Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 184
  1. #141
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
    There is little, is any, parallel to be drawn between a kidnapping profiteering pirate, and a indiscriminate suicidal mass murderer.
    There is a very significant parallel. They're both criminals.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #142
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    The kidnapping and Piracy may come down in the not too distant future. I happen to know that at least 3 countries have placed armed security personnel onboard any of their own vessels transitting the Gulf of Aden or the Indian ocean via the Suez. Could be some wannabe Blackbeards may get a rude awkening.

  3. #143
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There is a very significant parallel. They're both criminals.
    Bats and blue whales are both mammals. I guess you think that's a significant parallel too.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  4. #144
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There is a very significant parallel. They're both criminals.
    Pirates are criminals.

    Terrorists are our enemy. No different than the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  5. #145
    MembersZone Subscriber MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Pirates are criminals.

    Terrorists are our enemy. No different than the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
    Hmmm. Yes, basically true. However, do you not also try terrorists as "criminals" in a court of law once they are caught? True, each terrorist who is tried and convicted is still labled as a terrorist, but it is a criminal conviction, under example the Criminal Code of Canada for instance (only because I am not sure of the exact wording of the US title for that level).

    I add the following for "flavour":

    Criminal Code of Canada, Part II - Offences Against Public Order
    Part II.1 - Terrorism
    and

    The Anti-terrorism Act included amendments to the Criminal Code adding section 320.1 and section 430(4.1) to the Criminal Code
    specificially.

  6. #146
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Yes, basically true. However, do you not also try terrorists as "criminals" in a court of law once they are caught?
    That is a liberal line of thought. For example, they want to take a terrorist such as KSM, read him his Miranda Rights, give him a lawyer, let him free on bail, give him his due process rights to a fair trial and so forth. Al Queda declared war on us, we didn't declare war on them (even now). He is a war criminal and a terrorist and should get none of those rights guaranteed to our citizens.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  7. #147
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Of course I agree with his comments. Because I understand that he wasn't supporting the pirates, wasn't supporting killing the pirates and wasn't dissing the President. He was satirizing the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to their reaction to a situation depending on who is giving the orders.

    You see, I can be honest about this. I completely, 100% support the SEALS removing the Pirates heads from their shoulders. It should happen about 1000 more times. I do not believe that the Pres. gave the order to fire, and he shouldn't have. It's not his job. If he approved an overall plan to end that situation, then kudos to him and I support him 100%.

    But the media (for the most part) made it sound like Pres. Obama shot all three maggots himself. That's a lie. The hypocrisyt lies in the historical approach that the media and the left has to similar situations that Pres. Bush was involved in. That was the subject of the satire. Not support for the pirates or shots against the Pres. I understand that you are not smart enough to understand it.
    As I made it clear in my first post here that I believed the comments made were stupid and idiotic, out of context or not. You're right I don't understand exactly what Rush is talking about, because I can't dumb myself down enough to listen to him. Instead of you making a reply about his comments like you did here, you believe you are the forum police, and go on in telling others what they can and can't comment on. It is a matter of opinion, same as how you talk about the media here, it is a matter of opinion. Instead you came right out on here defending your boy Rush here and saying it is satire and people are taking his comments out of context, yet that is exactly what you do all the time on here. I was pointing out how you could defend satire here, but get completely worked up about it elsewhere.
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  8. #148
    MembersZone Subscriber MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    That is a liberal line of thought. For example, they want to take a terrorist such as KSM, read him his Miranda Rights, give him a lawyer, let him free on bail, give him his due process rights to a fair trial and so forth. Al Queda declared war on us, we didn't declare war on them (even now). He is a war criminal and a terrorist and should get none of those rights guaranteed to our citizens.
    It ain't Liberal Noth'n. Not Liberalism, not Conservatism, not Communism, not Socialism or any other "ism". Its the law. The same law that you uphold in your day to day work. We all know this is exactly what is going to happen. I think they call it "Due Process".

    I am not in anyway saying I disagree with you George, because I am not. I support your suggestion on how to treat Terroists. I really do. Remember, I was among the first to deploy from more than 3 different countries when the Towers fell. My only point is that regardless of whether its a guy who robs a bank and kills 15 people on his way out or three guys on an airplane that they force to crash into a building or a field, the basic principle applies, they (if they were to be caught) would be tried in a court of law. I know you know that.

    The final difference (should be - and I wish it were always the case) is that the terrorist will (probably?) be put in cells for life, whereas the guy who robbed the bank will probably be let go in 5 or 10 years. I also personally agree that a conviction of a terrorist act should be met with a rifle at dawn. No "lethal" injection, no waste of electricity. One man, one bullet. But of course we stopped doing firing squads because it was too hard on the officers who had to carry out that detail.

    By the way, like it or not, your Constitution decrees that the Terrorist should get his rights. I didn't write that document and neither did you. But it reads to that affect.

  9. #149
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Pirates are criminals.

    Terrorists are our enemy. No different than the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
    There is a difference between Al Queda and Japan. At least at Pearl Harbor we knew exactly who was bombing us and where they were. Al Queda cowardly hides amongst law abiding citizens, has no clear base of operations and so forth, enemy? absolutely, but not a clearly defined one.

    Problem with war criminal and or terrorist, even when war crimes are charged the accussed are still given a defense and a trial. KSM, while not a citizen and considered a war criminal, still goes through the same type of due process as the Nazis in Nuremberg. I would agree he shouldn't get the rights entitled to citizens, but any person brought up on war crimes had such rights.

    Go to the case of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the Beltway snipers, I would say they caused more terror in that area than committing random crimes and probably instilled more fear to Americans, than Al Queda after 9/11. Sure, because they were American citizens, they do get the due process allowed by law, but their acts could be considered terroristic, but they were not labeled as terrorists. Is there really a clear distinction between a terrorist and criminal?
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  10. #150
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    As I made it clear in my first post here that I believed the comments made were stupid and idiotic, out of context or not. You're right I don't understand exactly what Rush is talking about, because I can't dumb myself down enough to listen to him. Instead of you making a reply about his comments like you did here, you believe you are the forum police, and go on in telling others what they can and can't comment on. It is a matter of opinion, same as how you talk about the media here, it is a matter of opinion. Instead you came right out on here defending your boy Rush here and saying it is satire and people are taking his comments out of context, yet that is exactly what you do all the time on here. I was pointing out how you could defend satire here, but get completely worked up about it elsewhere.
    And I'm pretty sure that I explained to you in nice small words that the SNL thing wasn't satire.

    I never said you couldn't post here. I am the smartest guy on the forums, but Ii am not the forum police. I was talking about you not posting about this from an intellectual standpoint. You are clearky outmatched.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  11. #151
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    There is a difference between Al Queda and Japan. At least at Pearl Harbor we knew exactly who was bombing us and where they were. Al Queda cowardly hides amongst law abiding citizens, has no clear base of operations and so forth, enemy? absolutely, but not a clearly defined one.

    Problem with war criminal and or terrorist, even when war crimes are charged the accussed are still given a defense and a trial. KSM, while not a citizen and considered a war criminal, still goes through the same type of due process as the Nazis in Nuremberg. I would agree he shouldn't get the rights entitled to citizens, but any person brought up on war crimes had such rights.

    Go to the case of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the Beltway snipers, I would say they caused more terror in that area than committing random crimes and probably instilled more fear to Americans, than Al Queda after 9/11. Sure, because they were American citizens, they do get the due process allowed by law, but their acts could be considered terroristic, but they were not labeled as terrorists. Is there really a clear distinction between a terrorist and criminal?
    You don't give up, do you? You are outmatched again.

    Are you trying to tell us that Muhammad and Malvo are war criminals? That they were on some terrorist mission to overthrow the US government? That they were part of some organized terrorist network?

    They were punk criminals. They were delusional. They shot innocent victims for the hell of it. They did not declare war on the US. They were shooting people to get their rocks off. They get due process because they broke Maryland and Virginia law.

    KSM ran a large organized foreign terrorist network. They had declared war on the US. Their stated purpose was the complete anihilation of the US. They knew no boundaries. They struck in NYC and they struck in Yemen. They struck in the Phillipines. They struck in Lebanon. They struck in London. Their network is worldwide and consists of a huge financial component, massive personnel assets and a component that has infiltrated several foreign governments.

    And this equates in your brain to two idiots with a rifle and a 1990 Chevrolet?

    And I got news for you, we knew who was bombing us when Al Queda was bombing us, too.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  12. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    As I made it clear in my first post here that I believed the comments made were stupid and idiotic, out of context or not. You're right I don't understand exactly what Rush is talking about, because I can't dumb myself down enough to listen to him. Instead of you making a reply about his comments like you did here, you believe you are the forum police, and go on in telling others what they can and can't comment on. It is a matter of opinion, same as how you talk about the media here, it is a matter of opinion. Instead you came right out on here defending your boy Rush here and saying it is satire and people are taking his comments out of context, yet that is exactly what you do all the time on here. I was pointing out how you could defend satire here, but get completely worked up about it elsewhere.
    Look Rush supported the pirates and Obama discriminates against the handicapped. Both made stupid and idiotic statements. Now what? The big difference is one is an entertainer, the other is president. SO if you think Rush was wrong you really have to hate Obama.

  13. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    There is a difference between Al Queda and Japan. At least at Pearl Harbor we knew exactly who was bombing us and where they were. Al Queda cowardly hides amongst law abiding citizens, has no clear base of operations and so forth, enemy? absolutely, but not a clearly defined one.

    Problem with war criminal and or terrorist, even when war crimes are charged the accussed are still given a defense and a trial. KSM, while not a citizen and considered a war criminal, still goes through the same type of due process as the Nazis in Nuremberg. I would agree he shouldn't get the rights entitled to citizens, but any person brought up on war crimes had such rights.

    Go to the case of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the Beltway snipers, I would say they caused more terror in that area than committing random crimes and probably instilled more fear to Americans, than Al Queda after 9/11. Sure, because they were American citizens, they do get the due process allowed by law, but their acts could be considered terroristic, but they were not labeled as terrorists. Is there really a clear distinction between a terrorist and criminal?
    The difference was that Japan was a single country with a state sponsorship. Al Qaeda, comes from many countries, has no official sponsor (although several countries are supporting them), and is able to hide in the open.

  14. #154
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Look Rush supported the pirates and Obama discriminates against the handicapped. Both made stupid and idiotic statements. Now what? The big difference is one is an entertainer, the other is president. SO if you think Rush was wrong you really have to hate Obama.
    idiotboy, Rush did NOT support the pirates. Yet another stupid statement by you.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  15. #155
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You don't give up, do you? You are outmatched again.

    Are you trying to tell us that Muhammad and Malvo are war criminals? That they were on some terrorist mission to overthrow the US government? That they were part of some organized terrorist network?

    They were punk criminals. They were delusional. They shot innocent victims for the hell of it. They did not declare war on the US. They were shooting people to get their rocks off. They get due process because they broke Maryland and Virginia law.

    KSM ran a large organized foreign terrorist network. They had declared war on the US. Their stated purpose was the complete anihilation of the US. They knew no boundaries. They struck in NYC and they struck in Yemen. They struck in the Phillipines. They struck in Lebanon. They struck in London. Their network is worldwide and consists of a huge financial component, massive personnel assets and a component that has infiltrated several foreign governments.

    And this equates in your brain to two idiots with a rifle and a 1990 Chevrolet?

    And I got news for you, we knew who was bombing us when Al Queda was bombing us, too.

    It is called a comparison Georgie, the point that there is no real clear definition of terror or terrorist and criminal. You state the pirates are criminals, but terrorists are our enemy. Thing is that our own countrymen can also be accused of causing terror and not just international entities. Then you bring up the issue about war criminals and how they shouldn't get the rights Americans get. I agreed, but the problem is that even war criminals are afforded Due Process and have representation and a trial.

    The vague definition of terrorist is one who instills terror, which is why I made the comparision with the Beltway Snipers. That was a terrorist act and instilled terror to many people, they weren't war criminals, but it brings up a nice big grey area that just does not fit in your definition of terrorist and criminal. Same thing with Oklahoma City, Nichols and McVeigh were not tried as war criminals, do not fit your same defination as KSM, they were not part of a big organization, but are considered domestic terroists and convicted under federal laws.


    Since you are big into defitions I pulled this tidbit for something to consider:

    Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which is intended to create fear (terror), is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.
    A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. Acts of terrorism are criminal acts according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the domestic jurisprudence of almost all nations.

    The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition.

    And I got news for you, we knew who was bombing us when Al Queda was bombing us, too.
    Sure we did, problem is, where is Al Queda? They were not flying the flag of one country like Japan was. We knew exactly where the Japanese came from, they didn't just run and hide. The Japanese didn't use Saudis, Turks, Irish, Somali, Iranian, Iraqi, American and so forth to carry out their bombing.
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  16. #156
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    It is called a comparison Georgie, the point that there is no real clear definition of terror or terrorist and criminal. You state the pirates are criminals, but terrorists are our enemy. Thing is that our own countrymen can also be accused of causing terror and not just international entities. Then you bring up the issue about war criminals and how they shouldn't get the rights Americans get. I agreed, but the problem is that even war criminals are afforded Due Process and have representation and a trial.

    The vague definition of terrorist is one who instills terror, which is why I made the comparision with the Beltway Snipers. That was a terrorist act and instilled terror to many people, they weren't war criminals, but it brings up a nice big grey area that just does not fit in your definition of terrorist and criminal. Same thing with Oklahoma City, Nichols and McVeigh were not tried as war criminals, do not fit your same defination as KSM, they were not part of a big organization, but are considered domestic terroists and convicted under federal laws.


    Since you are big into defitions I pulled this tidbit for something to consider:

    Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which is intended to create fear (terror), is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.
    A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. Acts of terrorism are criminal acts according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the domestic jurisprudence of almost all nations.

    The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition.



    Sure we did, problem is, where is Al Queda? They were not flying the flag of one country like Japan was. We knew exactly where the Japanese came from, they didn't just run and hide. The Japanese didn't use Saudis, Turks, Irish, Somali, Iranian, Iraqi, American and so forth to carry out their bombing.
    The vague definition of a baseball player is one who plays baseball.

    My son's Little League team is 3-0. The Yanks started off 1-2. Holy crap! We are better than the Yankees!

    You can try all you want to try to engage in this intellectual discussion here. You continually prove that you lack the tools to do so. Your comparisons are inane and uninformed.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  17. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    idiotboy, Rush did NOT support the pirates. Yet another stupid statement by you.
    Sarcasm you Knucklehead!! Now why don't you and StupidClown run off and play with the rest of the Kindergartners?

  18. #158
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    The vague definition of a baseball player is one who plays baseball.

    My son's Little League team is 3-0. The Yanks started off 1-2. Holy crap! We are better than the Yankees!

    You can try all you want to try to engage in this intellectual discussion here. You continually prove that you lack the tools to do so. Your comparisons are inane and uninformed.

    Well Georgie, show me the clear cut definition of the terrorist and criminal and really what distinquishes them then.

    Baseball players still have the same rules, despite what level of play they are in. What is really seperating a criminal and terrorist then?
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  19. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    It is called a comparison Georgie,
    I think you may have hit on something here that expalins a lot.

    Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie,
    Kissed the girls and made them cry,
    When the boys came out to play
    Georgie Porgie ran away

    the point that there is no real clear definition of terror or terrorist and criminal. You state the pirates are criminals, but terrorists are our enemy. Thing is that our own countrymen can also be accused of causing terror and not just international entities. Then you bring up the issue about war criminals and how they shouldn't get the rights Americans get. I agreed, but the problem is that even war criminals are afforded Due Process and have representation and a trial.

    The vague definition of terrorist is one who instills terror, which is why I made the comparision with the Beltway Snipers. That was a terrorist act and instilled terror to many people, they weren't war criminals, but it brings up a nice big grey area that just does not fit in your definition of terrorist and criminal. Same thing with Oklahoma City, Nichols and McVeigh were not tried as war criminals, do not fit your same defination as KSM, they were not part of a big organization, but are considered domestic terroists and convicted under federal laws.


    Since you are big into defitions I pulled this tidbit for something to consider:

    Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which is intended to create fear (terror), is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.
    A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. Acts of terrorism are criminal acts according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the domestic jurisprudence of almost all nations.

    The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition.



    Sure we did, problem is, where is Al Queda? They were not flying the flag of one country like Japan was. We knew exactly where the Japanese came from, they didn't just run and hide. The Japanese didn't use Saudis, Turks, Irish, Somali, Iranian, Iraqi, American and so forth to carry out their bombing.
    Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, Ted Kaczynski was a Terrorist, Eric Rudolph was a terrorist, Greenpeace are terrorist, The Protestors at the G-20 were terrorists, ELF are terrorists, and the list goes on and on. Al Qaeda is one of many, who just happened to do the most damage and killed 343 fellow fire fighters in the process.
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 04-26-2009 at 10:31 AM.

  20. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    Well Georgie, show me the clear cut definition of the terrorist and criminal and really what distinquishes them then.

    Baseball players still have the same rules, despite what level of play they are in. What is really seperating a criminal and terrorist then?
    Hey How about Jack the Ripper, Robert Garrow, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy
    Ed Gein, Charles Manson, The Zodiac Kille, and Gary Leon Ridgway. They were all terrorist as well.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Royal Navy Engages Pirates
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 424
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 09:41 AM
  2. Fire chief defends grant
    By CaptainS in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-28-2005, 11:44 AM
  3. Is every Marine a rifleman? Not according to Limbaugh
    By scfire86 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 08:43 AM
  4. The Pirates may stink...but you'll NEVER take away 1979...
    By StayBack500FT in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 03:18 PM
  5. An interesting perspective from Rush Limbaugh
    By stm4710 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2005, 09:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts