What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?
What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?
You mean you'd find it upsetting if nations in the Middle East would reclaim
their territories which are illegally occupied by the USA ?
Do not forget, at the core of all of this is a gigantic set of lies of the
Bush-Minor admistration to strike a sovereign nation costing the lives of over 100,000 civilians and disrupting at least 2 countries ...
The USA has no business being there in the first place.
Do we favor the War Powers Vote?
Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our military
bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since day 1?
What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?
They could destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait
for the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.
Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to ask the
squad if it's ok.
Do we favor the War Powers Vote?
Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our military bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since day 1?
What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day? They could destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait for
the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.
Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to ask the squad if it's ok.
The USA has no business being there in the first place.
Only the Congress has the right to declare war.
Do you really think they would care?
There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another of many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.
at> Do we favor the War Powers Vote?
at>
at> Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our
military
at> bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since
day 1?
at>
at> What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day? They could
at> destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait for
at> the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.
at>
at> Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to
ask
at> the squad if it's ok.
I Believe there is only one commander and chief.
As such, this fact should be sitting on the front of the minds of the
Nations
leaders of the world. (to keep anyone stupid enough to try)
With the President's authority being watered down, then the same fact
will be more of I'll keep it in the back of my mind, or perhaps not at all.
(of which is in the category of I might try something stupid especially if
i know I can get away with it, American's will be squabbing, and debating
why create a unnecessary Achilles heel, from which to attack.
There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another of
many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.
They will tell you and refer to the articles of impeachment...
They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be >restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
The reason: The President is abusing his power and overstepping his
authority.
(well that was the only thing that they could make fit and they had to jam
that pretty tightly to look somewhat normal.)
After all Bribery, crimes, collusion, couldn't of been they tried as they
already tried those and they have failed.
So that was the best that they could come up with...
The whole things stinks, bottom-line, the left hates him more
then they love their country.
Only the Congress has the right to declare war.
But your president isn't declaring war by ordering a military strike.
He can order up to 60 days of military action without Congress' approval,
but so far there's no indication that he's going to do that.
Do you really think they would care?
You're right, the squad wouldn't care much about American interests, but
probably the rest of Congress would have something to say about it.
On 01-14-20 06:45, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.
I get that. I don't get what they expect to achieve with all this though.
With the impeachment, my first thought was that they want to disparage
his reputation, enough so some liberal can defeat him in the election.
But these are people with law degrees, so I'll assume there's something more to it than that - because the impeachment isn't making Trump supporters budge.
They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be >GD>restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
--- it is in the Constitution.
Impeachment of this President was put forth to limit, eliminate the President, it is clear now that neither of these objectives will be anything close to being reached. - or not at all.
On 01-14-20 06:45, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
--- it is in the Constitution.
DS> -=> spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
DS> GD> They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there
should be
DS> GD> restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
DS>
DS> There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
DS> --- it is in the Constitution.
Your bias is showing..
I do not recall the Republicans saying anything to the same effect, to what
the Democrats are rambling on about how Trump failed to notify congress.
Telling the Democrats of the plans;
Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost
when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
- Leaking to the Media.
- Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their
previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
- Twisting the truth or politicizing.
The Obama Administration went after Bin Laden, of which was much more of a
dangerous mission, you did not hear the Republicans whining about how they were never informed. Obama launched over 500 drone strikes. There was no opposition to these missions either by the Republicans.
It is clear that this War Powers vote has more to do with the fact they are
trying to limit him or intentionally trying to make him look bad, or they
are attempting to create a situation that casts a shadow over his ability
and accomplishments, to make themselves look better.
All of this is because they are power hungry and are still very much annoyed
that they lost in 2016.
This is what Children do when they lash out at their parents, stamp their
feet in place and get red faced and have a tantrum.
It's coming in 2020 the political spanking of the Democrats.
Now go to your room.. LOL
Telling the Democrats of the plans;
Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost
when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
- Leaking to the Media.
- Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their
previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
- Twisting the truth or politicizing.
No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters concerning national security and acts of war. The American people
have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do,
and why.
Look who is standing trial for his crimes.This is what the democrats did, baseless because once again there were no
Both Pence and Trump are going down the toilet. Not even sure
if either of them will be on the ballot this coming November.
Not that it matters. The Democrats will have their dream ticket
and all will be well. :)
What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?
You mean you'd find it upsetting if nations in the Middle East would WD>reclaim their territories which are illegally occupied by the USA ?
Do not forget, at the core of all of this is a gigantic set of lies of the WD>Bush-Minor admistration to strike a sovereign nation costing the lives of WD>over 100,000 civilians and disrupting at least 2 countries ...
The USA has no business being there in the first place.
On 01-14-20 06:45, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
--- it is in the Constitution.
LL> >Telling the Democrats of the plans;
LL> >Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost
LL> > when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
LL> >- Leaking to the Media.
LL> >- Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their
LL> > previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
LL> >- Twisting the truth or politicizing.
and inform the enemy of our plans in the process.
so we can broadcast when we are pulling out so that can move in the very
next day, things are being handled smarter now.
No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters >LL>concerning national security and acts of war. The American people
have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do, >LL>and why.
You keep saying that no president is above the law.
Ok so tell me what laws the president has broken.
Look who is standing trial for his crimes.
This is what the democrats did, baseless because once again there were no
laws broken by the President.
Both Pence and Trump are going down the toilet. Not even sure
if either of them will be on the ballot this coming November.
Not that it matters. The Democrats will have their dream ticket
and all will be well. :)
Then they will destroyed on National Television by Donald Trump.
Stay Tuned.
The House of Saud continues to sell us oil for cheap, at least for
as long as it gets to quiet journalists and reporters. Not sure what
would happen if they ever run out of oil. Probably have to find a
new market for sand.
The House of Saud continues to sell us oil for cheap, at least for
as long as it gets to quiet journalists and reporters. Not sure what
would happen if they ever run out of oil. Probably have to find a
new market for sand.
Make no mistake, they are already planning for peak oil. They are not
stupid.
You can bet that if oil shortage becomes a problem, they will set even more
heliostates and turn to the foreigner funds they have been buying all these years.
Hello Greg,
LL> >Telling the Democrats of the plans;
LL> >Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will lost
LL> > when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
LL> >- Leaking to the Media.
LL> >- Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by th
LL> > previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
LL> >- Twisting the truth or politicizing.
and inform the enemy of our plans in the process.
Inform the Congress and the American people of what he is up to.
Big difference, as no president has the right to rule by decree.
so we can broadcast when we are pulling out so that can move in the very
next day, things are being handled smarter now.
The world is being made much less safe due to the actions of this president. This cannot be allowed to continue, as doing so would
result in no more world for anybody.
No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters >LL>concerning national security and acts of war. The American people >LL>have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do, >LL>and why.
You keep saying that no president is above the law.
Ok so tell me what laws the president has broken.
Okay. You asked for it -
https://tinyurl.com/t64c5tp
The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.
That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?
On 01-22-20 07:05, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.
That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?
Non-partisan? Not quite a dem is behind this, finding a footnote from 1974, and then using it to build a case for impeachment. That's quite a
stretch. What about the document from 1787 called the U.S.
Constitution that says the President was within legal right following
this Supreme Law of the land. There is no other greater the governs the law of the U.S.
President was within his constitutional authority with what occurred
with Ukraine.
There is also the transcript that indicates EVERYTHING
that was said, that is one move that the dems did not count on, and
they have been trying to find NEW ways to make their hurt feelings
morph into laws broken, but once again there were no laws broken, just
a difference in policy dispute. Again to built a case on impeachment
Truth is this impeachment will be over soon, when it is
over the President will
be acquitted.
In that you are probably correct. But perhaps enough Senators will wake up and follow their conscience to at least have a fair trial, and
It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.
True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence
that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.
Policy -- The Democrats want to protect the USA national security by aiding Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump wants to allow Russia to
do whatever it wants, anywhere.
On 01-22-20 07:05, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.
That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?
Non-partisan? Not quite a dem is behind this, finding a footnote from
1974, and then using it to build a case for impeachment. That's quite a
It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.
stretch. What about the document from 1787 called the U.S.
Constitution that says the President was within legal right following
this Supreme Law of the land. There is no other greater the governs the
law of the U.S.
The Constitution does not say that the President can do whatever he or DS>she wants.
President was within his constitutional authority with what occurred
with Ukraine.
Wrong -- still.
There is also the transcript that indicates EVERYTHING
that was said, that is one move that the dems did not count on, and
True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence DS>that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.
On 01-24-20 07:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.
What you're missing is that GAO was from a legislative body, which
does not have the same teeth; nor the authority against the executive branch, therefore it might as well be nothing more then footnote, and
dim memory.
True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence
that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.
Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment say.
Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will
result w/ removal of the
President.
(both of these so called articles are said to exist because what the Democrats believe took place on the phone call.)
if that is true then
why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.
with the
likes of Rashida Tlaib on Trump: 'Impeach the motherf---er' on
01/04/2019 creating a constitutional crisis where there is none.
Policy -- The Democrats want to protect the USA national security by aiding Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump wants to allow Russia to
do whatever it wants, anywhere.
President Trump sent the Ukrainians defensive weapons, where Obama
sent them blankets and pillows.
Where was the concern with the Obama administration with the protection
of Ukraine then, it did not exist.
TIM RICHARDSON wrote to GREGORY DEYSS <=-
There are three things that have been around since the dawn of Mankind; Dumbness
Ignorance
Stupidity
Dale Shipp wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-
if that is true then
why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.
You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment investigations did not begin until some time after the information
about the phone call became known.
On 01-26-20 12:32, Ron Lauzon <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
Dale Shipp wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-
if that is true then
why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.
You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment investigations did not begin until some time after the information
about the phone call became known.
Actually, you are totally wrong.
The Dems were looking for something to impeach him on since before
Trump took office. We have them on record saying just that.
So instead of someone seeing the possibility of a crime and
then investigating,
we have the Dems investigating looking for something.
Our rule of law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The Dems have ignored our laws for quite some time
now and are now making it very clear that they want to be a power unto themselves - damn the laws.
if that is true then
why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment >GD>proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.
You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until >DS>several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment >DS>investigations did not begin until some time after the information >DS>about the phone call became known.
Actually, you are totally wrong.
The Dems were looking for something to impeach him on since before Trump
took office. We have them on record saying just that.
So instead of someone seeing the possibility of a crime and then
investigating, we have the Dems investigating looking for something.
Our rule of law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Dems have ignored our laws for quite some time now and are now making it
very clear that they want to be a power unto themselves - damn the laws.
With Speaker Ryan (a Republican from Wisconsin) in charge of the
House, how in blazes were Democrats going to succeed in impeaching
And now Donald J. Trump has been impeached. Impeached forever.
A permanent stain on not just his presidency, but his person.
Dale Shipp wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-
*Some* dems said that -- but nothing official was done until after the phone call became known.
The phone call was a possible crime ( and evidence has born out that it was). That is when the investigation began that led to impeachment.
The Democrats did not look for it, it came to them.
Fair enough -- and that is what the trial in the Senate is all about.
Really -- what laws have the Democrats ignored?
Lee Lofaso wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-
Rule of law? There was none for the first two years of the Trump presidency. He had the powers of a dictator, with no check. All the Democrats could do was rant and rave. Nothing more.
And now Donald J. Trump has been impeached. Impeached forever.
A permanent stain on not just his presidency, but his person.
The Rule of law? Do you honestly think the Republican majority
in the Senate gives a flying f*ck about the rule of law?
What we have today is a sham trial.
The Rule of Law. A nice thought, but wishful thinking when it
comes to trial by the Senate to convict/remove a president from
office.
The US Constitution gives the Senate "sole responsibility" to
conduct the trial. On its own terms/rules, whatever those terms/rules might be.
The Senate rules for the trial are whatever they want them to be.
Republicans have a majority in the Senate. They can subpoena
the Bidens even without having to put their beloved president on
trial. Oh, that's right. They needed the House to impeach the
MF'er first.
On 01-28-20 18:20, Ron Lauzon <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
Dale Shipp wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-
*Some* dems said that -- but nothing official was done until after the phone call became known.
No. Nearly ALL Dems said that since the beginning of Trump's
presidency. "Official" or not, they were looking for a reason.
The phone call was a possible crime ( and evidence has born out that it was). That is when the investigation began that led to impeachment.
The Democrats did not look for it, it came to them.
The official transcript of the call says otherwise. The Dems have
nothing but hearsay.
On 01-24-20 07:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.
What you're missing is that GAO was from a legislative body, which does not have the same teeth; nor the authority against the executive branch, therefore it might as well be nothing more then footnote, and dim memory.
It is an independent body of the government, tasked with the job of determining violations of the law by government officials, and with the expertise to do so accurately. What they said is not a "footnote", it
is an informed opinion. It is also worth mentioning that at least two
OMB officials resigned rather than being caught up in such illegal activity and that when the person in charge refused to sign off on it,
he was replaced with a political appointee who would do what ever Trump wanted -- illegal or not.
DS> DS> True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasingevidence DS> DS> that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did. DS>
Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment say. Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will
result w/ removal of the
President.
I have previously outlined four laws that were broken by the acts
referred to in the articles of impeachment. Try reading them with understanding.
On 01-29-20 19:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
It is an independent body of the government, tasked with the job of determining violations of the law by government officials, and with the expertise to do so accurately. What they said is not a "footnote", it
is an informed opinion. It is also worth mentioning that at least two
OMB officials resigned rather than being caught up in such illegal activity and that when the person in charge refused to sign off on it,
he was replaced with a political appointee who would do what ever Trump wanted -- illegal or not.
I have been watching the events unfold at the Senate by the House
Managers as well as the Defense for the President and not once have I heard anyone talk about this independent body of the government. You
know why because it is irrelevant and nothing more then a ruse to try
to smear the President.
Again you may outline all you wish, that does not change the FACT that what he is accessed with is a crime, because it is not a crime.
Not even remotely.
Article I
Abuse of Power
Article II
Obstruction of Congress
According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment
does not meet Constitutional standards.
Game Over!
Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated multiple
laws -- and I told you what they were.
Article I
Abuse of Power
Article II
Obstruction of Congress
According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment does not meet Constitutional standards.
According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he wants to
I have been watching the events unfold at the Senate by the House Managers
as well as the Defense for the President and not once have I heard anyone >talk about this independent body of the government. You know why because it >is irrelevant and nothing more then a ruse to try to smear the President.
DS> DS> True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasingevidence DS> DS> that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what
he did. DS>
DS> GD> Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment
say.
DS> GD> Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will
DS> GD> result w/ removal of the
DS> GD> President.
DS>
DS> I have previously outlined four laws that were broken by the acts
DS> referred to in the articles of impeachment. Try reading them with
DS> understanding.
Again you may outline all you wish, that does not change the FACT that
what he is accessed with is a crime, because it is not a crime.
Not even remotely.
Article I
Abuse of Power
Article II
Obstruction of Congress
According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment does
not meet Constitutional standards.
Game Over!
Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and >DS>constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated DS>multiplelaws -- and I told you what they were.
Do these Constitutional so called experts of yours have names.
Mine is named Alan Dershowitz.
Article I
Abuse of Power
Article II
Obstruction of Congress
According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment >DS>GD> does not meet Constitutional standards.
According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he DS>wants to
Mr. Dershowitz is not bias, he is and always will be for the U.S.
Constitution.
During his time I think he laid out perfectly and with a whole lot of sense,
the intention of the founders.
These charges that were brought forth do not meet the standards found within
the U.S. Constitution.
You can not argue with history nor can you push it out of your way because
of your political hatred and contempt for the President of
the United States.
Just look back what has transpired in the last 3 years
First it was the phony fictional fake Russian Dossier.
Then there was few top officials within intelligence community. (FBI,CIA) >Deliberately falsified documents were provided to the fisa court, to spy on >private American Citizens, running for POTUS.
Then there was the Mueller Investigation which seemed to go on forever.
At the end of this Robert Mueller himself provided a less then spectacular >performance. Couldn't recall elements of his own report. Why because this >report contained his name but largely was put together by more then a
handful of democrats filled bias against Donald Trump.
Then there the impeachment hearings, w/ pencilneck Shifty shiff. more bias >not allowing the Republicans to speak - him with his "point of order" crap.
There will be no trial.
This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves officeThere can be no conviction if there is no crime.
there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
he has been tried and convicted.
There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
if you think there is a crime please indulge me.
On 01-30-20 07:35, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
On 30 Jan 2020, Dale Shipp said the following...
Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated multiple
laws -- and I told you what they were.
Do these Constitutional so called experts of yours have names.
Mine is named Alan Dershowitz.
Article I
Abuse of Power
Article II
Obstruction of Congress
According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment
does not meet Constitutional standards.
According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he wants to
Mr. Dershowitz is not bias, he is and always will be for
the U.S. Constitution.
Just look back what has transpired in the last 3 years
First it was the phony fictional fake Russian Dossier.
Then there was few top officials within intelligence community.
(FBI,CIA) Deliberately falsified documents were provided to the fisa court, to spy on private American Citizens, running for POTUS.
Then there was the Mueller Investigation which seemed to go on
forever.
At the end of this Robert Mueller himself provided a less then
spectacular performance. Couldn't recall elements of his own report.
Why because this report contained his name but largely was put together
by more then a handful of democrats filled bias against Donald Trump.
Then there the impeachment hearings, w/ pencilneck Shifty shiff. more
bias not allowing the Republicans to speak - him with his "point of
order" crap.
There will be no trial.
This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves office
there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
he has been tried and convicted.
There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
if you think there is a crime please indulge me.
Personally I'm not so certain whether there was a crime but even if he
did indulge you it wouldn't matter. President Trump could state he
screwed one of Epstein's "sex slaves" (as an example) and you would
claim no crime. That sort of partisanship on both sides is one of the major things that's wrong with this country right now. Unfortunately
it's the loudest and most obnoxious supporters of both sides that we
hear from but nobody wants to listen to the majority of America which
lies somewhere in the middle.
Hello Greg,
This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves office >LL>there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
he has been tried and convicted.
There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
if you think there is a crime please indulge me.
Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer who is defending Trump, has publicly
stated there does not have to be a crime in order for the president
to be impeached/convicted/removed from office. I quoted his own
words, in this echo.
Btw, Flight records also show William "Slick Willie" Clinton on board
the Lolita Express more then a dozen times.
Yes, there are loud voices from both sides, from the right and the left, as I listen to my fellow Citizens who are Conservatives and my
countrymen, I find that their thoughts are sensible as they are based on logic.
As for the words coming from the left, I find them quite delusional. Furthermore I find no sufficient reason why any excuse or pass should be made to normalize or try find a point being made within these views.
As for the words coming from the left, I find them quite delusional. GD>Furthermore I find no sufficient reason why any excuse or pass should be GD>made to normalize or try find a point being made within these views.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 95:09:40 |
| Calls: | 287 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 5,605 |
| Messages: | 226,625 |