Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 130

Thread: Why Rick Warren is a fascist asshole, and an albatross around Obama's neck

  1. #16
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    ACT-Up was started Larry Kramer. If he wasn't Stonewall gen, no one was. It was my generation that did it. I was barely a teenager when ACT UP started.

  2. #17
    Gold Member ymeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    I was in my late teens and early twenties and I remember, he may have started it but the people that went to the protests and did the die-ins were my peers, whereas the Stonewall generation was much smaller and the sad truth is that many of them were dead and dying from AIDS which is why everyone was so fucking enraged about it, enough to take to the streets like they did. The man I was living with in the nineties had a photo album he showed me of his days back in San Francisco and 2/3 of the men in the pictures were dead. He himself expected to be HIV positive because he was so sexually active during that time and he ended up shocked to find out he wasn't. I remember being in DC in 93 and ACT UP did a die in at the time and those were a diverse age-group but the majority were young gay men, who were children when Stonewall happened.

  3. #18
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Obama could have chosen someone with a much less radical right persepctive, but, to turn on his heel and admit choosing Warren was a mistake now would be a blow to Obama, bringing his judgment, and thus the success of a presidential term which has not begun, into question.

    Warren could very well turn out to be a useful prop in gaining the support of those conservatives who agree with Warren's insanity. Gain their support. Have them back requests, especially funding, which will assist in having goals met. Then quietly and nimbly remove oneself from the associations. Mission accomplished and no one was tarnished.



  4. #19
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Right.

    I wonder if people would feel the same way if it was a KKK grand wizard up there with him. Maybe all the conservatives who feel the same as the KK would get on board and support Obama, and then Obama could quietly disassociate himself from them.

    Nobody would be tarnished!
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #20
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    The KKK is a joke. Who the hell takes them seriously anymore? I would laugh maniacally if David Duke or a similar idiot were attending the inauguration of a black man.

    I don't get the impression Obama, or his team overall, are anti-gay. The man's presidency is controversial enough. Do you honestly believe he could shove gay rights into the forefront at the very beginning of his term without experiencing backlash rippling through everything he and his team try to accomplish?

    There are other more important issues at this time which need right wing support. I understand gay rights are very important, but the most immediate concerns are not gay rights. The economy trumps almost everything else, and if the Repubs decide to hinder progress, many more people will be affected than those affected by gay rights.

    He has to move carefully and strategically in order to do what needs to be done for the US at large.

    Most large churches don't condone homosexuality anyway. If he had gone with any of those religion's leaders, the gay community would be offended. If Obama had chosen a religious leader from a religion which did support homosexuality, there would still be an outcry, just from a different group. There is no correct choice in this case, if correct means a religious leader everyone would accept.

    When gay rights are the a main issue during his term, his actions then should be judged. Before judging them, keep in mind, neither Obama nor McCain are supporters of gay marriage, and admitted such.



  6. #21
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Do you honestly believe he could shove gay rights into the forefront at the very beginning of his term without experiencing backlash rippling through everything he and his team try to accomplish?
    No, but nor does he have to be as crass as to shove them into the back of the bus with Warren right off the bat.

    There are other more important issues at this time which need right wing support. I understand gay rights are very important, but the most immediate concerns are not gay rights. The economy trumps almost everything else, and if the Repubs decide to hinder progress, many more people will be affected than those affected by gay rights.
    Yes, how many times have we heard that sad excuse. It's never the time. There are always more important things to deal with. Not right now. Stop being so selfish. If you don't have a job, your rights won't matter one whit, etc etc etc.

    It's tired and played out. yes, the economy and whatever else is important, but that's the great thing about multitasking. You can do more than one thing at a time.

    Secondly, the rethugs are either going to support Obama on his economic recovery and squeak through with some vestige of relevancy, or they'll fight it the whole way and be responsible for a great depression and kill their chances of government dominance for the forseeable future. That argument is one big fat logic hole.

    He has to move carefully and strategically in order to do what needs to be done for the US at large.
    ie: sit down, shut up, more important things, etc.

    Most large churches don't condone homosexuality anyway. If he had gone with any of those religion's leaders, the gay community would be offended. If Obama had chosen a religious leader from a religion which did support homosexuality, there would still be an outcry, just from a different group. There is no correct choice in this case, if correct means a religious leader everyone would accept.
    i didn't realize anybody had to give a shit how bigots felt. Who cares how they feel, they're bigots. They aren't supposed to register sympathy. Do racists? Do anti-semites? NAh. It's just the gays, so feel bad for slighted bigots.

    When gay rights are the a main issue during his term, his actions then should be judged. Before judging them, keep in mind, neither Obama nor McCain are supporters of gay marriage, and admitted such.
    They'll never be. That's just it. There are alway more important things to deal with, per your argument. You're saying sit down and be quiet until an event that will never happen, happens.

    No likely, sister.

    Why is it all your explanations basically repeat every right wing argument?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #22
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Why are your explanations basically a tantrum? While gay rights may be of the utmost importance to gays, the rest of the country sees possible widespread financial issues as just a bit more in need of attention. Is that asking gay rights be ignored forever? No. If they are not addressed right now, will some be pissed? Of course. So?

    Can you see past the word bigot? Get a clue, then read it again. The word religious should have clued you in that anyone chosen to represent that portion of society, catering to the historically held religious beliefs and not more "progressive" religious doctrine, would more than likely not support homosexuality because of their beliefs, hence homosexuals would be outraged by his being chosen. "Progressive" churches and its representatives would have been raked over the coals by the religious and the right wing. Someone was going to be perturbed, regardless of who was chosen.

    Anyone who believes gay rights are more important, at this time, than the economic welfare of this country as a whole is pompous and delusional. When the most pressing issues have been dealt with, scream, yell, riot if you feel it will get your voices heard. Thinking gay rights issues are paramount in this landscape is ridiculous. While multitasking can be done, I should think focusing on dealing with the mess in the Middle East, creating jobs, and dealing with the new homeless and unemployed will require more than cursory observation.

    If having right wingers at his inauguration garners the support to bring this country back from the brink of financial ruin, so be it. I don't like it. I am neither right wing nor religious, but another Depression is worse than hearing sanctimonious bullshit from a loudmouth who can easily be ignored. His views will not change anyone else's.

    Considering he pastored one of the largest churches in the US, which was in arguably the most liberal state in the Union, in the religious realm, his views are not so radical. I've heard much worse and much less tolerant.

    Let Obama at least get into office before you condemn him.



  8. #23
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    Why are your explanations basically a tantrum? While gay rights may be of the utmost importance to gays, the rest of the country sees possible widespread financial issues as just a bit more in need of attention. Is that asking gay rights be ignored forever? No. If they are not addressed right now, will some be pissed? Of course. So?
    .. because it's been 30 or more years of "now isn't the time".. and if the time isn't made, or forced to be made, it never will be.

    Can you see past the word bigot? Get a clue, then read it again. The word religious should have clued you in that anyone chosen to represent that portion of society, catering to the historically held religious beliefs and not more "progressive" religious doctrine, would more than likely not support homosexuality because of their beliefs, hence homosexuals would be outraged by his being chosen. "Progressive" churches and its representatives would have been raked over the coals by the religious and the right wing. Someone was going to be perturbed, regardless of who was chosen.
    yes, and conveniently it's the group that nobody minds kicking around yet again. Would they outrage jews or blacks? Not on their lives.

    Anyone who believes gay rights are more important, at this time, than the economic welfare of this country as a whole is pompous and delusional.
    Says someone who has all their rights gifted to them from birth. How arrogant and self righteous of you to declare to gays, who are second class citizens, what they should feel from your ivory tower. Equality and breaking the bonds of social oppression are vastly more important, in theory and in practice than if John doe can go buy a new tv or not.

    What a hideous argument. Freedom isn't worth it if someone else doesn't have a job? Get real.

    When the most pressing issues have been dealt with, scream, yell, riot if you feel it will get your voices heard.
    Again, you seem to miss the part where THERE ARE ALWAYS MORE/MOST PRESSING ISSUES. It's always "later". It's always "not now."

    Sorry, but NOW is the time. Not later, not some distant point in the future, now.


    Thinking gay rights issues are paramount in this landscape is ridiculous. While multitasking can be done, I should think focusing on dealing with the mess in the Middle East, creating jobs, and dealing with the new homeless and unemployed will require more than cursory observation.
    Yes, again things that will never be resolved and that always shove gay rights to the end of the list. Do you even hear yourself?

    How about this: When the middle east is peaceful, the homeless issue is finally solved and the unemployed all find jobs BLACKS WILL HAVE THEIR RIGHTS.

    Doesn't seem so nice now, does it. That's the same argument, and it's idiotic.

    If having right wingers at his inauguration garners the support to bring this country back from the brink of financial ruin, so be it. I don't like it. I am neither right wing nor religious, but another Depression is worse than hearing sanctimonious bullshit from a loudmouth who can easily be ignored. His views will not change anyone else's.
    His views, and his promotion are part of OUR problem. They encourage his brand of stupidity. They encourage people to push bigotry.

    Considering he pastored one of the largest churches in the US, which was in arguably the most liberal state in the Union, in the religious realm, his views are not so radical. I've heard much worse and much less tolerant.
    His views equated gays with incest and pedophilia, not to mention bestiality. If he did the same to blacks, you'd be pissed.

    Let Obama at least get into office before you condemn him.
    No. Any decision he makes is open to critique.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #24
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Says someone who has all their rights gifted to them from birth. How arrogant and self righteous of you to declare to gays, who are second class citizens, what they should feel from your ivory tower. Equality and breaking the bonds of social oppression are vastly more important, in theory and in practice than if John doe can go buy a new tv or not.

    What a hideous argument. Freedom isn't worth it if someone else doesn't have a job? Get real.
    Would you feel better if everyone in the soup kitchens and bread lines had equal rights in poverty? The argument isn't hideous. The argument just doesn't fit what you want and believe.

    Your statements are arrogant. How dare you say sexuality, a subject which has been debated for centuries with no resolution is somehow more important today, note the word TODAY, than an economy which, if allowed to fester, will thrust people into destitution with no regard for ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.

    Any place on the list which falls behind number one is the end to you, thus unacceptable. If you even entertain the idea gay rights, today, not tomorrow, not a year from now, is more important than anything else, you are the one who needs to step down from the high horse.

    Don't tell me what I would be pissed about. You aren't black. You have no idea what blacks experience every damn day, even having "equality".

    If Warren's beliefs are based on the bible, then all acts condemned by it are abominable in his mind. If he wants to think that way, let him wallow in his bliss. Every one can hear his thoughts, and those who know better, will dismiss him.

    If the two choices given as to where to focus energy and attention today, are avoiding another Depression or debating gay rights, I am sure most would rather work on not having this country's citizens boiling rocks for soup in a few years time. How would those fancy weddings be financed then?

    If there were no major issues facing this country right now and Obama refused to even broach the subject of gay rights, I would call him out on it. In this case, if he ignored the economy, and every direct result of it, to focus on other matters, he would be brought to task. When the economy is on the road to recovery, I want Obama and his team to definitively state where they stand on gay rights. Once that is done, let the conflict begin so it can be put to rest once and for all.

    It's not number one on the priority list now. Damn everything else for happening and pushing issues back.



  10. #25
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    Would you feel better if everyone in the soup kitchens and bread lines had equal rights in poverty?
    Yep.

    Your statements are arrogant. How dare you say sexuality, a subject which has been debated for centuries with no resolution is somehow more important today, let me assist you here TODAY, than an economy which, if allowed to fester, will thrust people into destitution with no regard for ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
    because it's something that can be solved instantly if only leaders had the fucking guts to do it.

    Any place on the list which falls behind number one is the end to you, thus unacceptable. If you even entertain the idea gay rights, today, not tomorrow, not a year from now, is more important than anything else, you are the one who needs to step down from the high horse.
    It's been on the backburner for decades. Gays have been patient enough.

    Maybe blacks should have been more patient when they marched.

    Don't tell me what I would be pissed about. You aren't black. You have no idea what black experience every damn day, even having "equality".
    You can't be fired for being black. You can marry your chosen spouse. You have all the legal protections, financial and otherwise, that gays don't. Your existence is not the same. You enjoy societal benefits gays don't.

    You think gays don't deal with discrimination aside from that? We get bashed and lynched.

    If Warren's beliefs are based on the bible, then all acts condemned by it are abominable in his mind. If he wants to think that way, let him wallow in his bliss.
    If only he wallowed by himself. If only he didn't have a national stage on which to promote his bigotry. If only leaders would stop giving him legitimacy. If he kept his nonsense to himself, NOBODY WOULD CARE.

    If two choices are given as where to focus energy and attention today, and those are on avoiding another Depression or debating gay rights, I am sure most would rather work on not having this country's citizens boiling rocks for soup in a few years time. How would those fancy weddings be financed then?
    Fancy weddings? Every gay wedding I've been to has been at city hall and lasted a half hour.

    If there were no major issues facing this country right now and Obama refused to even broach the subject of gay rights, I would call him out on it. In this case, if he ignored the economy, and every direct result of it, to focus on other matters, he would be brought to task.
    Again, the hilarity of not being able to do 2 things at once all of a sudden. I suppose that while he's working on the economy, the middle east will be ignored? What about that homeless situation, that will be on the backburner till the middle east is cured? Is there a roster of issues to be dealt with, one by one, that i'm not aware of? Every other issue just has to wait their turn?

    Funny, I thought all those issues are worked on at once. Oh right, except for gay rights because FOR SOME REASON EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF FIRST.. you know, despite those other things being worked on all at the same time in reality.

    Silly argument.

    It's not number one on the priority list now. Damn everything else for happening and pushing issues back.
    Damn silly arguments that promote the idea that one issue can be worked on at one time.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  11. #26
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Gay rights is a major issue for you and others who are affected by the gay rights movement. I am sure for gay people, it is a top priority every day. That doesn't make it a top priority overall. I would say it is obvious that is the situation.

    Being black and being gay aren't the same and that tired comparison is becoming more irrelevant every time it is used. Stop trying to use the imagined similarity between the history of hatred, in America, based on skin color/ethnicity and the history of laws and acceptance of practices based on sexuality throughout the world. There isn't one.

    Yes, all racial minorities live in a Shangri-La, thanks to laws which mean we can never face discrimination. Please! Hanging from trees is passe. The racists have just become more creative.

    Warren is like any other citizen in this country. He can say what he wants, but no one has to listen to him. Bush was the President and spoke publicly all the time. How many gave any of his words any credibility? The fact is Warren is not going to change anyone's mind, one way or the other.

    Several things can be done at once? No way! Multitasking isn't just theoretical? Having the ability to do it and deciding whether is should be done are two different ideas. For Obama to bring gay rights up early in his presidency would be a major blow to his administration, possibly lessening the effectiveness he can have in other areas which need attention. Whether you like it or not, gay rights as an early focus in his administration would benefit no one, including gay people. Why? The backlash, from conservatives, liberals, and those in between alike would shut it down quickly, find the conservatives throwing up roadblocks on other issues, etc.

    You don't have to like the situation. You definitely don't have to agree with the situation. What anyone, gay, straight, black, white, whatever, should be able to see is any president, especially one who is being scrutinized moreso than his predecessors would be committing political suicide to bring up any subject which causes flaring on both sides.

    What exactly do you expect from the Obama Administration, as far as gay rights, considering both he and his Veep, have confirmed they don't support gay marriage? I don't understand why the gay movement is surprised by the lack of active pursual of rights, such as marriage, by an Administration which is headed by two men who do not agree with the hottest topic within the movement. Why would Obama risk his term in its infancy pursuing something he admitted he does not support?



  12. #27
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post

    Being black and being gay aren't the same and that tired comparison is becoming more irrelevant every time it is used. Stop trying to use the imagined similarity between the history of hatred, in America, based on skin color/ethnicity and the history of laws and acceptance of practices based on sexuality throughout the world. There isn't one.
    Funny, most gay people think otherwise. Blacks just don't like being lumped into the same category these days. It's too icky for you all.

    Civil rights are civil rights. Nobody gives a crap whether black people think it's gross to be lumped in with gays except for the damn bigots themselves, and they're too fucking busy assfucking on the DL because the black community is virulently more homophobic than most others and they have to hide.

    So really, too fucking bad. Deal.



    Tell this guy he's wrong. I think he would know. HE alone trumps all your 'slippery slope', 'oppressed churches' right wing argument repeating claptrap.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  13. #28
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    Gay rights is a major issue for you and others who are affected by the gay rights movement. I am sure for gay people, it is a top priority every day. That doesn't make it a top priority overall. I would say it is obvious that is the situation.
    So... what you're saying is that because something isn't a top priority overall for everyone, it isn't important? As you might imagine, if we waited for it to become the top priority there would have been plenty of waiting.
    Being black and being gay aren't the same and that tired comparison is becoming more irrelevant every time it is used. Stop trying to use the imagined similarity between the history of hatred, in America, based on skin color/ethnicity and the history of laws and acceptance of practices based on sexuality throughout the world. There isn't one.
    Interesting, the gay black men disagree. What makes you qualified to say it doesn't share the same core truths?

    1) Nobody has a choice about their skin colour, or their sexual orientation.
    2) Religious teachings are used to justify discrimination against the skin colour or orientation.
    3) People have been killed for being black/gay.

    What IS different is that it's not readily apparent that the gay person has no choice about their orientation. While nobody has ever tried to turn a black person white, there are ex-gay conversion camps abound. These camps are little more than organizations that exist to inflict psychological suffering on gay people to make other people feel better.
    Yes, all racial minorities live in a Shangri-La, thanks to laws which mean we can never face discrimination. Please! Hanging from trees is passe. The racists have just become more creative.
    There's a large difference between being able to discriminate against people legally, and having to find ulterior motives for that discrimination. If you suspect you've been fired because of your race, you can go to the courts and attempt to sue your employer.

    If you suspect you've been fired because you're gay, your boss can walk up to you and say "I'm firing you, you fucking faggot." without any fear of repercussions.
    Warren is like any other citizen in this country. He can say what he wants, but no one has to listen to him. Bush was the President and spoke publicly all the time. How many gave any of his words any credibility? The fact is Warren is not going to change anyone's mind, one way or the other.
    There's a difference between acknowledging the freedom of speech, and awarding someone respect and recognition by selecting him for Obama's inauguration.
    Several things can be done at once? No way! Multitasking isn't just theoretical? Having the ability to do it and deciding whether is should be done are two different ideas. For Obama to bring gay rights up early in his presidency would be a major blow to his administration, possibly lessening the effectiveness he can have in other areas which need attention. Whether you like it or not, gay rights as an early focus in his administration would benefit no one, including gay people. Why? The backlash, from conservatives, liberals, and those in between alike would shut it down quickly, find the conservatives throwing up roadblocks on other issues, etc.
    Such as... repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell? The Republicans will do whatever they can to make Obama fail anyway, and if you have the politicians and general officers who supported the measure come out against it, you'd have a pretty good case. Just peel a couple of Republicans against the measure in the Senate and BOOM! Pro-gay activity.
    You don't have to like the situation. You definitely don't have to agree with the situation. What anyone, gay, straight, black, white, whatever, should be able to see is any president, especially one who is being scrutinized moreso than his predecessors would be committing political suicide to bring up any subject which causes flaring on both sides.
    I thought the slogan was "Change we Can Believe In", not "Change We're Too Timid to Introduce". And don't you think that a politican this adroit is able to introduce pro-gay measures without putting a stick in Congress' eye?
    What exactly do you expect from the Obama Administration, as far as gay rights, considering both he and his Veep, have confirmed they don't support gay marriage? I don't understand why the gay movement is surprised by the lack of active pursual of rights, such as marriage, by an Administration which is headed by two men who do not agree with the hottest topic within the movement. Why would Obama risk his term in its infancy pursuing something he admitted he does not support?
    How about... Don't Ask Don't Tell? Repealing DOMA? Federal anti-discrimination laws? It's not all about gay marriage honey, let's try to think outside the box.

  14. #29
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Funny, most gay people think otherwise. Blacks just don't like being lumped into the same category these days. It's too icky for you all.

    Civil rights are civil rights. Nobody gives a crap whether black people think it's gross to be lumped in with gays except for the damn bigots themselves, and they're too fucking busy assfucking on the DL because the black community is virulently more homophobic than most others and they have to hide.

    So really, too fucking bad. Deal.



    Tell this guy he's wrong. I think he would know. HE alone trumps all your 'slippery slope', 'oppressed churches' right wing argument repeating claptrap.
    It's not a matter of blacks thinking it's gross to be lumped in with gays. The fact is while they may be civil rights struggles, they are two different civil rights struggles.

    The two major issues of the current gay civil rights movement is primarily about being able to get married and being able to serve in the military. Gays can still vote freely, go to whatever school they want to go to, don't have to sit in the back of the bus, use seperate bathrooms or water fountains, and can basically move into any neighborhood they chose to. And gays aren't currently being lynched from trees every day or constantly having police dogs and hoses turned on them as they struggle for civil rights. During the civil rights struggle of the 60's that's what blacks had to go through, so it's not the same exact struggle.

    The environment is much different for the gay civil rights movement than it was for the civil rights movement for blacks.

  15. #30
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Again, tell it to that guy. Same shit, different pile.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 6th, 2008, 12:05 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 20th, 2008, 08:51 PM
  3. ABC's report on Sarah Palin's book banning fascist hitlerbitch crap
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 12th, 2008, 09:55 AM
  4. Meet Barack Obama's new albatross: Supporter backs Iraqi terror
    By Incognito in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 17th, 2008, 05:28 PM

Posting Permissions

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