The Lounge Guidelines Help Search Members Calendar Blogs

Welcome Guest [ Log In | Register ] ]

> "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything
totomoto
post Apr 25 2006, 01:54 PM
Post #1


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 212
From: SoCal


http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22383530

April 22, 2006

Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell
Utilizing a little known rule of the US House to bring Impeachment charges
by Steven Leser


http://www.opednews.com


Steven Leser

The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois' 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.

The Illinois General Assembly joins a growing chorus of voices calling for censure or impeachment of President Bush including Democratic state committees in Vermont, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina as well as the residents themselves of seven towns in Vermont, seventy Vermont state legislators and Congressman John Conyers. The call for impeachment is starting to grow well beyond what could be considered a fringe movement. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll Conducted April 6-9 showed that 33% of Americans currently support Impeaching President Bush, coincidentally, only a similar amount supported impeaching Nixon at the start of the Watergate investigation. If and when Illinois HJR0125 hits the capitol and the individual charges are publicly investigated, that number is likely to grow rapidly. Combined with the very real likelihood that Rove is about to be indicted in the LeakGate investigation, and Bush is in real trouble beyond his plummeting poll numbers. His cronies in the Republican dominated congress will probably save him from the embarassment of an impeachment conviction, for now, but his Presidency will be all but finished.








----------------------------------------------------------

HJ0125 LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r



1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION


2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of
3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal
4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of
5 a state legislature; and

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering
7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978
8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically
9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
10 warrant; and

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized
12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,
13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States
14 Constitution; and

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American
16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war
17 without charge or trial; and

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration
19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a
20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the
21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the
22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and
23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified
25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an
26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential
27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to
28 investigate the matter; and

29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined




HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r



1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it

2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the
5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.
6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President
7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office
8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
9 States; and be it further

10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the
11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and
12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.



Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support the Impeachment of President Bush

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Steven Leser is a freelance journalist specializing in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. His coverage of the Ohio Presidential Recount in 2004 was distinguished by actual interviews with Carlo Loparo, spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of State, along with Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties. Similar efforts on other topics to get first hand information from sources separate Mr. Leser from many of his contemporaries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
venetia
post Sep 7 2006, 08:54 PM
Post #2


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 456
From: Aotearoa (aka New Zealand)


Awww, the US was played by the US. As my late Grandmother would say, "if Iran told you to jump off a cliff would you do it."

Good to see you too Toto. How's life?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
totomoto
post Sep 11 2006, 09:50 PM
Post #3


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 212
From: SoCal


QUOTE(venetia @ Sep 8 2006, 03:11 AM) *

Awww, the US was played by the US. As my late Grandmother would say, "if Iran told you to jump off a cliff would you do it."
---------------------------------
It would be nice to get an adult response.
----------------------------------------

Good to see you too Toto. How's life?




Contact John Mauldin
Print Version

Volume 2 - Special Edition
September 7, 2006



Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
By George Friedman


Today I am sending out a Special Edition of Outside the Box. My good friend George Friedman, the President of Stratfor.com, has posted a very insightful essay on the dilemma facing the U.S. on the situation in Iraq. Contrary to many of the conflicting assessments by politically motivated pundits, each with their own agendas, that are put forth as "analysis," Stratfor provides reality based in-depth and logical analysis. Again, if you are in the business of managing money (someone else's or your own) where an eye to what is happening in the world is critical, or you are a student of geo-politics, or both, I strongly suggest that you stay up-to-date on the geopolitical landscape as it can have broad implications for both investment and political decision making.

As I have said in the past, Stratfor is my main and favorite source for geo-political news and analysis. They have often been referred to in the mainstream press as a 'private CIA,' but I would say in Stratfor's defense that they seem to be more right than their government counterpart.

A subscription to Stratfor is well worth the money as George tells me that the renewal rates are close to 90%, which demonstrates how valuable their readers regard the information that they receive on a daily basis. While this essay is on Iraq, they also cover the rest of the world, and you can get information on whatever part of the world you are interested in on their website.

Once again I talked George into dropping his subscription price to half. Click here to find out more and to signup. And I would say I hope you enjoy the essay, but what George suggests the new reality of Iraq to be is not actually fun reading. Iraq may be on its way to becoming a real problem with no easy answers from a US perspective.

John Mauldin, Editor





Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
By George Friedman


U.S. President George W. Bush now has made it clear what his policy on Iraq will be for the immediate future, certainly until Election Day: He does not intend to change U.S. policy in any fundamental way. U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq, they will continue to carry out counterinsurgency operations, and they will continue to train Iraqi troops to eventually take over the operations. It is difficult to imagine that Bush believes there will be any military solution to the situation in Iraq; therefore, we must try to understand his reasoning in maintaining this position. Certainly, it is not simply a political decision. Opinion in the United States has turned against the war, and drawing down U.S. forces and abandoning combat operations would appear to be the politically expedient move. Thus, if it is not politics driving him -- and assuming that the more lurid theories on the Internet concerning Bush's motivations are as silly as they appear -- then we have to figure out what he is doing.

Let's consider the military situation first. Bush has said that there is no civil war in Iraq. This is in large measure a semantic debate. In our view, it would be inaccurate to call what is going on a "civil war" simply because that term implies a degree of coherence that simply does not exist. Calling it a free-for-all would be more accurate. It is not simply a conflict of Shi'i versus Sunni. The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other, and all of them are fighting American forces. It is not altogether clear what the Americans are supposed to be doing.

Counterinsurgency is unlike other warfare. In other warfare, the goal is to defeat an enemy army, and civilian casualties as a result of military operations are expected and acceptable. With counterinsurgency operations in populated areas, however, the goal is to distinguish the insurgents from civilians and destroy them, with minimal civilian casualties. Counterinsurgency in populated areas is more akin to police operations than to military operations; U.S. troops are simultaneously engaging an enemy force while trying to protect the population from both that force and U.S. operations. Add to this the fact that the population is frequently friendly to the insurgents and hostile to the Americans, and the difficulty of the undertaking becomes clear.

Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq. Given that the United States is facing not one enemy but a series of enemy organizations -- many fighting each other as well as the Americans -- and that the American goal is to defeat these while defending the populace, it is obvious even from these very simplistic numbers that the U.S. force simply isn't there to impose a settlement.

Expectations and a Deal Unwound

A military solution to the U.S. dilemma has not been in the cards for several years. The purpose of military operations was to set the stage for political negotiations. But the Americans had entered Iraq with certain expectations. For one thing, they had believed they would simply be embraced by Iraq's Shiite population. They also had expected the Sunnis to submit to what appeared to be overwhelming political force. What happened was very different. First, the Shia welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein, but they hardly embraced the Americans -- they sought instead to translate the U.S. victory over Hussein into a Shiite government. Second, the Sunnis, in view of the U.S.-Shiite coalition and the dismemberment of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army, saw that they were about to be squeezed out of the political system and potentially crushed by the Shia. They saw an insurgency -- which had been planned by Hussein -- as their only hope of forcing a redefinition of Iraqi politics. The Americans realized that their expectations had not been realistic.

Thus, the Americans went through a series of political cycles. First, they sided with the Shia as they sought to find their balance militarily facing the Sunnis. When they felt they had traction against the Sunnis, following the capture of Hussein -- and fearing Shiite hegemony -- they shifted toward a position between Sunnis and Shia. As military operations were waged in the background, complex repositioning occurred on all sides, with the Americans trying to hold the swing position between Sunnis and Shia.

The process of creating a government for Iraq was encapsulated in this multi-sided maneuvering. By spring 2006, the Sunnis appeared to have committed themselves to the political process. And in June, with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the announcement that the United States would reduce its force in Iraq by two brigades, the stage seemed to be set for a political resolution that would create a Shiite-dominated coalition that included Sunnis and Kurds. It appeared to be a done deal -- and then the deal completely collapsed.

The first sign of the collapse was a sudden outbreak of fighting among Shia in the Basra region. We assumed that this was political positioning among Shiite factions as they prepared for a political settlement. Then Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), traveled to Tehran, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army commenced an offensive. Shiite death squads struck out at Sunni populations, and Sunni insurgents struck back. From nearly having a political accommodation, the situation in Iraq fell completely apart.

The key was Iran. The Iranians had always wanted an Iraqi satellite state, as protection against another Iraq-Iran war. That was a basic national security concept for them. In order to have this, the Iranians needed an overwhelmingly Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and to have overwhelming control of the Shia. It seemed to us that there could be a Shiite-dominated government but not an overwhelmingly Shiite government. In other words, Iraq could be neutral toward, but not a satellite of, Iran. In our view, Iraq's leading Shia -- fearing a civil war and also being wary of domination by Iran -- would accept this settlement.

We may have been correct on the sentiment of leading Shia, but we were wrong about Iran's intentions. Tehran did not see a neutral Iraq as being either in Iran's interests or necessary. Clearly, the Iranians did not trust a neutral Iraq still under American occupation to remain neutral. Second -- and this is the most important -- they saw the Americans as militarily weak and incapable of either containing a civil war in Iraq or of taking significant military action against Iran. In other words, the Iranians didn't like the deal they had been offered, they felt that they could do better, and they felt that the time had come to strike.

A Two-Pronged Offensive

When we look back through Iranian eyes, we can now see what they saw: a golden opportunity to deal the United States a blow, redefine the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and reposition the Shia in the Muslim world. Iran had, for example, been revivifying Hezbollah in Lebanon for several months. We had seen this as a routine response to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. It is now apparent, however, that it was part of a two-pronged offensive.

First, in Iraq, the Iranians encouraged a variety of factions to both resist the newly formed government and to strike out against the Sunnis. This created an uncontainable cycle of violence that rendered the Iraqi government impotent and the Americans irrelevant. The tempo of operations was now in the hands of those Shiite groups among which the Iranians had extensive influence -- and this included some of the leading Shiite parties, such as SCIRI.

Second, in Lebanon, Iran encouraged Hezbollah to launch an offensive. There is debate over whether the Israelis or Hezbollah ignited the conflict in Lebanon. Part of this is ideological gibberish, but part of it concerns intention. It is clear that Hezbollah was fully deployed for combat. Its positions were manned in the south, and its rockets were ready. The capture of two Israeli soldiers was intended to trigger Israeli airstrikes, which were as predictable as sunrise, and Hezbollah was ready to fire on Haifa. Once Haifa was hit, Israel floundered in trying to deploy troops (the Golani and Givati brigades were in the south, near Gaza). This would not have been the case if the Israelis had planned for war with Hezbollah. Now, this discussion has nothing to do with who to blame for what. It has everything to do with the fact that Hezbollah was ready to fight, triggered the fight, and came out ahead because it wasn't defeated.

The end result is that, suddenly, the Iranians held the whip hand in Iraq, had dealt Israel a psychological blow, had repositioned themselves in the Muslim world and had generally redefined the dynamics of the region. Moreover, they had moved to the threshold of redefining the geopolitics to the Persian Gulf.

This was by far their most important achievement.

A New Look at the Region

At this point, except for the United States, Iran has by far the most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf. This has nothing to do with its nuclear capability, which is still years away from realization. Its ground forces are simply more numerous and more capable than all the forces of the Arabian Peninsula combined. There is another aspect to this: The countries of the Arabian Peninsula are governed by Sunnis, but many are home to substantial Shiite populations as well. Between the Iranian military and the possibility of unrest among Shia in the region, the situation in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Peninsula is uneasy, to say the least. The rise of Hezbollah well might psychologically empower the generally quiescent Shia to become more assertive. This is one of the reasons that the Saudis were so angry at Hezbollah, and why they now are so anxious over events in Iraq.

If Iraq were to break into three regions, the southern region would be Shiite -- and the Iranians clearly believe that they could dominate southern Iraq. This not only would give them control of the Basra oil fields, but also would theoretically open the road to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. From a strictly military point of view, and not including the Shiite insurgencies at all, Iran could move far down the western littoral of the Persian Gulf if American forces were absent. Put another way, there would be a possibility that the Iranians could seize control of the bulk of the region's oil reserves. They could do the same thing if Iraq were to be united as an Iranian satellite, but that would be far more difficult to achieve and would require active U.S. cooperation in withdrawing.

We can now see why Bush cannot begin withdrawing forces. If he did that, the entire region would destabilize. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula, seeing the withdrawal, would realize that the Iranians were now the dominant power. Shia in the Gulf region might act, or they might simply wait until the Americans had withdrawn and the Iranians arrived. Israel, shaken to the core by its fight with Hezbollah, would have neither the force nor the inclination to act. Therefore, the United States has little choice, from Bush's perspective, but to remain in Iraq.

The Iranians undoubtedly anticipated this response. They have planned carefully. They are therefore shifting their rhetoric somewhat to be more accommodating. They understand that to get the United States out of Iraq -- and out of Kuwait --they will have to engage in a complex set of negotiations. They will promise anything -- but in the end, they will be the largest military force in the region, and nothing else matters. Ultimately, they are counting on the Americans to be sufficiently exhausted by their experience of Iraq to rationalize their withdrawal -- leaving, as in Vietnam, a graceful interval for what follows.

Options

Iran will do everything it can, of course, to assure that the Americans are as exhausted as possible. The Iranians have no incentive to allow the chaos to wind down, until at least a political settlement with the United States is achieved. The United States cannot permit Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf, nor can it sustain its forces in Iraq indefinitely under these circumstances.

The United States has four choices, apart from the status quo:

1. Reach a political accommodation that cedes the status of regional hegemon to Iran, and withdraw from Iraq.

2. Withdraw forces from Iraq and maintain a presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- something the Saudis would hate but would have little choice about -- while remembering that an American military presence is highly offensive to many Muslims and was a significant factor in the rise of al Qaeda.

3. Halt counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and redeploy its forces in the south (west of Kuwait), to block any Iranian moves in the region.

4. Assume that Iran relies solely on its psychological pre-eminence to force a regional realignment and, thus, use Sunni proxies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in attempts to outmaneuver Tehran.

None of these are attractive choices. Each cedes much of Iraq to Shiite and Iranian power and represents some degree of a psychological defeat for the United States, or else rests on a risky assumption. While No. 3 might be the most attractive, it would leave U.S. forces in highly exposed, dangerous and difficult-to-sustain postures.

Iran has set a clever trap, and the United States has walked into it. Rather than a functioning government in Iraq, it has chaos and a triumphant Shiite community. The Americans cannot contain the chaos, and they cannot simply withdraw. Therefore, we can understand why Bush insists on holding his position indefinitely. He has been maneuvered in such a manner that he -- or a successor -- has no real alternatives.

There is one counter to this: a massive American buildup, including a major buildup of ground forces that requires a large expansion of the Army, geared for the invasion of Iran and destruction of its military force. The idea that this could readily be done through air power has evaporated, we would think, with the Israeli air force's failure in Lebanon. An invasion of Iran would be enormously expensive, take a very long time and create a problem of occupation that would dwarf the problem faced in Iraq. But it is the other option. It would stabilize the geopolitics of the Arabian Peninsula and drain American military power for a generation.

Sometimes there are no good choices. For the United States, the options are to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to Iran and live with the consequences, raise a massive army and invade Iran, or live in the current twilight world between Iranian hegemony and war with Iran. Bush appears to be choosing an indecisive twilight. Given the options, it is understandable why.





You can send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com and or to me (John) and I will forward them on. And to subscribe for 50% off you can click on this link.

Your not liking this picture analyst,


John F. Mauldin
johnmauldin@investorsinsight.com




You are currently subscribed as karl999@aol.com.

To unsubscribe from John Mauldin's "Outside the Box", go here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproductions. If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters or commentary, you must include the source of your quote and the following email address: JohnMauldin@InvestorsInsight.com. Please write to Reproductions@InvestorsInsight.com and inform us of any reproductions including where and when the copy will be reproduced.

For advertising inquires please contact adsales@investorsinsight.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Mauldin is president of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, a registered investment advisor. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.

Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC and InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. ("InvestorsInsight") may or may not have investments in any funds, programs or companies cited above.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.

Communications from InvestorsInsight are intended solely for informational purposes. Statements made by various authors, advertisers, sponsors and other contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of InvestorsInsight, and should not be construed as an endorsement by InvestorsInsight, either expressed or implied. InvestorsInsight is not responsible for typographic errors or other inaccuracies in the content. We believe the information contained herein to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occasionally occur. Therefore, all information and materials are provided "AS IS" without any warranty of any kind. Past results are not indicative of future results.

We encourage readers to review our complete legal and privacy statements on our home page.

InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. -- 14900 Landmark Blvd #350, Dallas, Texas 75254

© InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. 2006 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 25 2006, 01:54 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 25 2006, 01:54 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 25 2006, 01:54 PM
anarch   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 26 2006, 06:04 PM
smurfin   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 27 2006, 03:18 AM
anarch   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 27 2006, 05:54 PM
venetia   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 27 2006, 06:52 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 29 2006, 12:20 AM
octobersky   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Apr 30 2006, 01:32 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 7 2006, 09:39 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 9 2006, 04:21 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 17 2006, 05:04 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 24 2006, 02:39 AM
voodoo_princess   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 24 2006, 07:53 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 27 2006, 08:50 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 29 2006, 02:45 AM
anarch   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   May 31 2006, 07:17 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 3 2006, 10:11 PM
doodlebug   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 6 2006, 05:55 PM
doodlebug   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 6 2006, 05:59 PM
efilorp4   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 6 2006, 07:06 PM
venetia   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 9 2006, 03:57 AM
anarch   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 16 2006, 11:17 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 17 2006, 09:27 PM
solitary_fey   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 17 2006, 10:36 PM
efilorp4   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 18 2006, 08:25 AM
anarch   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 18 2006, 12:34 PM
solitary_fey   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 18 2006, 12:53 PM
bustygirl   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 25 2006, 07:09 PM
girlygirlgag   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 28 2006, 08:30 AM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jun 29 2006, 01:04 PM
totomoto   "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore": ducks, the taliban, life, the universe and everything   Jul 3 2006, 08:42 PM
tesao   toto!! que bom te ver!!!! ...   Jul 17 2006, 01:19 PM
totomoto   [left][color=#6600CC]toto!! que bom te ve...   Jul 17 2006, 09:17 PM
totomoto   http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i240/JethrOH/the...   Jul 22 2006, 01:38 AM
tesao   muito bom, toto. i'm sure that i, too, can co...   Jul 23 2006, 10:32 AM
anarch   Joke I picked up while I was on vacation: Two nun...   Jul 24 2006, 09:12 AM
totomoto   Anarch!! :D And I will email you Tes...   Jul 27 2006, 07:24 PM
tesao   muito thank you toto! that was hilarious...   Jul 28 2006, 05:03 AM
totomoto   Subject: Bumper Stickers - redoux Date: 8/5/06 9:...   Aug 5 2006, 11:04 PM
ginger_kitty   Those are great!!!   Aug 6 2006, 03:16 PM
totomoto   The Los Angeles Times issued a special report yest...   Aug 7 2006, 10:17 PM
totomoto   Three contractors are bidding to fix the White Hou...   Aug 9 2006, 05:11 PM
totomoto   Contact John Mauldin Print Version Volume 2 -...   Aug 10 2006, 11:19 PM
venetia   I didn't understand that, but I don't want...   Sep 2 2006, 01:36 AM
totomoto   I didn't understand that, but I don't wan...   Sep 7 2006, 06:03 PM
venetia   Meanwhile here's what's happening in my pa...   Sep 12 2006, 12:26 AM
totomoto   Oh, we nuked them till they glowed, and turned the...   Sep 15 2006, 05:04 PM
totomoto   STRATFOR WEEKLY Stratfor Weekly Archive The GOP ...   Sep 15 2006, 11:55 PM
anarch   Sexist old guy who's a surveyor needs to hire ...   Sep 21 2006, 08:49 PM
totomoto   :lol: good joke!   Oct 30 2006, 01:42 AM
tesao   Toto!!!!!!!!...   Dec 17 2006, 03:29 PM
anarch   yeah. I miss your posts too, toto. Come back! ...   Dec 17 2006, 09:33 PM
totomoto   A few fotos for your amusement. http://aycu34.web...   Dec 21 2006, 11:52 PM
totomoto   5,000 years of religion in 90 seconds http://www....   Dec 23 2006, 09:38 PM
anarch   cool map. The Bathtub Test It doesn't hurt t...   Jan 2 2007, 07:21 PM
totomoto   for those of you old enough to remember Gracie: G...   Jan 3 2007, 07:46 PM
totomoto   A chuckle for your new year! This ch...   Jan 5 2007, 12:10 AM
notwearingwords   I've been reading this thread and I thought I...   Jan 15 2007, 02:08 AM
totomoto   NWW, I have thought about this. A conspiracy is ...   Jan 21 2007, 01:26 AM
tesao   more levity: [b][color=#6600cc]Aging[font=Arial...   Jan 22 2007, 06:36 AM
culturehandy   High School Coolness Test   Jan 24 2007, 01:26 PM
totomoto   An Old farmer was selling his peaches door to door...   Jan 28 2007, 12:01 PM
Aese4   WOOOOW! http://amazing-videos.info/   Feb 6 2007, 11:35 PM
auralpoison   Out out damned bot!   Feb 6 2007, 11:38 PM
tesao   AP, you are cracking me up with your spam "bo...   Feb 10 2007, 04:06 AM
LoveMyPugs   Ok, so I'm really irritated with having to vot...   Feb 10 2007, 09:24 AM
tesao   love my pugs, there is a voting thread called suff...   Feb 10 2007, 09:39 AM
anarch   Three handsome male dogs are walking down the stre...   Feb 17 2007, 10:57 PM
totomoto   http://comics.com/wash/opus/archive/opus-20070218....   Feb 21 2007, 07:44 PM
culturehandy   Anarch I love it! I remember we used to have ...   Feb 23 2007, 12:53 PM
tesao   [color=#33ccff]Water vs Wine [indent] [size=-...   Mar 4 2007, 10:17 AM
culturehandy   YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID These people prove it i...   Apr 16 2007, 11:24 AM
anarch   GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DESTROYED BY F...   Jun 10 2007, 08:48 PM
Peggy-in-FL   About my SIG, Ron Paul is not a Right Winger, I do...   Jun 30 2007, 06:46 AM
pollystyrene   Well, he's also pro-life. For me, being pro-c...   Jun 30 2007, 08:34 AM
sixelacat   Peggy, the adjectives "Moral & Honest...   Jun 30 2007, 08:39 AM
Peggy-in-FL   Where in my SIG dose he say that he's against ...   Jun 30 2007, 01:09 PM
pollystyrene   It doesn't say it in your signature. It says ...   Jun 30 2007, 04:22 PM
anarch   not sure where to put this, but since this story a...   Jan 14 2009, 12:50 AM
foryoursplendor   whoa, that is hilarious and traumatic. I hope ther...   Jan 19 2009, 10:59 PM
girltrouble   aural, i suspect that this toto is an oooooooooool...   Dec 12 2009, 10:41 PM
auralpoison   Old Bustie or no, nobody needs to be starting a ne...   Dec 12 2009, 11:55 PM
gluelita   toto, i will pass on your message to venetia. :)   Dec 14 2009, 09:09 PM
girltrouble   oooo... glue? can you tell her butta says hi. i mi...   Dec 15 2009, 02:27 AM
stargazer   Please take any further discussions about this top...   Dec 16 2009, 05:34 PM
girltrouble   you like it here? fine. you come in here with yo...   Dec 19 2009, 02:05 AM
girltrouble   you like it here? fine. you want to flame? happy t...   Dec 19 2009, 02:31 AM
auralpoison   I do think that today may be the first time I ever...   Dec 20 2009, 11:32 AM
culturehandy   I'd really like to know how AP's post was ...   Dec 20 2009, 02:11 PM
zoya   um, Toto, I've been here longer than you and I...   Dec 20 2009, 07:03 PM
ketto   Wow, are you really having a pissing contest over ...   Dec 21 2009, 11:24 AM
culturehandy   uhhh, can I get in on a ketto and zoya awesome sam...   Dec 21 2009, 01:07 PM
zoya   if you really wanna have a pissing contest, toto, ...   Dec 21 2009, 04:25 PM
auralpoison   I see no reason to take this to the TIO thread. T...   Dec 23 2009, 10:54 PM
girltrouble   *snicker* ah, aural. i love you. i've been...   Dec 23 2009, 11:31 PM
zoya   Are you fucking kidding me? hahahahahahahahahaha...   Dec 24 2009, 05:44 AM
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: July 26, 2014 - 09:22 AM