|
|
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1965 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 20 May 2005, jps wrote: In article , says... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of liberals in this country don't support our troops? Where the **** do you get this information? Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen giving up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb and kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest known oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator (which years earlier was our staunch ally and tool). We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy. Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam wasn't a threat to our country. The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just as we did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the globe. Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad. jps Are you so stupid you don't look at headers? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.58ckt iQA/AwUBQo6fKv5McEU5rTr2EQK8dwCaAjyeAPeYADs5YL7MdShqZM xa4WYAoMK2 OufumQrSDnMi65vZXZKsec8h =UpZU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
I'm a liberal and I agree with the statements in your post. I'm
crossposting it to alt.politics and misc.legal because I don't think it belongs in rec.boats. I believe, as you mention, that soldiers are merely cannon fodder that have been brainwashed by their social groups (esp. the church) or economically forced into the military. Once you've been handed a gun and stuck on the battlefield to face death all you really have is your God, and that means they're usually very religious and conservative and breed more of themselves. And of course if you're hurt in the line of fire you're going to rationalize that you were fighting a "just" and "necessary" war, because it would be too painful to realize your life was ruined just to feed the people in power. I have to say you're right in general. "Freddy Smithers" wrote in message ... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Of course, since most Americans have a very high opinion of our soldiers, liberals would face enormous political ramifications if they were honest about what they thought. So instead, we get surreptitious assaults on our military. For example, part of the reason Abu Ghraib has gotten so much attention & the press keeps churning out 2 and a 1/2 year old stories about soldiers teasing it to smear the troops. "See? That's what they're all like behind closed doors! Sadistic savages." Here are some other examples that have come to light over the last couple of days that might not seem to be connected, but they're all products of the same liberal mentality when it comes to the military: Yesterday was the first day military recruiters have been on campus since the Garfield High School PTSA passed a resolution seeking to oust them from public- school campuses. The resolution, first of its kind in the state, passed May 9. "Given the seriousness of what they are requesting people to participate in, we'd just prefer they not be on school grounds, which are supposed to be protected space for students," said Hagopian. ...Other anti-recruiting movements are also picking up steam. In recent months, college students in California and New York have forced recruiters off campus, and in Boston, activists dumped 5 gallons of fake blood on the doorstep of a recruiting center. In the Puget Sound area, a group of students and parents stopped a Blackhawk helicopter from landing on fields at Bainbridge Island High School in April. The students said the helicopter, used for Army National Guard recruiting tours, was war propaganda. Earlier this month, a student at Foss High School in Tacoma sent e-mails to thousands of activists across the country, urging them to call school officials after plans for an anti-recruitment "teach-in" hit administrative roadblocks. Some students at Garfield are planning a walkout Monday and a march on Army recruiting headquarters down the street. Oh yeah, the liberals harassing military recruiters really "support the troops." So much so that they don't believe the military should even be able to recruit on their campuses. Here's mo NBC's "Today" show aired unsubstantiated claims on Tuesday that U.S. troops had desecrated the Quran on at least two occasions, in a report that echoed a now retracted Newsweek story that has inflamed the Muslim world and led to deadly riots. ...The NBC newsman then sourced an allegation by a female terrorist suspect who had been detained at Abu Ghraib, who aired her claim in an Iraqi newspaper. "[She said] she was raped every night by six American soldiers," Engel reported, before adding that U.S. officials deny the claim. Here's a question: you think the "Today" show would air unsubstantiated allegations that the ACLU desecrated the Bible at board meetings? If someone with the same level of credibility as a "female terrorist suspect," like let's say an escaped mental patient, claimed that she was gang raped at DNC headquarters, you think the "Today" show would report that? Not a chance in hell. But any old charge aimed at the military, no matter what it is, just gets tossed out there. Here's another story: The president of a group representing reporters worldwide is accusing U.S. soldiers of committing atrocities without offering any evidence to back the charge up. Appearing in St. Louis on Friday, Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley complained: "What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." In case anyone missed the point, Foley restated her allegation: "They target and kill journalists ... uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. ..." To believe that the troops are deliberately murdering journalists, you must have a very low opinion of them and apparently this belief is quite widespread in the media because we keep hearing it again & again. Does anyone believe that the military is going to be treated fairly by journalists who think the military has marked them for death? Sure, there are always going a few bad apples in the bunch. But, the work our troops are doing in Iraq and across the world is valiant, honorable, and should be praised, not constantly derided and treated with suspicion. Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops. -=- This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. |
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of liberals in this country don't support our troops? Just watch your favorite news program. you will see plenty of liberals that don't like the US military. Where the **** do you get this information? From the public airways and printed media. Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen giving up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb and kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest known oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator (which years earlier was our staunch ally and tool). Dependency on oil? We, all of us liberal and conservative, are dependent upon energy. It just so happens that oil and natural gas are the most abundant and economical sources of producing energy that theya are used the most. I guess that Sadam's killing fields should be over looked. Have you looked at your heating bill lately or filled up your cars gas tank? We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy. Fine, spend your money on it! Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam wasn't a threat to our country. You have a limited view of history and what is going on in the world. The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just as we did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the globe. Provoked? How? Our contry does what it believes to be the best course of action at that time in order to ensure that our country survives. This statement can be used by any country in the world. Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad. I'd rather have sugar in my coffee. |
"Tamaroak" wrote in message ... And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1965 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff What decorations did you receive during your service to our country? |
Freddy Smithers wrote:
snip... Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops. I say let 'em back in when the recruiters start telling the truth about the 'real world' the soldiers will soon discover. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Freddy Smithers wrote: snip... Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops. I say let 'em back in when the recruiters start telling the truth about the 'real world' the soldiers will soon discover. The truth is that if you join the military you might be put into a position where you could die in both training and in actual war. How many commercial fishermen die each year? That is a civilian occupation where you are more likely to die catching a fish than being a bullet catcher in the military. |
|
Freddy Smithers drooled:
snip normally the technique to deal with anencephalics such as this one is to *plonk* but in this case, the correct response is to *FLUSH* |
"Tamaroak" wrote in message ... And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all the rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men who died while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by President Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the harbors in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia and England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and saved our soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that??????? He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were cannon fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry, Clinton or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are NOT of this mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current Democrat party. It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns of power for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the leadership of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and we are headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it, changing the democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are mainly democrat anyway) is the way to go. |
|
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tamaroak" wrote in message ... And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all the rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men who died while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by President Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the harbors in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia and England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and saved our soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that??????? He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were cannon fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry, Clinton or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are NOT of this mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current Democrat party. It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns of power for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the leadership of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and we are headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it, changing the democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are mainly democrat anyway) is the way to go. Well said. Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason. We are in a war for the survival of the western culture. If you can't see that then you are part of the problem. Islam is like communisim in its goal which is that utopia will only be available when the whole world is Islamic or communist. Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's resolve to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees and a calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved with a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder. Congress, the House and the Senate, are the ones that control how much money is appropriated. And, Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. Call your Representative or Senator and complain to them. |
|
|
|
|
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... The point that seems to fly right over the liberal pointy head is the following: Liberals use soldiers to further liberal pacifist ends and dishonor soldiers and their families by bitching and complaining about conditions the soldiers themselves accept glady in service to their country. Whooohoooo, there's a head-up-the-ass statement if I've ever heard one. Lack of proper vests, lack of properly armored vehicles that don't protect against roadside bombs??? Having to fight in an urban setting without proper training? Having to fight for a year in a dubious war when your wife and kids are at home wondering if you'll return? Going into debt because you've been shipped overseas to fight in a war without proper planning or intelligence? You think these are accepted gladly? What an idiot. Liberals have forgotten that liberty comes at the cost of patriotic lives.Rather than appreciate the brave and loyal men and women who lay down their lives for the good of all, liberals dishonor them by counting their deaths and using their sacfifices to attempt to futher the dishonorable liberal mindset. Did we need to invade Iraq to maintain our freedom? ALL valid points. A lesson on our political system. After the collapse of the Eastern block and the questionable end of the cold war there was talk of future threats. Since no one could fight us one on one in a conventional war, terrorism from unaccountable third parties like what we have now seemed to be the new threat. Nixon realized this might be a possibility and GAVE the Russians plans for FAIL SAFE nuclear detonation systems so that they could make their bombs terrorist proof. At the same time our intelligence network has had samples of nuclear material and spectrographs of detonations so they could determine where the nuclear material came from if a blast took place anywhere in the world. Something like we do with explosives now ( trace elements are added to explosives when they are made that fingerprint them so they can be traced if used illegally). So we knew that terrorism was the new threat but little money was spent on intelligence because it wasn't politically a priority. In fact LESS was spent! The point IS that in our system money is spent after the fact because while we have smart people they can't get heard. If we are going to have an after the fact system we need the military more than ever. AND every once in a while the world needs to be reminded that in addition to having a nuclear capability that no one can stand up to we also have a conventional capability that can't be withstood. Just as people need to be reminded that they are accountable, that there are laws and limits that will be enforced so do dictators and corporations. (I added that for the anti big business liberals, they are right about that.) The UN has recently become a joke where countries that have the worst civil rights violations are now in control of the committees in the UN that police violations. Open societies with a free press and a guarantee of civil liberties are the answer. Changing Iraq from a dictatorship that caused two regional wars and hundreds of thousands of deaths to an open society is necessary. SO the only valid argument is why us? Did we need to invade Iraq to maintain our freedom? In the short term no but the answer is more complicated than that. We could have spent billions a year to contain Iraq instead of the 100 billion or more that it will take to end Addams threat permanently. Our presence and mission was a continuing sore point in the region. It could not continue for long before we inflamed more and more sentiment against us. So our choice was to: 1) continue with the current suppression missions, 2) Leave and allow another war in the region or 3) End Saddams reign of terror. Option 3 also means that we would have to protect Iraq against Syria, Iran and Turkey as well as rebuild the country so that it could govern and protect itself. Oh, one other point. These unaccountable third parties that commit terrorism are harbored and sponsored by countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and others. Cross Afghanistan and Iraq off the list, with pressure from us I think we can cross Pakistan off the list (still needs to be watched). |
On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:00:02 -0700, jps wrote:
"Liberalism is a mental disorder" |
Thomas Rangier wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:00:02 -0700, jps wrote: In article , says... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of liberals in this country don't support our troops? Where the **** do you get this information? Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen giving up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb and kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest known oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator (which years earlier was our staunch ally and tool). We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy. Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam wasn't a threat to our country. The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just as we did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the globe. Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad. jps No offense intended. Please don't take this wrong. I never get involved in the OT posting stuff, but I have to make an exception here. Please have a look at the headers. This and many others originate from Databasix. I think someone or some bodies are just trying to stir things up. Look at some of the headers supposedly posted by Peggie and Smithers and others. All from Databasix. Just a heads up, and I will never post to an off topic thread again. I swear to God!. Oh, it's Smithers all right. What I find funny is that Fritz, JohnH, JimH and NOYB all befriended him, and now look at what's going on. |
jps wrote: In article , says... "Tamaroak" wrote in message ... And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all the rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men who died while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by President Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the harbors in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia and England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and saved our soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that??????? He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were cannon fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry, Clinton or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are NOT of this mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current Democrat party. It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns of power for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the leadership of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and we are headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it, changing the democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are mainly democrat anyway) is the way to go. Well said. Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason. Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's resolve to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees and a calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved with a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder. jps Ah, some people would rather goose-step to the party, than think for themselves. This type of fool takes anything, and everything that BushCo says as absolute truth, and does exactly as they are told. That's exactly the way the Nazi's gained so much power, by persuading people that they were right. |
who the hell is smithers?
wrote in message oups.com... Thomas Rangier wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:00:02 -0700, jps wrote: In article , says... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of liberals in this country don't support our troops? Where the **** do you get this information? Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen giving up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb and kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest known oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator (which years earlier was our staunch ally and tool). We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy. Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam wasn't a threat to our country. The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just as we did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the globe. Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad. jps No offense intended. Please don't take this wrong. I never get involved in the OT posting stuff, but I have to make an exception here. Please have a look at the headers. This and many others originate from Databasix. I think someone or some bodies are just trying to stir things up. Look at some of the headers supposedly posted by Peggie and Smithers and others. All from Databasix. Just a heads up, and I will never post to an off topic thread again. I swear to God!. Oh, it's Smithers all right. What I find funny is that Fritz, JohnH, JimH and NOYB all befriended him, and now look at what's going on. |
"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:36 -0400, Capt. Neal® wrote: "Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message . .. On 23 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, wrote: Don't crosspost to our newsgroup. Which newsgroup is yours? rec.boats or rec.boats.cruising? cruising When did you buy it and how much did it cost you? |
"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:59:43 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:36 -0400, Capt. Neal® wrote: "Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message m... On 23 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, wrote: Don't crosspost to our newsgroup. Which newsgroup is yours? rec.boats or rec.boats.cruising? cruising When did you buy it and how much did it cost you? Why do you want to know? Who are you? Thomas Rangier 1. I want to know if you got a good deal or not. Was it on sale when you bought it? 2. I am the Walrus. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:59:43 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:36 -0400, Capt. Neal® wrote: "Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message om... On 23 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, wrote: Don't crosspost to our newsgroup. Which newsgroup is yours? rec.boats or rec.boats.cruising? cruising When did you buy it and how much did it cost you? Why do you want to know? Who are you? Thomas Rangier 1. I want to know if you got a good deal or not. Was it on sale when you bought it? 2. I am the Walrus. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together .... Goo goo g' joob. ;-) |
The Snapper Trapper wrote: who the hell is smithers? Look in the mirror. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com