DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Farenheit 9/11

Forums > The General Forum

Farenheit 9/11

milladrive	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 2:57 AM And... 100.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 2:59 AM Saying Bush shouldn't be president is an oppinion?!?!?!??!?!?!?!? WOA!!!! I've never been so INFORMED.
Grateguy	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 3:00 AM You're welcome.
ronnie71	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 3:38 AM skeletor still kicks ass!!!
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 3:44 AM Ronnie you know your comments are always welcome, because you're being funny stupid... not just plain stupid.
Woof	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 4:49 AM http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/03/con04139.html http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html I'm trying to stay out of this. But sometimes...
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 5:07 AM First you ARE staying out of it. Then you start trickling in your two cents slowly. Next thing we know you'll be on a rant as well. By the way we all understand Bush & Fox are in bed together, and they're both ugly... so me thinks you weren't surprising anyone with those links.
sinai	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 5:08 AM we should juss give it back to clinton, he seemed to know the game rather well.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 5:13 AM Indeed he did. He also knew how to break the rules of game, like so many before and after him... and I aint just talkin about busting a nut in the oval office. I have a better idea, let's vote for someone honest... someone who wants to make ALL of the people happy in this country. Hahahahaha... well it was fun to imagine at least.
sinai	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 6:31 AM he did about the best he could...we didnt have a major war, it was easy to get a job, and my stocks were through the roof. the greatest econoy in the history of the earth, you just can't fuck with that, man. and if the president of the united states can't get a headjob...whats that say about the chances of a guy like me?
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 8:23 AM "he did about the best he could..." DON'T make me laugh.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 8:40 AM This article was written in '99 and I remember talking with my dad about it all the time. He hates Clinton and his gross wife. Tactical High Ground Yet it must be understood that — improbable though it may seem — the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a triumph of spin control. By making his personal depravity the central focus of the impeachment debate (although he was impeached for his subversion of the rule of law), Mr. Clinton has chosen a battlefield in which he and his "secret police" have the tactical advantage. This is illustrated by the pre-emptive attack on former House Speaker designate Robert Livingston (R-LA), and the retaliatory attacks launched by pornographer and presidential ally Larry Flynt. Lost amid the superficial tumult that characterizes the "politics of personal destruction" is the fact that the impeachment of Mr. Clinton on Lewinsky-related charges deferred a much-needed inquiry into the graver charges that are pending against Bill Clinton — specifically, treason and bribery, which are specifically cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. Evidence abounds that Mr. Clinton, in acts of official perfidy that may be unparalleled in our nation’s history, accepted bribes from Red China in the form of illegal political contributions,and in exchange made policy decisions that undermined our national security to the benefit of that hostile foreign power. The mantra chanted by the President’s lackeys and partisans is that Bill Clinton’s acts in the Lewinsky matter "don’t rise to the level" of impeachment or removal from office. Not even the most chauvinistic of Bill Clinton’s defenders could recite that slogan regarding treason. As the sides lined up for the "Trial of the Century" in the Senate, debate raged as to whether witnesses would be heard, and — if so — who they would be: Monica Lewinsky? Bettie Currie? Vernon Jordan? Sidney Blumenthal? For those concerned about America’s national security, the crucial fact was that the witness list would not include John Huang, Johnny Chung, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, Maria Hsia, Ted Sioeng, or others found on the list of the more than 100 potential material witnesses in the so-called Chinagate affair who have fled, invoked the Fifth Amendment, or brazenly refused to cooperate with investigators. Therein lies the real triumph of Clintonite spin-control — and a tragic dereliction of duty on the part of Congress. Open Door to the Enemy In their masterful exposé Year of the Rat — a volume which will be prominently featured in this issue of THE NEW AMERICAN — congressional investigators Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II document that "in order to gain and hold onto power, the Clinton administration has acted recklessly, allowing the wrong people to gain access to our most important political and economic secrets. Any number of Chinese arms dealers, spies, narcotics traffickers, gangsters, pimps, accomplices to mass murder, communist agents, and other undesirables … [were] associated one way or another with the White House and money." That such a squalid parade was able to buy access to the most intimate recesses of the White House is shocking and disgusting. But this is much, much more than merely an offense against aesthetics: • The Red Chinese military (the so-called People’s Liberation Army, or PLA) is now able to deploy much more accurate nuclear-armed missiles pointed at the United States, in large measure because of policy decisions by President Clinton that have benefited campaign donors — including one who laundered money for the PLA. • In exchange for "hush money" paid to Webster Hubbell by the Red Chinese-connected Indonesian Lippo conglomerate, Bill Clinton personally sponsored the appointment of John Huang, a suspected Red Chinese agent, to a sensitive Commerce Department post, where, as Timperlake and Triplett note, "he could be a source of priceless military and economic intelligence" for Red China. Huang proved to be a particularly valuable asset in collecting intelligence on high technology, including satellite encryption technology that is vital to America’s defense — and highly coveted by the PLA. • President Clinton and his subordinates made extraordinary efforts to facilitate the lease of the former Long Beach Naval Station to the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), a PLA-connected container shipping fleet that specializes in drug and weapons smuggling. This followed illegal donations filtered from Red Chinese sources. A COSCO affiliate has also been granted a lease on the Panama Canal’s "anchor ports" of Cristobal and Balboa, thereby foreshadowing Beijing’s control over one of the world’s most critical strategic "choke points." • Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, a member of a Red Chinese-linked Triad criminal syndicate, laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars into both the Clinton-Gore campaign and the President’s legal defense trust. Following a $460,000 donation to the legal defense trust, Trie — acting as a courier on behalf of Red China — placed a "strategic memo in front of the President at a time of international crisis, resulting in a reply that changed a long-established element of foreign policy," recall Timperlake and Triplett. Mr. Clinton’s reply to the memo signaled a decisive turn away from previous assurances to the free Chinese of Taiwan that the U.S. would defend them against aggression from Beijing. • On dozens of occasions, Mr. Clinton has refused to impose sanctions on Beijing for its export of military technologies to terrorist states, despite the fact that he is required by law — specifically, a law co-written by the senator whom he chose as his running mate, Al Gore — to impose sanctions. • The Administration has conferred prestige and status upon both the political and military leaders who ordered and carried out the Tiananmen Square massacre. PLA General Chi Haotian, who was in operational command of the troops who conducted the slaughter, and General Xu Huizi, who was in tactical command of the troops on-site, have been received in Washington, DC with full honors and allowed to tour sensitive U.S. military installations. For good measure, General Chi’s entourage included an official who had casually mentioned the possibility that Beijing might attack Los Angeles with nuclear weapons should the U.S. come to the aid of Taiwan after an invasion from the mainland. These are just a few of the ways in which Bill Clinton and his Administration have undercut our national security and enhanced Red China’s capacity to pursue aggression. "The most favorable explanation for this betrayal is incompetence," point out Timperlake and Triplett. "But it is far more likely that in order to gain campaign contributions and pay hush money to witnesses, the Clinton-Gore administration turned a deliberate blind eye to these threats to our national security." plus... Bill Clinton had 3 chances in the past to catch/persecute Osama but turned them all down. Even when Sudan was willing to turn Bin Lauden over to America in 1995, he still didn't persecute him. Why? Because the Clinton administration stripped the FBI and CIA of all of their powers. We didn't have enough intelligence to dig up evidence so Clinton let him go. So Sinai, he did the best he could?
MCCUBED	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 12:05 PM I LIKE THIS THREAD! I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. 99% OPINION BUT ITS GOOD. I THINK I'M DONE. LATER^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LordAndrew	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 12:11 PM Thread summary: "Fuck you... your stupid im smart... your immature not me... no your the one whos immature... i know what im talking about, you obviously dont... your a dumbass... no your the dumbass!... im too good to talk to you so im going to stop... go ahead then dumbass... ok i will... well go ahead then... im going to idiot... your the idiot!... no your the idiot!... ect." The Internet, most incredible invention in the history of man kind allowing people from all over the world to communicate and share ideas in the matter of seconds.
jmweirick	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 12:22 PM
djfacemachine	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 1:04 PM too much stuff! and i figure, if its political i probably don't wanna read it. but from what i did read, you guys are hilarious and i still heart you maffmatix
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 1:50 PM LordAndrew... not to further any annoyances, but your enormously whitty post reminding us of the fighting (when fighting currently seems to have halted) only makes things worse. That is a bad thread summary. It's a good few-post summary though.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 2:03 PM Plus I've been informative... have you? ANYWAYS this thread about the propaganda film, F-9/11... not Clinton. Hmmm F-9/11.. sounds like a fighter jet.
silverwolf121	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 2:24 PM I'm gonna from a corner and just watch the action!
Woof	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 7:23 PM I've read similar analysis from more reliable sources, but this is all I could find on the web, on the spur of the moment: http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/poly-econ.htm Goes a long way towards explaining why Bush would like the major issue in November to be the economy, doesn't it? Call "Fahrenheit" propaganda; call it biased... plenty of folks have called it worse. It doesn't change the message, which doesn't stray very far from what Bush's critics (respectable ones who've been on the political scene for quite some time, and have loads of credibility) have been speculating, for some time. And maybe you're right, Maffmatix. I'm a tolerant guy with a long fuse... but it's been burnin' for quite awhile. And LordAndrew's summation was actually pretty darned on the mark, based on what I've seen happen on politics-related strings posted here in the past. If actual reasonable discussion can be had here, without everybody resorting to calling everybody dumbasses, it'd go a long way towards restoring my faith in the integrity of the forums' community. So, for the record, I loved the film, and I'm going to see it again tonight. Not because I'm a Michael Moore disciple, but because "F-9/11" does raise issues that I believe bear closer scrutiny.
mtekk	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 8:29 PM Jm is right it is just a movie, it can't be a documentary since it is too skewed and bias. The 'news' that the government is corrupt isn't anything new, and the extent of the corruptness yet unknown, you would have to be a 10000% brain dead (and brain washed) fool to believe that the current administration caused/started the corruption. Farenheit 9/11 - what kind of a f'd up name is this for a movie? There is obviously nothing about fire in it and it obviously ripps the name from the book Farenheit 451, which is a shame, it really defaces a great book. to see the "other side" I'd suggest listening to talk radio hosts such as jason lewis (thoes in Charelett area of N. Carolina(he used to be in MN)), Sean Hannity http://www.hannity.com (all good talk radio stations, plus free (live when avalible) straming internet radio), Chris Crock, and many others. along with reading from reliable sources such as an encyclopedia, now don't start messing with wikipedia you who are ignorant, and fail to face the truth. I am positive that Farenheit 9/11 fails to reveal the root of the problem, but is only a political movie, and i refuse to watch a political movie. What happened on 9/11 was more than 70% clinton's fault, and think of it this way, if Bush did let the CIA and FBI take the muslims, who did it, out the librals and other idiots would rise in an uproar for targeting "innocent" people. The libral community, who made Farenheit 9/11, really want's to take our freedom away, they want us to be mad and elect one of their own into office so that they can have controol over our lives, even the other side has some overly radical people who will do more harm then good. this is because they all want power, they have a greed for power, a desire for it, and if they don't have it they go nuts, and once they get a little they want more and more, and soon enought we'll be slaves to the bastards, just like we are slaves to the legal system.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 8:43 PM Woof, thanks for telling me how you feel. But I think you're wrong. I think it's obvious that I'm right about thinking you're wrong. And so on. And are you suggesting I haven't been discussing this matter reasonably? I have been the most talkative in this entire thread so far, and the only time I resorted to fighting was when Grateguy started being a prick. Oh, and if you didn't notice, my group's name is Dislocated Boner. I rap about anal sex and retards. I have an immature sense of humor and I don't care what people think about that, it's a big 'I don't give a fuck' attitude I got going. SO- if you want to tell me how you feel about this subject, do so, but don't get mad at me for having a different oppinion than you.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 9:03 PM And also.. "calling it propaganda doesn't change the message" ..um yes that's true... but isn't that the epitome of stating the obvious? Hitler made nazi power films... calling those propaganda films doesn't change the message either.
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 9:07 PM ALSO ENOUGH of this "YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE MORONIC IDIOT TO BELIEVE THIS AND THAT" crap guys. Seriously. I have seen like 4 people make posts on this thread, subtley calling other people idiots without actually calling them idiots. If you're gonna do it, at least say straight up "You're stupid, sir." and drop this reading between the lines shite.
Woof	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 9:15 PM Well, DJ... let's clear this up. First, I'm not sure what part of what I posted, you're saying I'm wrong about... I addressed several issues. So I'll have to guess. You seem to take what I post as being directed at you, which It hasn't been. When I wrote that I had a long fuse, and that it's been burnin' for quite awhile, I meant that you were probably right that I'd get more involved in the thread, which is happening. You're also not the only individual posting here, who's resorted to fighting (obviously)! It's happened before, and it's happened here... but I'm not putting it all on you. No way. Essentially we seem to agree an a lot, although we may have different ways of putting it. So no... I've got no beef with you. It's a mistake to assume that. We could be working together to keep decent information coming forward, and actually, I was hoping we would. Hope this helps clear things up. Peace. On the other hand, Mtekk... "I am positive that Farenheit 9/11 fails to reveal the root of the problem, but is only a political movie, and i refuse to watch a political movie." ...But you're here to discuss it?
Grateguy	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 9:20 PM ;
Maffmatix	Date: July 3, 2004 @ 9:41 PM Grateguy please stop talking to me. Woof I was referring to a few things- I just cannot agree with you about Moore's film I don't think. Also I was referring to you agreeing with Lord Andrew. This thread hasn't had a whole lot of name calling and fighting, and I think bringing it up and fighting over the fact that were fights makes it worse. But I never had beef man. I got 99 problems and this thread aint one.
sinai	Date: July 4, 2004 @ 3:05 AM and Yes dis, he did do the best he could... he aint the first person in history to take hush money, hell Reagan trained terrorists to fight in South America and then gave billions to Bin Laden to help fight the russians. (and thats if any word of that article is even true!! everyone made such a big deal out of ken starr and whitewater, for years its all you heard about...yeah turns out it was all a bunch of bullshit) long story short, greatest economy in the history of the earth, dont care how, when, why, who got bought, who got blown, was, this and that... greatest economy in the history of the earth. but i love ya anyway
sinai	Date: July 4, 2004 @ 3:08 AM and i apologize for being so behind on replies, i aint here much lately
Maffmatix	Date: July 4, 2004 @ 3:31 AM So you're disregarding all the things he's done wrong. Hmm... interesting way to go about it. But I love YOU anyway.
Maffmatix	Date: July 4, 2004 @ 3:33 AM I am not going to continue posting about Bill Clinton. This thread is about that crazy film. And we've talked about that enough. I hereby ditch this thread. PEACE!
MCCUBED	Date: July 4, 2004 @ 10:59 AM P.S. CHECK OUT MY MUSIC.
CowgirlBebop	Date: July 4, 2004 @ 7:51 PM i just got here whines i saw it yesterday. it was...interesting. flint really sucks.
Thaspian	Date: July 5, 2004 @ 2:13 AM I haven't even seen it - yet I do know a bit about it. It's biased propaganda. Wheather you're pro or anti-war. What irritates me is that if somebody could put together a pro-war biased video in the same format that moore has put together this anti-war biased video, a lot of people would've been having the same reactions when they saw it; except they'd be pro war ones, since their opinions could be swayed easily by a movie. It's like after a parent sees an anti-piracy commercial and runs to the child's computer looking for kazaa.exe , they're getting extremely biased information from a popular source(TV commercial), and they have no other information in front of them to help form their opinions on. So they agree with what they saw. The same thing could happen here. Just as quickly as people were chanting "INVADE IRAQ!! YAY AHHMERRIKA!!!11", the people could change their opinions and become anti-war because of a movie. And that pisses me off. btw, I am anti-war(altho I could give two shits about politics ). Yet I'd want people to form their extreme political decisions on unbiased facts from unbiased sources. Not from a movie intended to brainwash people that haven't even researched the topic, so they could come to the choice of being anti-war.
Woof	Date: July 5, 2004 @ 5:04 AM Thasp, I can't argue the fact that it would be ignorant... literally... for someone to base their politics on what they've seen in one movie. ANY movie. That said, I've gotta add that I'm still scratching my head, when I hear this particular film referred to as propaganda so often. I'll tell you why. I don't get the feeling that Moore thought to himself: "I'm gonna nail Bush", and then cut-and-pasted stock footage together to make our president look stupid. He could have done it that way, I suppose... but it would have been more like an anti-Bush commercial, than a film. No... I've gotten the feeling... twice now... that Moore started the project searching for answers to things that troubled him, and "Fahrenheit" is, well... a DOCUMENT of his search for those answers. In other words, yes... it does offer some harsh points of view, but I get the impression that Moore is taking the audience along with him in his search, rather than pretending to have all of the answers beforehand, and preaching them to the masses. That's my personal opinion, however... and ought to be taken as such. If we could put that aside for a moment, then... http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040702docs.html Offers more insight into what constitutes a documentary, than just my own words. Hopefully it'll help.
Maffmatix	Date: July 5, 2004 @ 12:35 PM Since we've gotten back to the main subject, I came back. Yea yea, deal with me. That's an interesting web page Woof. I think it's funny because it's a site listing the opinions of some film buffs on what a documentary is. Forget their opinion, why didn't you just post the actual definition? I QUOTE THE DICTIONARY: Documentary- Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. AND I QUOTE MORGAN SPURLOCK, HACK/FILMMAKER: "Many people have seemed to jump on the bandwagon that once a documentary becomes subjective or presents an obvious point of view from the director then it is no longer a documentary. I do not agree" Well thanks for your opinion Mr. Spurlock, but you're wrong. By the way you're movie about McDonalds food being bad for you, we already knew that! You didn't have to put your liver at risk like an idiot. I am not saying nobody should see Farenpoop 9/11. I'm not putting anyone down for liking it or calling it a documentary. I'm simply saying it isn't one.
Thaspian	Date: July 5, 2004 @ 3:22 PM Well spoken for somebody with a bent dick.
Maffmatix	Date: July 6, 2004 @ 4:58 PM Thank you.
100thmonk	Date: July 6, 2004 @ 9:30 PM "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film." i don't mean to be annoying but this definition is such a stringent set of criterion that i don't think i have ever seen a documentary before. maffmatix, the problem here is in a way one of the central queries of quantum theory. can the observer claim objectivity from the experiment he is undertaking? the observer is always capable of affecting the outcome of the experiment so much so that the experiment cannot be objective outside of the specific set of conditions set for the experiment. objectivity 2.(of a person, writing, art, etc.)dealing with outward things or exhibiting facts uncoloured by feelings or opinions; not subjective. i would really be surprised to see a documentary that had no opinion. just like those educational films they used to show us in highschool.
Maffmatix	Date: July 7, 2004 @ 11:19 PM "I would really be surprised to see a documentary that had no opinion." Well I would really be surprised to see a documentary WITH an opinion, because it wouldn't be a documentary, it'd be an editorial. But again, we're fleeing from the subject, so I wanted to ask you Michael Moore defenders if you like my idea I came up with: Someone should run up to Michael Moore with a camera and microphone and get in his face and ask him if he's going to give all the money he's making from this movie to the poor people of Flint, Michigan and then film his reaction and cut the camera before he has the chance to say anything. Then cut to pictures of him eating at cannes. Show him at the post oscar parties sipping wine and eating. Then show pictures of poor black people in Michigan and say "why didn't michael moore give any of his money to these people?" then slowly zoom in on his face and play errie piano music. I SHOULD BE APPLAUDED.
Izekial	Date: July 8, 2004 @ 6:54 PM laughs That was great. While I'm not a Bush fan, I can somehow sympathize with the Repulicans now.
Woof	Date: July 9, 2004 @ 12:47 AM "Truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it; but, in the end; there it is." (Sir Winston Churchill, 1874-1965)
Maffmatix	Date: July 9, 2004 @ 2:36 PM I would never want to stoop to his level though.
Thaspian	Date: July 11, 2004 @ 8:55 PM I'll revive this to be a bitch. I dled it for fun and fast forwarded through it since I'm impatient and didn't want to watch it all, so I just saw a few clips. I had it burned for a while and just got it copied back on. Deleted. What a piece of trash. Not because of what it displayed, but because Moore had the nerve to call that biased crap a documentary. A documentary is not biased, and allows the viewer to sum up their own thoughts about what they see.
-Truth-	Date: July 11, 2004 @ 11:21 PM i think this movie, is a movie to make bush look bad, he doin wats best for our country, and that dude whoeva made it wanted you to show you his negatives, not his positives of what he has done..im sure every1 has a lot of negatives about themselves, but george bush got a stupid idiot to make a movie about it.
-Truth-	Date: July 11, 2004 @ 11:25 PM yall agree?
Maffmatix	Date: July 12, 2004 @ 4:33 PM Well I think everyone got their thoughts out. Next insane thread?
sinai	Date: July 12, 2004 @ 7:32 PM bill clinton is still a bad mother fucker
acousticgrrl	Date: July 13, 2004 @ 2:15 AM If anyone knows where I can download the movie or wants to send it to me, I'd love you forever and ever. (Unless you don't want my love.) Kazaa is just mis-labeled files. Grr.
Maffmatix	Date: July 13, 2004 @ 2:30 PM Bad is right.
imemine	Date: July 30, 2004 @ 1:04 AM All right, after reading this forum I’ve been hesitant to join because of all of the vitriol but with my head on the chopping block, here’s my two cents. For the record, I haven’t even seen the movie. That being said, I’m no stranger to Michael Moore in fact I am currently reading (that’s right, reading) the book “Stupid White Men”. I have also read “Dude, Where’s My Country.” So you say, I MUST be stupid, gay and naive. Ok, in my ignorant, homosexual and unknowing state I also read “Let Freedom Ring”, “Deliver us from Evil” and “The Connection”. (The first two books are authored by Sean Hannity and the later by Stephen Hayes) So, what am I now? Well, I would wager that I am simply an American. Yes I get my news from the MAJOR networks and newspapers however I do spend more than half of my life in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'REILLY and the rest of the talk show blow hards (as well as DMUSIC stuff that I burn) while driving around 40k per year. So what’s the point and so what the fuck even if you have a point, you asked. My only point is this, plain and simple; get as much information as you can from as many sources as is available and make up your own fucking mind and for gods sake, stop whining about someone’s intentions about making and marketing a stupid movie! Work God Dammit! It’s your future at stake here.
thought-fox	Date: August 3, 2004 @ 5:22 PM Listening to you lot I'm just grateful I don't live in America!
migbee	Date: August 3, 2004 @ 5:46 PM "ALSO ENOUGH of this "YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE MORONIC IDIOT TO BELIEVE THIS AND THAT" crap guys. Seriously. I have seen like 4 people make posts on this thread, subtley calling other people idiots without actually calling them idiots. If you're gonna do it, at least say straight up "You're stupid, sir." and drop this reading between the lines shite.' You, sir, are incredibly stupid. Anybody who supports George Bush is either a complete imbecile or lives in a place so sheltered that they dont hear anything besides what the god-fearing republicans tell them.
imemine	Date: August 3, 2004 @ 6:52 PM migbee, * Clears throat * Just curious to whom you were referring to?? –Sir.
Pagan	Date: August 7, 2004 @ 12:30 AM BLAH, BLAH BLAH, BUSH!!! BLAH FUCKIN' BLAH KERRY, BLAL , BALH OSAMA, BLAH CLINTON ,BLAH BLOWJOB ,BLAH ,BLAH IRAQ,,BLAH BLAH 9/11 BLAH BLAH BLAH SADDAAM, BLAH. have I left anything out? I enjoy politics guys. but did we really need almost 200 posts about it? what goal was reached here besides wearing out your fingerprints?

Previous 100

Page: [ 1 2 ]

~~Next 100~~

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: