Why do Republicans want to take the term "Conservative" away from David Brooks?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235707197][quote author="bltserv" date=1235705432]But its A OK to out the CIA Agent whose Husband has pissed you off

by exposing the truth of the Administrations lies. Thanks Scooter.</blockquote>


Umm... in the interest of "truth"... it was Richard Armitage who outed Plame to Novak. Libby was convicted of lying to investigators, not outing a covert agent.</blockquote>


What makes you think that BLTSERV is even remotely interested in truth?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235708892][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.</blockquote>


How about answering my dumb question then?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235708923][quote author="Oscar" date=1235707197][quote author="bltserv" date=1235705432]But its A OK to out the CIA Agent whose Husband has pissed you off

by exposing the truth of the Administrations lies. Thanks Scooter.</blockquote>


Umm... in the interest of "truth"... it was Richard Armitage who outed Plame to Novak. Libby was convicted of lying to investigators, not outing a covert agent.</blockquote>


What makes you think that BLTSERV is even remotely interested in truth?</blockquote>


"Truth" not more secrets set us free as a society and make us stronger as a nation.

More people in Homeland Security do NOT.



Or you can watch Hannity, O`Reilly, and listen to Limbaugh. Use

your imagination. Then delude yourself into calling "entertainment" the truth.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1235712505][quote author="WINEX" date=1235708892][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.</blockquote>


How about answering my dumb question then?</blockquote>


The problem with answering dumb questions is that it only encourages you to ask more dumb questions. (A fool can as more questions than a wise man can answer)



Though it's going against my better judgment, this one is too important to ignore. In June 2006, the New York Times published classified information about a government program that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=3653468f88851bcd&hp;=&ex=1151035200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin">tracked the flow of money financing al Qaeda.</a> The enemy changed their methods of operation immediately after this information was revealed, and we lost an incredibly valuable source of information. The deaths of any and all Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of al Qaeda since that point are directly attributable to this act of treason. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen and the cognizant editors should be tried for treason and executed if convicted.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235721400][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235712505][quote author="WINEX" date=1235708892][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.</blockquote>


How about answering my dumb question then?</blockquote>


The problem with answering dumb questions is that it only encourages you to ask more dumb questions. (A fool can as more questions than a wise man can answer)



Though it's going against my better judgment, this one is too important to ignore. In June 2006, the New York Times published classified information about a government program that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=3653468f88851bcd&hp;=&ex=1151035200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin">tracked the flow of money financing al Qaeda.</a> The enemy changed their methods of operation immediately after this information was revealed, and we lost an incredibly valuable source of information. The deaths of any and all Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of al Qaeda since that point are directly attributable to this act of treason. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen and the cognizant editors should be tried for treason and executed if convicted.</blockquote>


That doesn't sound like a fact to me - weak induction and generalization at best. You said it was a fact; that is, that there was solid evidence that information published in the NYT was the DIRECT cause of a war casualty.



On your usage of the word "fact" all I have to say (in Anigo Montoya's voice) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means".
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1235725084][quote author="WINEX" date=1235721400][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235712505][quote author="WINEX" date=1235708892][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.</blockquote>


How about answering my dumb question then?</blockquote>


The problem with answering dumb questions is that it only encourages you to ask more dumb questions. (A fool can as more questions than a wise man can answer)



Though it's going against my better judgment, this one is too important to ignore. In June 2006, the New York Times published classified information about a government program that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=3653468f88851bcd&hp;=&ex=1151035200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin">tracked the flow of money financing al Qaeda.</a> The enemy changed their methods of operation immediately after this information was revealed, and we lost an incredibly valuable source of information. The deaths of any and all Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of al Qaeda since that point are directly attributable to this act of treason. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen and the cognizant editors should be tried for treason and executed if convicted.</blockquote>


That doesn't sound like a fact to me - weak induction and generalization at best. You said it was a fact; that is, that there was solid evidence that information published in the NYT was the DIRECT cause of a war casualty.



On your usage of the word "fact" all I have to say (in Anigo Montoya's voice) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means".</blockquote>


Dumber still. But you still aren't exerting yourself.



I've got an idea, how about I inspire you to new heights of stupidity.



Why don't you tell me why you think that the New York Times publishing classified information that aids the enemy in time of war is nothing to worry about.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235729928][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235725084][quote author="WINEX" date=1235721400][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235712505][quote author="WINEX" date=1235708892][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.</blockquote>


How about answering my dumb question then?</blockquote>


The problem with answering dumb questions is that it only encourages you to ask more dumb questions. (A fool can as more questions than a wise man can answer)



Though it's going against my better judgment, this one is too important to ignore. In June 2006, the New York Times published classified information about a government program that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=3653468f88851bcd&hp;=&ex=1151035200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin">tracked the flow of money financing al Qaeda.</a> The enemy changed their methods of operation immediately after this information was revealed, and we lost an incredibly valuable source of information. The deaths of any and all Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of al Qaeda since that point are directly attributable to this act of treason. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen and the cognizant editors should be tried for treason and executed if convicted.</blockquote>


That doesn't sound like a fact to me - weak induction and generalization at best. You said it was a fact; that is, that there was solid evidence that information published in the NYT was the DIRECT cause of a war casualty.



On your usage of the word "fact" all I have to say (in Anigo Montoya's voice) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means".</blockquote>


Dumber still. But you still aren't exerting yourself.



I've got an idea, how about I inspire you to new heights of stupidity.



Why don't you tell me why you think that the New York Times publishing classified information that aids the enemy in time of war is nothing to worry about.</blockquote>


I have a problem when you start claiming that certain things are facts when they aren't. That's the only thing I'm taking issue with yet you keep on deflecting the subject.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1235730970][quote author="WINEX" date=1235729928][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235725084][quote author="WINEX" date=1235721400][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235712505][quote author="WINEX" date=1235708892][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235707165][quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?</blockquote>


I'll grant you the fact that this last statement was pretty dumb. But I still think you can be dumber.</blockquote>


How about answering my dumb question then?</blockquote>


The problem with answering dumb questions is that it only encourages you to ask more dumb questions. (A fool can as more questions than a wise man can answer)



Though it's going against my better judgment, this one is too important to ignore. In June 2006, the New York Times published classified information about a government program that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=3653468f88851bcd&hp;=&ex=1151035200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin">tracked the flow of money financing al Qaeda.</a> The enemy changed their methods of operation immediately after this information was revealed, and we lost an incredibly valuable source of information. The deaths of any and all Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of al Qaeda since that point are directly attributable to this act of treason. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen and the cognizant editors should be tried for treason and executed if convicted.</blockquote>


That doesn't sound like a fact to me - weak induction and generalization at best. You said it was a fact; that is, that there was solid evidence that information published in the NYT was the DIRECT cause of a war casualty.



On your usage of the word "fact" all I have to say (in Anigo Montoya's voice) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means".</blockquote>


Dumber still. But you still aren't exerting yourself.



I've got an idea, how about I inspire you to new heights of stupidity.



Why don't you tell me why you think that the New York Times publishing classified information that aids the enemy in time of war is nothing to worry about.</blockquote>


I have a problem when you start claiming that certain things are facts when they aren't. That's the only thing I'm taking issue with yet you keep on deflecting the subject.</blockquote>


Try again.
 
Winex.



Taking an article about how the government is watching wire transfers

going through the "Swift" system. Which by the way we dont use in this country

to initiate a transfer. And stretching that into "American Lives Lost".

Then calling for the Execution of the idividual responsible for its being published

in th NYT is really a reach.



By that "Logic" how should we prosecute GW Bush for all the deaths in Iraq ?

There were absolutly no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we enabled them by our invasion.



So by your standards anyone that helps Al Qaeda and causes American deaths should be executed ?



Your on a slippy slope here.



Just like the Frost/Nixon conclusions. "If the President does it. That makes it legal". NOT................
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1235781068]Winex.



Taking an article about how the government is watching wire transfers

going through the "Swift" system. Which by the way we dont use in this country

to initiate a transfer. And stretching that into "American Lives Lost".

Then calling for the Execution of the idividual responsible for its being published

in th NYT is really a reach.



By that "Logic" how should we prosecute GW Bush for all the deaths in Iraq ?

There were absolutly no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we enabled them by our invasion.



So by your standards anyone that helps Al Qaeda and causes American deaths should be executed ?



Your on a slippy slope here.



Just like the Frost/Nixon conclusions. "If the President does it. That makes it legal". NOT................</blockquote>


Now there's a level of stupidity that Green Cactus can only aspire to reach some day...
 
<strong><blockquote>Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.</blockquote></strong>



<strong><blockquote>Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. </blockquote></strong>



<strong><blockquote>"We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."</blockquote></strong>



All three quotes are from the article. The times knowingly published details of an operation that "remained classified".



So a classified program had lead to the arrest of known terrorists. Terrorists that if they had their way would indeed inflict harm on Americans. The program was still classified and may have led to more arrests'.



The times gets classified information and decides to publish the classified information.



I don't know if executing someone is necessary but I would say that was pretty anti american.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236049470]<strong><blockquote>Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.</blockquote></strong>



<strong><blockquote>Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. </blockquote></strong>



<strong><blockquote>"We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."</blockquote></strong>



All three quotes are from the article. The times knowingly published details of an operation that "remained classified".



So a classified program had lead to the arrest of known terrorists. Terrorists that if they had their way would indeed inflict harm on Americans. The program was still classified and may have led to more arrests'.



The times gets classified information and decides to publish the classified information.



I don't know if executing someone is necessary but I would say that was pretty anti american.</blockquote>


It's not just that they published classified information. It's that they did so in a manner that aides the enemy during war. Execution is justified.
 
So even a classified operation that breaks the law is OK ?

This story is so old. You guys really need some fresh material.

Why dont you go back to defending Sara Palin or the new guy Jindal that should

be working at a 7/11.



The times discussed for weeks the release of this information.



Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others - national security experts not serving in the Administration - for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places - New York and the Washington area - that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.





<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p09s01-coop.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p09s01-coop.html</a>
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1236059270]So even a classified operation that breaks the law is OK ?

This story is so old. You guys really need some fresh material.

Why dont you go back to defending Sara Palin or the new guy Jindal that should

be working at a 7/11.



The times discussed for weeks the release of this information.



Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others - national security experts not serving in the Administration - for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places - New York and the Washington area - that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.





<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p09s01-coop.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p09s01-coop.html</a></blockquote>


Never defended Palin or Jindal. I maintain that Palin was a bad choice. I think the media treated her differently then other candidates, I still don't like the idea of that.



<strong>The 7/11 comment seems a little racist to me but to each his own. </strong>



I did not bring up the article. The premise of the argument was that the NY times was anti american. After reading the article I tend to agree based off of what I read.



Nowhere did the times say they published the reports because it was illegal.



<blockquote><strong>It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far.</strong></blockquote>


They had a story they ran with it. I personally think that publishing classified information about how our country is fighting the war on terror is Anti American. Especially since they admit it may not be illegal.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236060935]



<strong>The 7/11 comment seems a little racist to me but to each his own. </strong>



</blockquote>


Pretty hypocritical coming from a guy who accused me of being a KKK member because I didn't vote for Obambi, don't you think?
 
Big difference between talking about Apu from the Simpsons in jest.

And mentioning a dazed and confused Bobby Jindle in the same context.

More like Racial Sterotyping on my part.



But watch your buddies @ Fox News on Jindle. No love here.

<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



And your rants about how Obama will ruin the country if elected

back in August. Then your getting told by the Mods to stop your insults

when you seem to lose the argument with me. You tried real hard to prove he was a terrorist

by the fact of association with Bill Ayers. So much for those weak efforts.

You went down in flames and your candidate lost easily. Yet you continue to call for

"executions". Maybe we need to open some "concentration camps" to educate those of us

that dont believe as you do. We are after all at WAR !!!!!!!!!!!
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1236061304][quote author="trrenter" date=1236060935]



<strong>The 7/11 comment seems a little racist to me but to each his own. </strong>



</blockquote>


Pretty hypocritical coming from a guy who accused me of being a KKK member because I didn't vote for <strong>Obambi,</strong> don't you think?</blockquote>


Why is it many in the GOP refuse to correctly address a standing President of the United States? When President Bush was in the White House, did you call him "The Shrub"?



I have no idea if WINEX is a racist. He does, however, have poor taste, bad manners, and is disrespectful. A poor excuse for an American.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1236068706][quote author="WINEX" date=1236061304][quote author="trrenter" date=1236060935]



<strong>The 7/11 comment seems a little racist to me but to each his own. </strong>



</blockquote>


Pretty hypocritical coming from a guy who accused me of being a KKK member because I didn't vote for <strong>Obambi,</strong> don't you think?</blockquote>


Why is it many in the GOP refuse to correctly address a standing President of the United States? When President Bush was in the White House, did you call him "The Shrub"?



I have no idea if WINEX is a racist. He does, however, have poor taste, bad manners, and is disrespectful. A poor excuse for an American.</blockquote>


Thanks NO_VASELINE.



And for the record, I have no idea if you are a pedophile. But I do know that you are pompous, arrogant, obese, and nowhere near as intelligent as you seem to think you are. A poor excuse for a human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top