 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Election 2004 | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/19/2004 5:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | I love it when POW and JEE hug! It keeps peace and hope alive for future Christians. Just think, someday we might have lions laying with lambs, dogs licking cats, mailmen petting dogs, Kerry embracing Bush, oh um um... never mind.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2004 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE: "...so long as certain essential food items were exempted..."
I'd want that too. I don't want to see the powerful bleed the helpless dry.
But that it the 'thing' isn't it. How to do that. Taxing essential living in the poor and not taxing those who's car is a deduction... that's not justice. And the loopholes of luxuries not taxed because it stimulates economic activity (a good thing) also have their way of reshaping tax structures that perhaps began just.
What to do when someone asks us for a glass of cold water....
My old Senator, Paul Simon, was asked with incredulity WHY he was working so hard on something that didn't have a bat's chance in hell of passing. He said he was doing it because he knew that of 100 Senators he was the ONLY one that WAS trying to defend those powerless people. (Translation: It was God's work. And whether it failed or succeeded was not his to decide; his was to work with all his might.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/19/2004 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | scott_jorgenson, thanks for the information on the pill! Personally, me and my spouse did NFP (natural family practice) and amazingly it worked. Condoms aren't a bad alternative to the pill except that the reliability is less
sparknheartquote:
Hi QFT,
I've never seen the movie. Can you please present some of these facts?
The facts that personally disturbed me:
*During the days following 911 all aircrafts were grounded except a few flights which were used to carry Bin Laden's family and some other Arabs out from the country. They weren't even brought in for questioning before leaving the country.
*The Bushes have a long standing history with the Bin Laden family, in fact the Bushes have a lot of investments in Arab oil. There are a few companies that benefit BIG time from war and the Bushes have stock in one of these companies hence are actually benefiting from us being at war.
*Americans were told that we were going to war to stop terrorism but the truth is that the terrorists weren't from Iraq (what's with that!)
There was more but this is some of what really sparked a nerve in me. I only watched it once and would have to watch it again to get more details. The bottom line for me was seeing all the innocent casualities of war and listening to the families -- this really tugged at my heart. I know that there is much we don't know and I realize that the movie is slanted yet I also know there is a lot we don't know. I remember watching a video on JFK and getting really upset by what was covered up.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/20/2004 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
The facts that personally disturbed me:
*During the days following 911 all aircrafts were grounded except a few flights which were used to carry Bin Laden's family and some other Arabs out from the country. They weren't even brought in for questioning before leaving the country.
So have they refused to cooperate with US authorities? quote:
*The Bushes have a long standing history with the Bin Laden family, in fact the Bushes have a lot of investments in Arab oil. There are a few companies that benefit BIG time from war and the Bushes have stock in one of these companies hence are actually benefiting from us being at war.
Power and greed our responsible for most wars, including the American Revolution War, the American Civil War and even the war on drugs, pornography, prostitution and yes, even abortion. See link:
www.nonprofitpages.com/mcfl/money.htm
quote:
*Americans were told that we were going to war to stop terrorism but the truth is that the terrorists weren't from Iraq (what's with that!)
I don’t know, all I can say it seems like all of the world terrorist are flocking into one area so we can fight them abroad instead of hear at home.
quote:
There was more but this is some of what really sparked a nerve in me. I only watched it once and would have to watch it again to get more details. The bottom line for me was seeing all the innocent casualities of war and listening to the families -- this really tugged at my heart. I know that there is much we don't know and I realize that the movie is slanted yet I also know there is a lot we don't know. I remember watching a video on JFK and getting really upset by what was covered up.
Man in general is corrupt, I would be careful idolizing such creatures. JFK and the Kennedy family were linked to mafia corruption. Beware of what you believe, there is unbridled corruption in the media. Corruption is raging everywhere including our churches and schools (click here). Just imagine if Kerry becomes elected, we can look forward to millions of dollars funded towards the technology of tomatoes as an alterative energy source. We could see the price of ketchup skyrocket. We could all be surprised by a sudden change in the abortion laws and a coincidental soar of the Heinz Corporation stock price: 
Oh yes, the politics of men can be depressing and should be taken with a grain of salt and a lot of humor. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus  as corruption is rampant in the kingdoms of this world.
Best wishes,
Mark (a moderate voter) | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/21/2004 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Quest for Truth,
Before I sign off this thread, let me just add one more thing you might consider in making your choice re: war versus abortion.
The Iraq war in all its injustice, ineptness and suffering is ultimately entirely the product of George Bush. It was his misplaced conviction, influencing his authority as President, which started this war and led to all that. He had direct power over it, and still does. If John Kerry had been president, we would, in great likelihood I believe, not have entered into this war in the way we did, but would instead either have not undertaken it at all, or undertaken it with greater planning and international support and thus a greater lid on the resultant suffering.
A pro-life versus pro-choice President, however, has virtually no power over the abortion issue in this country, because the courts have ruled abortion to be constitutionally protected behavior. All either kind of President can due to influence the issue is make speeches, direct the executive branch on sideline issues such as whether abortion is covered by federal workers' government-sponsored health care plan, and wait and hope that a Supreme Court seat will become vacant. Even in the latter case, all the President can then do is nominate a judge moderate enough to get through the Senate, which means a judge whose record on the abortion and privacy-rights issues are debatable - not a True Believer, in other words. Whether John Kerry or George Bush were president would therefore in itself make little difference to the abortion issue.
I know some will say that Supreme Court justices will almost certainly be retiring within the next presidential term, and with the court narrowly split on privacy as it is today, the next president's appointments will be crucial. I don't doubt that the next president will have the chance to make appointments that could change the control of the Supreme Court. But I say again that because the president must get his appointment past the Senate first, his appointments are not going to be shoe-ins, and in particular, nominated judges who clearly pass or fail an abortion/privacy-rights litmus test are likely to go nowhere. Its possible that George Bush could end-up unwittingly appointing what turns out to be a pro-choice vote to the Supreme Court, or likewise, that John Kerry could end-up unwittingly appointing what turns out to be a pro-life vote.
In short, these pragramatic concerns - what can the president actually do - are another reason for a fence-straddler who opposes both the war and abortion to vote for John Kerry.
Okay, that's enough from me,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/21/2004 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
A pro-life versus pro-choice President, however, has virtually no power over the abortion issue in this country, because the courts have ruled abortion to be constitutionally protected behavior. All either kind of President can due to influence the issue is make speeches, direct the executive branch on sideline issues such as whether abortion is covered by federal workers' government-sponsored health care plan, and wait and hope that a Supreme Court seat will become vacant. Even in the latter case, all the President can then do is nominate a judge moderate enough to get through the Senate, which means a judge whose record on the abortion and privacy-rights issues are debatable - not a True Believer, in other words. Whether John Kerry or George Bush were president would therefore in itself make little difference to the abortion issue.
I know some will say that Supreme Court justices will almost certainly be retiring within the next presidential term, and with the court narrowly split on privacy as it is today, the next president's appointments will be crucial. I don't doubt that the next president will have the chance to make appointments that could change the control of the Supreme Court. But I say again that because the president must get his appointment past the Senate first, his appointments are not going to be shoe-ins, and in particular, nominated judges who clearly pass or fail an abortion/privacy-rights litmus test are likely to go nowhere. Its possible that George Bush could end-up unwittingly appointing what turns out to be a pro-choice vote to the Supreme Court, or likewise, that John Kerry could end-up unwittingly appointing what turns out to be a pro-life vote.
Hmmm... to kill or not to kill!
Hold on Scotty, before you beam out of this discussion, let's set the record straight. Kerry confirmed, if he is elected, a litmus test for judges would be his policy. He assured us of this in the last presidential debate.
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.
SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, you'd like to respond?
KERRY: Is that a new question or a 30-second question?
SCHIEFFER: That's a new question for Senator -- for President Bush.
KERRY: Which time limit. . .
SCHIEFFER: You have 90 seconds.
KERRY: Thank you very much.
Well, again, the president didn't answer the question.
I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.
So I don't intend to see it undone.
Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it.
But let me go a step further. We have a long distance yet to travel in terms of fairness in America. I don't know how you can govern in this country when you look at New York City and you see that 50 percent of the black males there are unemployed, when you see 40 percent of Hispanic children -- of black children in some cities -- dropping out of high school.
And yet the president who talks about No Child Left Behind refused to fully fund -- by $28 billion -- that particular program so you can make a difference in the lives of those young people.
Now right here in Arizona, that difference would have been $131 million to the state of Arizona to help its kids be able to have better education and to lift the property tax burden from its citizens. The president reneged on his promise to fund No Child Left Behind.
He'll tell you he's raised the money, and he has. But he didn't put in what he promised, and that makes a difference in the lives of our children.
SCHIEFFER: Yes, sir?
BUSH: Two things. One, he clearly has a litmus test for his judges, which I disagree with.
And secondly, only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/21/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Hold on Scotty, before you beam out of this discussion, let's set the record straight. Kerry confirmed, if he is elected, a litmus test for judges would be his policy.
Yes he did, but he's got little-to-no chance of actually getting an appointment through the Senate if he holds to that. What Kerry means is he's not going to nominate someone who is clearly pro-life. And that he won't, doesn't actually matter in practice, because any such nominee wouldn't make it through the Senate anyway, whether nominated by Bush or Kerry.
In contrast, the president, whoever he is, will have as close to 100% power as any one person can have when it comes to determining what happens in Iraq - and any other countries we choose to conquer "pre-emptively".
That was my point,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/21/2004 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | sparknheartquote:
Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus as corruption is rampant in the kingdoms of this world.
AMEN! One thing I think all leaders should possess is INTEGRITY.
scott_jorgensonquote:
Quest for Truth,
Before I sign off this thread, let me just add one more thing you might consider in making your choice re: war versus abortion....
In short, these pragramatic concerns - what can the president actually do - are another reason for a fence-straddler who opposes both the war and abortion to vote for John Kerry
Thanks for being a part of this discussion. I appreciate your insights.
It will be so interesting to see who wins. It feels like a tied ballgame in the bottom of the nineth. | | Back to Top | | |
|
another observer
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 10/22/2004 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | There seems to be a lot of concern in these posts about the poor and needy. I wonder, however, if our desire to elect a President who will address these issues is just another way of writing a check (out of someone elses account) without having to get our own hands dirty??
I'm definitely no theologian, but in my reading of the Bible, I've never read Jesus say "Give to Caesar so that Caesar can take care of the poor". I suspect that Jesus knew that Caesar would do a horrible job of caring for the “least of these”, which is why he instructs us to care for them.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/22/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | another observerquote:
I'm definitely no theologian, but in my reading of the Bible, I've never read Jesus say "Give to Caesar so that Caesar can take care of the poor". I suspect that Jesus knew that Caesar would do a horrible job of caring for the “least of these”, which is why he instructs us to care for them.
I agree that God wants us to be open to giving just as the boy with the loaves and fishes. God is blessed when we each give what is on our hearts to give toward helping the poor and needy. However, I am not sure that each need would be met if the government had no involvement in meeting needs. For one thing, not everyone attends a church so their connections with believers may be limited. Many churches give to their own. Not everyone makes their needs known on a personal level yet are willing to when it is a system that they are receiving from. There are so many reasons government agencies for the poor and needy are vital in our PRESENT society.
What do you think is the governments job? | | Back to Top | | |
|
another observer
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 10/22/2004 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | The problem is that each need is NOT being met even WITH the government’s active involvement.
I guess I just have more faith in the goodness of people than I do in an institution that over time is becoming more and more corrupt (as a whole). I think I am a better steward of the money that God has blessed me with, as I am accountable directly to the one who has blessed me with it. Who is the government accountable to?? And, I’m pretty confident that I could do a far better job distributing it to those in need.
As for governments role, based on the Constitution, I think governments role is to establish laws, enforce the laws, protect the countries borders from those who wish harm on us, and ensure freedom.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/22/2004 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
The facts that personally disturbed me:
*During the days following 911 all aircrafts were grounded except a few flights which were used to carry Bin Laden's family and some other Arabs out from the country. They weren't even brought in for questioning before leaving the country.
*The Bushes have a long standing history with the Bin Laden family, in fact the Bushes have a lot of investments in Arab oil. There are a few companies that benefit BIG time from war and the Bushes have stock in one of these companies hence are actually benefiting from us being at war.
*Americans were told that we were going to war to stop terrorism but the truth is that the terrorists weren't from Iraq (what's with that!)
There was more but this is some of what really sparked a nerve in me. I only watched it once and would have to watch it again to get more details. The bottom line for me was seeing all the innocent casualities of war and listening to the families -- this really tugged at my heart. I know that there is much we don't know and I realize that the movie is slanted yet I also know there is a lot we don't know. I remember watching a video on JFK and getting really upset by what was covered up.
FYI
Minnesota filmmaker Mike Wilson set out to expose problems with the controversial Moore's methods in such movies as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine." Wilson makes it clear that he doesn't share Moore's political beliefs, but the film isn't about ideology as much as accountability. The theme is: How does he get away with it?
Arguments that Moore manipulates facts and edits interviews to reflect his agenda certainly aren't new; they began surfacing after his first film, 1989's "Roger & Me."
Click on link for full story:
www.startribune.com/stories/412/5044324.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/22/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | another observer and sparknheart, thanks for giving me some food to chew on. I appreciate it! | | Back to Top | | |
|
cicilia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 10/24/2004 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | QuestforTruth,
I would echo other comments re: M. Moore. Although he perhaps presents "some" facts on Bush, he did so in such a manner as to manipulate the viewers. He presented "some" facts in a very contrived way- twisting things, etc., in order to portray Bush in the way that HE wanted to. It was HIS movie. He was in control and because of free speech, able to leave out some facts, insert some opinions, and create in such a way as to promote his worldviews, his stance, his beliefs, etc.
When I read your post on how much he has influenced your confusion on who to vote for, I thought, "that's EXACTLY what his goal was." He is a man who truly despises Bush (and anyone or anything remotely "conservative") and as a man who is not a Christian and who is making lots and lots of money with his movies, well, I think it's fair to say that he doesn't have "pure" motives. Nor does he have godly motives.
About the Supreme Court Justices. They have far more power than they should be allowed, in my opinion. And they are by and large NOT pro-life. Nor will they be in the future if Kerry is elected. I really didn't realize that at first, but read about it and it was very eye-openeing (and frightening) to me. We aren't just voting for a President... we are voting for the S. C. Justices and other things that will be determined based on who is President in the White House.
I think it was you who mentioned something about quality of life vs. sanctity of life. Here's my humble opionion. Jesus never stated that we are "owed" some sort of great life. Rather, it seems that He states that life WILL be troubled, problemed, and difficult... esp. for Christians. However, He also emphasizes that we are not to get so focused on this life, the here and now, that we forget our purpose and our future... heaven, eternal life, where the quality of life WILL BE far better.
For me, I view the sanctity of life as something that I cannot compromise on. Abortion is something done for selfish, self-serving reasons. There is no higher plan to it. I realize there are those who believe the war is for selfish reasons (as I'm sure some long ago thought WWI and WWII were also), but I think it can be argued that there is a higher purpose (fighting terrorism, protecting our country, fighting evil... which is something the Bible commands us to do and it does not limit it with "only in the U.S.", etc.) but abortion is simply the ending of an unborn child for the sake of convenience (in most cases).
It is tragic to think of all the men and women in the world's history who've lost their lives in war... but as a result, Hitler was stopped, slavery ended, Jews were freed, Sadam was caught, and so forth. The loss of lives were for a higher cause and for the saving of more lives, such as the saving of entire nations and/or people groups (Jews, blacks, Iraqi citizens). Since the 60's, our nation has been permeated with alot of anti-war speech, but we are told in the Bible to fight evil, and it is not limited to "but only in the U.S."
We Americans are literally obsessed with our good lives, our long lives, etc. We are very anti-death and we try our best to stay alive (and young) as long as possible. But I don't believe that God views it the same way. Neither should we as Christians, many of whom have willingly given their lifes for higher causes, knowing that this earth is "not our home."
I also think we too quickly forgot Sept. 11, now that time has passed and we feel safe again.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
cicilia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 10/24/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | p.s. And although Bush may not be the "perfect" Christian, I do believe that he has a reverence for God. He acknowledges God, he fights for godly principals, he prays, and while maybe he "fails" in other areas, the very fact that he reveres God means alot and I don't believe the same could be said about Kerry. God doesn't require perfection, but He does bless both the man and the nation who acknowledges and reveres Him!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/24/2004 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Cicilia,
Thanks for your words. They ring true for what I believe too. Your words are similar to what I have been believing God to be moving me towards. You could say that you put into words what my spirit has been experiencing God saying. Does that make sense?
I will vote for those who will never have the opportunity due to abortion.
Thank you! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/25/2004 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
Yes he did, but he's got little-to-no chance of actually getting an appointment through the Senate if he holds to that. What Kerry means is he's not going to nominate someone who is clearly pro-life.
The Boston Red Sox were down 0 to 3 in the series with the powerhouse New York Yankees: "One day I was driving to the ballpark, and I saw a billboard that said, 'Keep the faith,' " ALCS MVP David Ortiz said. "I sat in the parking lot and thought about it, thought about the whole year, then I went in and expressed myself to my teammates. Boston player David Ortiz read a billboard that said “keep the faith”, he said he took the message back to the club house, the rest is history as they became the first team in history to overcome such odds.www.startribune.com/stories/509/5043578.html
So what do you think of Scott’s statement about Bush, “he's got little-to-no chance of actually getting an appointment through the Senate. “ My response to Scott, KEEP THE FAITH! Give the unborn hope.
The truth is with Kerry you concede any chance of stopping the killing of the unborn and their chance for life. Regardless of the odds, with Bush they have a CHANCE.
If you were in the womb of a confused young woman (an expecting mother) contemplating abortion, who would you vote for?
A solider volunteers to put his life at risk, an unborn baby has no choice outside the choice of others. Make the right choice; help both a mother and a child.
The “pro-choice” is the choice we all have in consenting to having sex and getting pregnant. The constitution is meant to protect our choice NOT the consequences of our choices. The lack of morality and accountability in our country is tearing this Nation in two. Not since the Civil War have we seen such division, we are in the mist of a culture battle dividing us down traditional values and moral lines against an individual right to do as one pleases, regardless of the social implications.
I would hope all Christians pray asking guidance from the Holy Spirit in choices made this coming election, let our conscience be at peace.
Blessings,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/25/2004 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | In all this discussion I'm a little surprised to see no concern expressed by anyone about the innocent men, women and children who have been killed by the war our government brought to Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, in every case when people here have mentioned the Iraq war negatively, it was only in the context of only considering our nation's own suffering - that is, the suffering of our soldiers. Someone even suggested it was inappropriate to "broaden" the scope of our concern and sense of responsibility, to consider the suffering we have brought to Iraq, something we as a nation are completely and totally responsible for - without considering abortion worldwide as well, something we as a nation have almost nothing to do with.
Where is the American evangelical Christian community's heart for the innocent people in Iraq? And the innocent people living in future targets of our country's military should this incredible doctrine of "unilateral pre-emptive war" be allowed to continue? And the innocent people of our own country within our own borders, thrown into greater risk by the endless rage that the fire of our own pre-emption fuels? Why is the community obsessed instead with legislating something based on a disputable and controversial opinion about when personhood begins - an opinion that unbelievers have no reason to accept unless we first work at changing their hearts - while ignoring all these, whose personhood is universally not in doubt?
As for the looming global ecological catastrophe posed by global climate change and biodiversity loss, about which George Bush evidently knows and cares nothing - what of our stewardship of God's creation? Why are Christians silent?
I just wish the American evangelical Christian community would expand the purvue of its concern beyond the shibboleths of abortion, homosexuality, and "culture wars". Sometimes I am so discouraged for my children, not despite of my community, but because of my community.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/25/2004 10:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
You can't decide? Didn't you watch the debates?
A rich, white, male graduate of Yale in a blue tie versus
a rich, white, male graduate of Yale in a red tie.
And you can't decide? 
Find a rich, white, male graduate of Yale with NO tie and ask him for advice.
The candidates must have read your post, MSC. In their last debate they wore, what appeared to be, indicial blue ties.  Now you can’t tell the dirty rats apart without their lovely wives.
Along side every good man stands a good woman.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/25/2004 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
Define "lovely".
In 5000 words or less...
My wife. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/25/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
Wait honey, I’ve got a great idea. You um..um..distract the president from his housewife and give me and my "pale bud" a minute alone with him.
 | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|