1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

'US fearing exposure of Iraq war truth'

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by poncho, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Global warming has been debunked on several levels.

    The elite want a global tax. But they can't just come and say hey you're going to pay a global tax to us like it or not. Americans wouldn't be all that keen on the idea.

    So, what to do? Fearmongering has always worked in the past to lead we overly trusting Americans into giving the elite what they want. Now what kind of boogeyman can be used to get Americans to consent to paying a global tax?

    Carbon!

    Once the proper boogeyman was decided on the fearmongering began.

    Global warming = global tax.

    If that isn't a (global) money grab using the politics of fear I don't know what is. This time though they got caught in their lies.
     
  2. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    This time.
     
  3. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,495
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    These 'Iraq War truths' will go over like whale dung with the neocons and Christian Zionists on board who believe that the wealth and power of the U.S. should be harnessed to serve Israel.

    2004. Senator Ernest Hollings on the question of why are we in Iraq:

    “Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in Against All Enemies, tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. … Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s intelligence, Mossad, knows what’s going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel’s survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.”

    “Spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don’t come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.”
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2004/05/21/senator-hollings-is-right/


    “Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.)......:

    ....... has again come under fire from local Jewish organizations for remarking in a magazine interview that the "extraordinarily powerful" pro-Israel lobby played a strong role promoting the war in Iraq.

    In an interview with Tikkun, a California-based Jewish magazine, Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is "the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power." “
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402171.html


    Various Jewish writers:

    Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003

    “A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.

    The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam’s Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own.”

    Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002

    Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein’s deputy told the New York Times this week, “The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel.” Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe.

    The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of “President Bush” is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king’s Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests.


    Ari Shavit, Haaretz News Service (Israel), April 5, 2003

    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

    In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town (Washington): the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.”


    James Rosen, April 6, 2003 The Sacramento Bee (California)

    “In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the control of Jordan.

    The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced in the wake of Saddam’s ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the Palestinians.

    Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton, undersecretary of state.

    Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush’s foreign policy.”


    Thomas Friedman, April 4, 2003 New York Times Columnist

    “I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.”

    Dr. Henry Makow PhD., February 10, 2003 Writer, Inventor of Board game “Scruples”

    If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.

    Everybody knows that:

    1. The only country that fears Iraq’s WMD’s is Israel;

    2. American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy;

    3. The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and

    4. Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, “AIPAC.”

    At this perilous juncture in US history, there is no effective opposition because Zionist Jews appear to control both parties. The Jewish “Anti Defamation League” considers it a barometer of anti Semitism to say, “Jews have too much power.” But is something anti- Semitic if it is true? Anti Semitism is racial prejudice. Zionist power is not a racial prejudice; it is a fact of life. When a special interest group hijacks American foreign policy, it is a patriotic duty to say so.

    In recent decades, Zionists have succeeded in making support for Zionism synonymous with “Jewish.” They have made Israel appear to be a vulnerable country facing annihilation in a sea of bloodthirsty Arabs. In fact, Israel has 200-400 nuclear bombs and is one of the most powerful nations on earth. It has evaded many opportunities for a just peace because it’s secret agenda is to dominate the region. Israel keeps this quiet because most Jews, including Israelis, did not sign on for that.

    Israel Shamir, Israeli Author

    “The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all.” Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to ‘Jewish media lords’ during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience’s hearts missed a beat.

    The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. Purim, 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war.”

    “The powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has seen to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration…”


    Jack Bernstein, Author, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Israel (following prediction was made in 1984!)

    The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel. They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982. The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists.

    If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God’s Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America’s best friends.”
     
  4. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    My error...

    I meant to type:

    You think that global warming is NOT just politics and a money grab?
     
  5. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No problem. I got to outline the problem - reaction - solution equation the global elite always use to gain our consent again. :smilewinkgrin:

    Amazing thing about this PRS ploy is that it's always the same. They run em on us all the time. Most of the time we fall hook line and sinker for it.

    They're the same in that there is always three "stages"

    1. Problem, insert boogeyman

    2. Reaction, insert something to fear.

    3. Solution, gain more money power and control at the expence of the people.

    Basically the same way the elite in any civilization have consolidated their power (along with divide and conquer). This "GW" thing was just done so sloppy that the people got wise this time. Not to worry though that won't last. A certain political ideology (liberalism) got the blame for the whole thing instead of the people who stood to gain the most.

    The global elite.

    Not long ago the solution was to fleece the American people to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Solution: code name; Bank Bailout.

    Go over it in your head for a minute, (everybody join in) What was the "problem" there? What was the fearsome "boogeyman"? We already went into more debt for the solution. 40% of which went to foreign banks.

    Remember the run up to the Iraq "war"? What was the "problem" there? Who/what was the "boogeyman"? The "solution" is still costing us young lives and millions of dollars a minute to this day.

    Politics, or the the left vs right paradigm is but a smokescreen to obscure a clear view of what's really happening. The scam itself PRS always plays out the same. The outcome is almost always the same except in the GW case. They win, we lose 99.9 and 9/10s% of the time.

    I'm about sick of losing every game when all we have to do to win is say no more.

    kyredneck,

    We're not allowed to talk about any of that in the land of the free.

    The truth the US government and those who are in control of it are so worried we'll stumble upon is that the "global war on terrorism" and the occupation of Iraq supposedly being part of it is a giant global scam based on lies and manipulation of public opinion, constant and unceasing government and corporate mass media fearmongering iow.
     
    #65 poncho, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2010
  6. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Washington's Blog

    In his recently published memoir, "Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior," General Hugh Shelton, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, called the Iraq war "unnecessary" and said that the Bush team went to war "based on a series of lies."

    Shelton also said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon officials pushed for war in Iraq "almost to the point of insubordination."

    This is not some voice from the peanut gallery.​

    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is - by law - the highest ranking military officer in the United States armed forces, and the principal military adviser to the President of the United States. The Chairman outranks all respective heads of each service branch, including the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

    Thank you, General Shelton, for confirming what Seymour Hersh and many others have been saying since 2003 (and see this).

    SOURCE
     
    #66 poncho, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2010
  7. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0

    "The threat that Israel most likely will have to contend with is that of Syria." - Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens 2002

    "The Iraqi capability is relatively limited." - Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens 2002

    "The threat posed by Iraq doesn't make me lose sleep." - Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon

    You may have to look elsewhere for reasons that Iraq was invaded.
     
  8. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seymour Hersh and his super-duper insider contacts were convinced that Bush was going to invade Iran. And we know how well that prediction played out.
     
  9. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,495
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've no doubt these gentlemen spoke the truth, and their comments give validity to what Senator Hollings said:

    “.....Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s intelligence, Mossad, knows what’s going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel’s survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.”

    The neocon ideal is to 'spread democracy' in the Mideast in order to secure Israel and enhance the Jew's influence in the region using the power and might of the 'last great superpower' on earth as Israel's pit bull.

    Our blood, our massive debt, our children's future economic hopes, all in the service of God's precious ever so precious 'Chosen Ones'. I'm still waiting for the blessings of Gen 12:3 to kick in. Haven't seen it yet.
     
    #69 kyredneck, Nov 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2010
  10. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if the neocon ideal was to be of service to Israel they would have encouraged invasion of Syria or Iran, which were (and are) much greater threats to Israel.
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,495
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you're the brainwashed (or a brainwasher) of the Israel Cult, there's most likely nothing I can do to persuade you of the truthfulness of my previous posts. Believe what you want.
     
  12. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Why go after Hersh? Did he lie to us? Did he invade a country that at the time was no threat to us? Did he cause the death of thousands of people including our own? Did he spend billions of dollars that we didin't have to spend on a needless intervention and nation building experiment? No, he wrote some articles that contained some real truth. What a crime!

    It was the neocons not Hersh that did all the "crazy" stuff.

    So, why go after him at all?

    Why not go after General Shelton instead for speaking out? Use some of those old standard neocon talking points. I dunno call him a traitor maybe. Tell us he's putting the USA at risk by telling us the truth about the neocon "crazies".
     
    #72 poncho, Nov 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2010
  13. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You could remind him of how the neocons with the help of the mass media demonized Syria and Iran to get Americans all worked up and willing to go after these two nations with guns a blazing.

    You could remind him of how the demonization of Iran continues to this day under Obama and that another endless bloody intervention is "still on the table".

    You could remind him that the neocon's policies have been continued and in some cases expanded under Obama.
     
  14. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I could remind him that the neocons hit a big snag in their "New Middle East" agenda that included Syria and Iran.

    Iraq didn't turn out to be quite the "cake walk" the neocons thought it was going to be. The Iraqi's didn't greet us as liberaters and shower us with rose pedals.

    Like the neocons said they would.

    Selling another bloody intervention when the other two you're running start turning sour probably isn't all that easy. Even when the mass media is in hyper drive trying to sell it for you.

    Things happen NS. An Iranian intervention is "still on the table". So don't worry, okay. We'll get around to them eventually. :smilewinkgrin:

    The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”

    This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.

    This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

    The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives. SOURCE

    Operation New Middle East code name: Global War On Terror
     
    #74 poncho, Nov 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2010
  15. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    People will believe what makes the most sense to them, doesn't make them brainwashers. But like you say, believe what you want.
     
  16. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    No matter how bogged down the Iraq ground war had become, it would have been easy enough to hit Iran's nuke facilities with a couple of bunker-busters. One or two sorties with an F16 maybe? Funny thing is it didn't happen.

    Well you brought up Hersh and pointed to him as one who knew the score. Only problem is he didn't.


    My guess is that he was being fed information that was intended to alarm the Iranians, and keep them from nosing around in Iraq. And it did work for awhile, since they were so nervous at one point that they were detaining squirrels !
     
  17. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yeah it's just that easy to start a new war these days. No declaration from congress. No permission from the UN. Half the population asking questions. The president's word is good enough to start a new war now?

    Even when he and his administration had been caught lying through their teeth. You never fail to amaze me at the lengths you'll go to cover for these hoodlums.

    Actually I brought up General Shelton. You chose to demonize Hersh instead. An easier target to dismiss I suppose.


    My guess is you've been spending to much time on mainstream corporate conspiracy and propaganda sites.

    Let's get back to the VOC the first global corporation and fractional reserve banking. You never gave your thoughts on them. I gave you mine but then you switched gears and went for easier targets.

    Oh yeah, this just in . . .

    Former US President George W. Bush says Israel had asked him to bomb an alleged nuclear site in Syria in 2007, but he balked at the request due to lack of justification. SOURCE

    Lack of nerve maybe? Maybe they figured Americans weren't frightened of their boogeymen and fake terror alerts enough to bomb Syria?

    After the Republicans gained control of the House, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham has urged Washington to "destroy" the Islamic Republic through military action.

    “Not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime," Graham said on Saturday

    Amid a standoff over Iran's nuclear program, both Tel Aviv and Washington have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran's nuclear work may consist of a covert military agenda.

    The latest threat of a military action was invoked by US Admiral Mike Mullen, who claimed he was ready to start a war if he was convinced it would keep Iran from making a "bomb."

    Graham repeated Mullen's threats and said, "The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran... Containment is off the table."

    This is while President Barack Obama said in September that a military attack by Israel or the US against Iran would not be an "ideal way" to solve the issue of Tehran's nuclear program.

    Obama, however, added that the US would keep all options on the table. SOURCE

    What we have here is a global war based on lies. We were lied to about Afghanistan. We were lied to about Iraq we've been being lied to about Iran all along and now the neocons have started calling for the destruction of Iran.

    We've been continuing with the "New Middle East" operation uninterupted since Condi Rice first introduced it. You might know it as the "global war on terror" and it's all based lies.

    And we're paying for the whole thing with our own blood and treasure. Not to mention the fact that we're flat broke, the dollar is just this side of worthless, we're going to have to give up even more tax money and freedom to pay for Obama Care, our manufacturing base is overseas somewhere, unemployment is around 20% if you add all the numbers up, we're being over run with illegals and drugs and all the gangs and violence that go with it, we're bailing out foreign banks and who knows what else. This country is on life support and yet these "crazies" in DC still want to move forward with more of their "creative chaos".

    That's called mental illness.
     
    #77 poncho, Nov 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2010
  18. AresMan

    AresMan Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you hate President Obama and his Obamacare, that "we the American people put in place," and dislike living here because of it...leave.

    If you hate it when President Bush called the Constitution "just a G-D piece of paper" although he said in his Iowa straw poll speech "So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God" that "we the American people put in place," and dislike living here because of it...leave.

    I really get sick and tired of these type of arguments. What ever happened to the following?

    "My country right or wrong: when right to keep it right, when wrong to make it right."

    Too many people do not even know that bolded part. Most just say the first part and think there is virtue in supporting all things status quo.

    There is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. Nationalism simply means supporting the "nation" (i.e. the decisions of the leadership). Patriotism means agreeing with the Founding Fathers (i.e. the "patriots" or "fathers"). The Founding Fathers wrote and spoke many things that are in stark contrast to much of the current activity that goes on. For one to be a true patriot, one must oppose a lot of nonsense that happens under the guise of nationalism.

    It seems to me that whenever someone challenges one's pet peeve that they actually support in government (whether right or wrong), the reflexive action is to put on the nationalist garb and tell the opponent to "leave."

    It is not as if there really are better places to live. That doesn't mean that one just has to suck up all wrongs, nay, condone, chant, and support them. That doesn't mean that everyone should just let evil thrive and destroy a country with the excuse that all countries are worse off.

    Some people here want to RESTORE what was right, and the only way to do this is through open information. Do you think the ideas spurning the American Revolution were well-supported from the start?
     
  19. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
  20. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nope. I'm going to help boot his tail right out of office and have been a part of taking the first step to kill Obamacare.

    CTers do nothing but blather on about imagined shadow groups that control everyone...but them. They're smarter than everyone else, doncha know?:laugh:


    Since they can't get rid of a figment of their imaginations, they should go somewhere else and bother them with their fearmongering.
     
Loading...