her when he wasn't supposed to have been.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Legatio: People claim that being a soldier in Iraq is the worst thing in the world, but it really isn't. We are really doing well with this war (or occupation or rehabilitation or whatever it is you please). But working in, say, Germany wouldn't be any better. The location they are doing their work in doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are really doing some tough work and they know and knew what they are getting into.
Well, minus the looming fear of death a soldier might face in Iraq, I would agree.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really surprised to find OSC being so partisan one minded on the matter. Even more so after reading Empire, to learn that he chose to ignore that he was talking about politicians, they are inherantly evil and rich.
On a side note, I am an Arizonan born and raised... please, do not let McCain into the presidency! there is so much the press dont talk about in regard to his career, policies, and character. If nothing else, his wife is a drug addict, but being in the light as she is she created a non-profit organization so she could steal her drugs from the foundation. If McCain is a true American who loves this country and all of its regulations, then why has his wife received no punishment for this crime past rehab?
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
personally, i think the beauty of being in a 'free society' is that we CAN voice our dessent; but we should offer the other person the same opportunity.... having said that, i think card's more sardonic than people actually realize when they let themselves get worked up over his personal views. i believe that the american people should shoot the two party system to death, abolish the rank of 'commander in chief' so that no ONE person can decide to go to war or not-which is the way it's SUPPOSED TO BE now. the democratic party is obsessed with 'progressive stupidity' by putting our rights that we inherit via the constitution in jeopardy and by tearing to shreds the constitution and common decency. the republican party is obsessed with clinging to archaic traditions that are out-dated; although being conservative ISN'T 'old-fashioned', and i believe we should be more conservative than we've become. it's interesting though, the democratic party often shoots each other in public yet the republican party decides to keep the backstabbing behind closed doors, where it ought to remain.... honestly, do we really NEED to know about a politician's moral lack? i mean, they're POLITICIANS for cryin out loud! absolutely NONE of the candidates this election year is even REMOTELY addequate for the job and the mess the next president is going to have to face. it'd be silly to assume that they're going to wave a magic wand and all the problems will disappear: clinton/obama won't be able to pull our troops out of iraq without heavy consequences there and especially here. mccain... well, romny said it best: "washington is broken. you don't send someone that's part of the problem back to fix what's broken..." ah... nevermind.... just nuke the world and leave it for the roaches, then we wouldn't have to deal with this mess...
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:honestly, do we really NEED to know about a politician's moral lack?
Good question. Ignorance is bliss. We shouldn't pry into the amorality of our leaders, because they're supposed to be our leaders, duh!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many presidents have we had throughout history that HASN'T led a morally bereft life prior and during their presidancy? It's sickening to hear about them on the news and it gets quite old... though I think there ought to be a certain standard required to meet in order to fill an office of any sort. But then, I think we'd simply be leaderless...
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: How many presidents have we had throughout history that HASN'T led a morally bereft life prior and during their presidancy?
posted
You stupid bastard! You were just brutally attacking him because HE had a different onion than YOU! That rant was hipocritic in its own and it completely contradicted everything you were apparently going for... Keep those stupid thoughts to yourself and spare us all please...
Posts: 93 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty sure he's not... There was no 'dripping with sarcasm' button on my keyboard for that reply so it might have sounded like i was naively accepting praise, but honestly I wasnt. I just cant see why there has to be Magic Rats in this world who think its their job to cut people down because they 'know better' and I will totally admit that my anger quite eagerly showed earlier on... But its difficult to contain as I am sure any other human being would agree with me on that. I am not backtracking and I stand by everything I said...
posted
Y'know, him supporting Bush is all well and good, but I disagree with him 100% about Bush. He's been TERRIBLE for this country. Spending almost trillions on Iraq, being against unemployment extensions for people who need them, ignoring the current economic crisis. i think a depression could be prevented if it is faced head on and directly. No ignoring it and thinking it will go away like the current administration is doing. I am so mad about this. It's getting worse every day, and nothing direct is being done about it.
How could OSC possibly have thought the economy is GOOD?! If you can't even get a decent temp job, it's a sign of something being wrong.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: ignoring the current economic crisis.
There you're just wrong. Bush hasn't been ignoring the "crisis" at all. He's been throwing quite a lot of money at it. And in doing so making it worse.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't even get a decent temp job, it's a sign of something being wrong.
It may be. But it might not have anything to do with the economy.
It has everything to do with the economy. I honestly don't think these folks are doing what is best for the country, but what THEY think is best, even when it's hurting millions of people out there. For example- Outsourcing underemployment, going from making a decent some of money to 8 dollars an hour, no one can live off of that these days increasing gas prices while still allowing gas companies to have tax breaks and so many other things that are just making things worse.
also my head is killing me right now.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, not to be cruel, but there are reasons, other than the economy, for why people can't get jobs.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I can't get a job; it's Bush's fault. I have night terrors and a broken home because I was in Iraq; it's Bush's fault."
Okay, so as commander-in-chief, he's taken on the responsibilities of making decisions about going to war and the economy, but it is weak to blame your personal woes on someone so far removed from you, no matter how directly you are affected by his decisions. If your wife cheats on you and drains your savings while you are at war, maybe the blame should start with the wife. If you're having night terrors because of the war, maybe you shouldn't re-up instead of letting yourself get re-deployed again and again. And if you can't get a job, well, telling the landlady it's Bush's fault isn't gonna get the rent paid. You're better off trying to figure out why someone else got it instead of you.
Besides, the Army's hiring!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Syn, not to be cruel, but there are reasons, other than the economy, for why people can't get jobs.
These days it is the economy. If it were a handful of people struggling to get jobs, there would be one thing. But right now we are in a recession whether they want to admit it or not. There's been a recession probably since October. It's never been this bad before. Every single agency I call, and right now I'm registed with at least 14 agencies, says that jobs are scarce. It's not just me and a handful of unemployed people, the news is saying the same thing to. I am not lazy. I've trecked miles in all sorts of weather trying to get a job, cold freezing rain, snow, 18 degree weather. The most I've gotten was a 3 day gig that was supposed to be 6 weeks but they over hired and a 7 day mostly working at home job last month that I finally got paid for last week. The gas prices are up, the food prices have increased. Being unemployed these days is different then it was last time in 2002. There are hundreds of resumes being sent out for one job. There is a severe problem. It's been like this since this whole housing market collapse. What I think is there's a crisis brewing and if it's not taken care of it will get worse. This current administration is not helping the matter. You do not spend billions of dollars on a war and have tax cuts, nor do you allow the sort of business practices that led to the housing collapse to continue without some sort of regulation (though, people's greed and desparation plays a part in things.) There's a severe problem out there when it's not just me, because I have gotten better at applying for jobs. I have gotten some responses, but it's millions of educated, intelligent Americans who can't get a simple decent job. It's not just Bush either. Clinton didn't help with his whole NAFTA treaty and job outsourcing which has been going on for decades. It's really bleeding this country to death and if it's not handled directly, I'm really afraid for this country.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"instead of letting yourself get re-deployed again and again"
Resh- that isn't really fair. People who sign up for a year find themselves one for several years. My friend's tou of duty was extended by 6 months and there is nothing he can do about it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The economy is a factor. It may even be a factor OFTEN. But it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
We are sooooooo screwed. It really WILL get worse if something isn't done about it!
You set yourself up for correction. Whether or not I agree with you is set aside to explain that your first two examples of us being IN a reccession say:
quote: The odds the country will fall into its first recession since 2001 are rising sharply.
Not "WE ARE IN A RECESSION! OMG!! WE ARE DOOMED!" Now if it said THAT. You might have a statement to make. Still, lets look at your other sources:
quote: Jobless claims up more than expected Weekly data portend more pressure from weak economy
Up more than expected eh? Like gas prices? Like everything... well, that does not = reccession, it = major inflation, which is an element, but not the maker of a reccession.
quote: Fed: Economy worsened in early spring Shoppers hit by housing, credit debacles, weaker job climate
So it's worse. Well, I guess that means that any little good thing that happens, will tremendously help. Put a positive spin on negative news and see if we don't get out of this "reccession" a little bit quicker with a spoon full of faith.
quote: U.S. seeing worst food inflation in 17 years Food vendors are forced to explain higher prices; poor squeezed
Worst in 17 years... wow... that is bad. But wait a minute... 17 years ago would have been...1991... right? Did the world end in 1991? Did our entire psyche collapse and the flow of technology cease to the point where we are now dying and starving at a rate to which we will never recover?
The answer, simply, is no.
Inovation and renovation of our society moves us out of dips and slip ups in our economical and societal judgements. The only thing holding the dollar at bay from strengthening is a weak perception, not weak action.
People are spending at such an alarming rate that credit is the worst it's been, but people are not quiting, so spending in the economy isn't the problem.
China is selling and we are buying, maintaining positive trade routes and enforcing our world market stance which grants us millions of dollars in subsidies from the UN each year. We are not poor because we import, and we are deffinetely exporting refined goods at a much more efficient level then ever before.
And this "Jobless Claims" bussiness, it only shows one side of the statistic. While it is true there are not many Union, well paying and comfy jobs available to us as was in yester-year, how is it possible that the 50,000 immigrants who find themselves here illegally each year manage to find work and money? Seems to me the numbers just don't fit. If the job doesn't pay the bills, that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the job, it just means you may need to find another one too, or take the help and the job. The economist here tell you a story that suggest there ARE no jobs, when, like 17 years ago, and like in 2001, there are plenty, they just aren't jobs many would like to do.
You want a solution to your up-and-coming reccession? One Word:
Propaganda.
They are already using it on you now so why not turn it back. Positive re-enforcement isn't a crime and it isn't a lie, it is hope and we need lot of that right now. We need gutsy investors putting their millions back into the stock market and powerful entrepenures to throw their ideas for great business into the pot to stew. We need a revolution of thought and action.
We don't need statistics telling us whats wrong, we need people DOING something to change it.
posted
True, but I think we've been in a recession longer than the media has started talking about it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The odds the country will fall into its first recession since 2001 are rising sharply.
Not "WE ARE IN A RECESSION! OMG!! WE ARE DOOMED!" Now if it said THAT. You might have a statement to make. Still, lets look at your other sources:
The most recent WSJ poll of economists has a majority of them believing we are in a recession. Happy-talk will not make that go away.
quote: The weakening U.S. economy has further to fall, according to the majority of economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
By a 3-to-1 ratio, respondents said the economy is in a recession, and almost three-quarters said the economy hasn't yet hit bottom. "It's hard to say," said Lou Crandall of Wrightson ICAP, because "it doesn't feel like anything we've experienced in decades."
posted
I will yet again state that just because they believe we are in a recession, does not make it so. You would need to show me a deffintion of a recession, followed by the parameters that our current state meets in order to prove that point clearly.
You state also that "happy-talk" will not make that go away. Are you suggesting that the media has no power to change our world? Are you trying to get me to believe that yellow journalism, war propaganda and the "above-the-influence" type commercials we see every day do not have an effect on us? I don't think you will get me to believe that.
Words sell, and what they sell is thought, and thought leads to action, but until we get to that action, it's a steep hill from where we are at. Right now, morale in the US SEEMS down because lead experts say it is. IF and only IF lead experts predicted a POSITIVE turn, more faith would be put into US economies. More faith would then be put in the dollar and therefore on our market, taking us out of a recession.
However, I will conceed without proof, no expert will be listened to, so we must find the small, but profitable growths we have in the United States and make them headlines. Rather then let the destruction of the economy barrage our frontpage.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like i said before, the media hasn't even started talking about what's going on until recently and they say we're PROBABLY in a recession. Dude, we already ARE in one! Even Greenspan admits it. THe dollar has probably be weakening for ages, and not facing it isn't going to help. Look how slow the job market has been? I'm not expert in the economy, but it's pretty bad right now.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: "I can't get a job; it's Bush's fault. I have night terrors and a broken home because I was in Iraq; it's Bush's fault."
Okay, so as commander-in-chief, he's taken on the responsibilities of making decisions about going to war and the economy, but it is weak to blame your personal woes on someone so far removed from you, no matter how directly you are affected by his decisions. If your wife cheats on you and drains your savings while you are at war, maybe the blame should start with the wife. If you're having night terrors because of the war, maybe you shouldn't re-up instead of letting yourself get re-deployed again and again.
Resh, it's like you live in a bubble and have never heard of stop-loss, despite showing such enthusiasm for all things military. Show a little compassion.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I WAS in the army, and I did a year in Iraq, I was in combat, and I had nightmares. They (the retention officers and NCOs) tried to tell me I had no choice but to re-enlist or be reassigned to a unit with stop-loss already activated. I told them kiss my ass. Now I'm in college. I have buddies who complained every day about how much they hated being in Iraq and how they hated being in the Army, and they re-enlisted. I give them sh*t for it all the time, but they know I respect their decision. But they also know they garner no sympathy from me for how miserable they are. We're soldiers, we don't need anyones compassion. Stop condescending to us. We still vote overwhelmingly Republican.
[edit] Stop-loss is not indefinite. No one who was in the army before the war is still there except by choice.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all hopefully. Do you see what a right pig's ears these guys are making of the economy? And I don't trust them when it comes to military issues or just about anything else. heck, I don't trust politicians period. They will totally use anything to get people to vote for them, including implying that folks who don't vote for them do not love America, apple pie or American puppies.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
sorry. I was thinking of another video that I will go dig up later. For some reason I combined what was in two videos in my head, then just figured this was it. Anyway... Don't you have anything to say about her testimony? I find it pretty shocking. What do you think?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
