bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The 2nd Obama Administration
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> National Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:05 pm    Post subject: The 2nd Obama Administration  Reply with quote

Obama to nominate Hagel for Defense, Brennan for CIA

By Scott Wilson  

President Obama on Monday will nominate former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense and counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan to direct the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House said.

The announcement will be made in the East Room of the White House shortly after 1 p.m.

The successful nomination of Hagel would add a well-known Republican to the president's second-term Cabinet at a time when he is looking to better bridge the partisan divide, particularly after a bitter election campaign. But the expected nomination has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from Republicans, who have questioned Hagel's commitment to Israel's security.

The choice sets up a confirmation fight of the sort that Obama appeared unwilling to have over Susan E. Rice, his preferred pick for secretary of state. Rice pulled out of consideration for that job last month after facing sharp Republican criticism about her characterization of the September attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN's State of the Union Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called Hage's selection an "in-your-face nomination."

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Hagel's record would be given a fair shake in the Senate if he is nominated. McConnell stopped short of saying whether he would support his former colleague.

"He's certainly been outspoken in foreign policy and defense over the years," McConnell said on ABC's This Week. He added: "The question we'll be answering, if he's the nominee, is: Do his views make sense for that particular job? I think he ought to be given a fair hearing, like any other nominee. And he will be."

Brennan, a veteran CIA analyst who rose to become deputy executive director of the agency during the first term of President George W. Bush, was among those considered for the top CIA job when Obama took office in 2009.

But he again came under political fire from liberals who accused him of complicity in the agency's use of brutal interrogation measures under Bush. Spooked by the criticism - which Brennan denounced as unfair and inaccurate - Obama quickly backtracked.

After Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for the CIA post, Obama hired him as White House counterterrorism director, a position that required no Senate confirmation and had no well-defined duties.

At the outset, colleagues said they wondered what his job would be. But to a young administration new to the secret details of national security threats and responsibilities, Brennan was a godsend.

If he is successfully nominated to head the agency this time, Brennan, 57, would be filling the vacancy created by the resignation of David H. Petraeus, following the discovery that Petraeus was having an adulterous affair.

"Brennan has the full trust and confidence of the President," an administration official said in a statement Monday. "For four years, he has seen the President every day, and been by his side for some of his toughest decisions.... Brennan is as close to President Obama as any member of his national security team."

The nominations of Hagel and Brennan will begin what White House officials have said will probably be a busy week of announcements about who will fill Obama's second-term Cabinet and senior staff positions. The president returned Sunday from a curtailed holiday in Hawaii and must start making final personnel decisions that were delayed by the year-end negotiations with Congress over taxes and spending cuts.

Foreign policy tussle

Despite the opposition to a Hagel nomination that has arisen on Capitol Hill, a senior administration official said Sunday that the White House expects him to receive the support of Democrats, as well as many Republicans who served with him.

"Having a name floated and having one officially put forward are two different things," the official said.

Hagel, who was twice awarded the Purple Heart for wounds suffered in Vietnam, served in the Senate for two terms, ending in 2009.

He was an outspoken and often independent voice as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, breaking with many in his party to sharply criticize the management of the Iraq war after he initially supported the U.S.-led invasion.

"A lot of Republican opposition is rooted in the fact that he left his party on Iraq," the senior administration official said. "And we think it will be very hard for Republicans to stand up and be able to say that they oppose someone who was against a war that most Americans think was a horrible idea."

Hagel also has been a strong advocate for veterans, an issue that Obama has spoken about frequently as tens of thousands of U.S. troops return from battlefields after more than a decade of war. The administration official said Hagel, as a result, is "uniquely qualified" to help wind down the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and make budget decisions to support the returning troops.

Some of the recent criticism directed at Hagel has focused on his mixed record over the imposition of sanctions on Iran. As a senator, Hagel opposed several bills to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran. But he also supported measures to put in place sanctions as part of multinational efforts, and he endorsed labeling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

Hagel's record has raised concern among some of Israel's supporters in the United States, who fear that he may not be sufficiently committed to that country's security.

But his defenders point to his record as a senior senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, where he voted for nearly $40 billion in military aid to Israel over his tenure.

Obama, who worked with Hagel on nuclear nonproliferation issues and other foreign policy matters in the Senate, has vowed to prevent Iran from using its uranium-enrichment program to develop a nuclear weapon.

Obama has worked to tighten both U.S. and international sanctions to pressure Iran into giving up the effort, moves that Hagel has supported in recent interviews. The Iranian government has said that it is pursuing nuclear power, not weapons.

A network of supporters

Since leaving office, Hagel has served as co-chairman of Obama's intelligence advisory board. Hagel has advised the president to open talks with Hamas, the armed Palestinian movement that does not recognize Israel's right to exist. He also has complained about the influence that Israel's supporters exert on members of Congress, telling writer Aaron David Miller in an interview for his 2008 book that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."

"If Hagel is nominated, it is very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which I could support his nomination," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said on Fox News Sunday.

But Hagel has many supporters, including former ambassadors, senators and secretaries of state who value his experience and independence.

A network of supporters has rallied in recent weeks to defend Hagel's record as the criticism has grown. The supporters also said privately that they expect him to receive strong public backing from many Republicans and Democrats alike once the nomination is official.

Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, called Hagel "a statesman," adding that "America has few of them."

Hagel, 66, would be taking over the Pentagon at a time of budget cuts and a changing mission after two long wars. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is retiring to his home in California. Hagel would become Obama's third defense secretary; Robert M. Gates, a member of the George W. Bush administration, was retained in the post until 2011.

If confirmed, Hagel would be the second Republican in Obama's Cabinet, after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
                          •
David Nakamura, Sean Sullivan and Debbi Wilgoren contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company

                         ===

It is long past time to have a professional intelligence - instead of a politico - head of the CIA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”
So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.
“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.
“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”
But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”
The looks on their faces will be priceless.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/ne...-new-tax-increases/#ixzz2HJ660vt8
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Somebody at WashingtonTimes.com wrote:
Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases


Somebody is absolutely correct.

Some Obama supporters are shocked and angry that the temporary tax decreases passed by Congress during the 1st Obama administration were not re-passed and extended by Congress into Obama's 2nd term.

Those "some" would be the ignorant Obama supporters - ignorant of (not knowing/understanding) the facts which were repeatedly reported by all TV and print news media outlets during December 2012, as part of the "fiscal cliff" and "sequester" news articles.

They are ignorant because
(1) they didn't read/watch the news articles,
(2) they didn't understand the news articles they did read/watch, and/or
(3) they didn't listen to or understand their acquaintances who did know the facts.

However the ignorance of the percentage of Obama supporters who didn't follow the news is shared by a percentage of non-Obama supporters - or to use other parameters, shared by some Democrats, some Republicans, some other Party members, and some non-affiliated.

Ignorance of facts is not defined or determined by political allegience or beliefs.

Now the percentage of people (whether Obama supporters or not) who are shocked or angered by the resumption of the 2% FICA taxes which had been decreased by the last Congress because they watch, listen and unquestioningly believe opinion articles or blogs are not only ignorant, they are also stupid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Ignorant Obama supporters" IS REDUNDANT!
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm Ignorant 0bama supporters?  While I agree with Bob on this I also feel the need to comment.  

I knew this was going to happen and most people that attempt to keep up with current events knew.  

Those that rely on "ABC, CBS, NBS, MSNBC, The New York Times and it's subsidiaries, Gannet and other left leaning new outlet" probably didn't know this was happening because it wasn't reported.
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coebul wrote:
Those that rely on "ABC, CBS, NBS, MSNBC, The New York Times and it's subsidiaries, Gannet and other left leaning new outlet" probably didn't know this was happening because it wasn't reported.


I'm hoping you're making a satirical or sarcastic humourous statement.

If not, i.e. if you really believe that "ABC, CBS, NBS, MSNBC, The New York Times and it's subsidiaries, Gannet and other left leaning new outlet[s]" didn't report the increase in taxes, please Google the words > FICA two percent 2013 < and you'll find among the 13+ million results that not only did those outlets publish numerous articles, but also that print newspapers in every city, town and hamlet in America did - including your town.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The useful idiots don't ever notice the fine print, only the spectacular presentations catch their attention.

W.C. Fields got it right,

"DAZZLE THEM WITH BRILLIANCE, BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLSHIT"
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
The useful idiots don't ever notice the fine print, only the spectacular presentations catch their attention.

W.C. Fields got it right,

"DAZZLE THEM WITH BRILLIANCE, BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLSHIT"


I agree a thousand percent!

Which is why I jump on published misinformation, spin and half truths whereever I see them.

My earlier point was simply that the "useful idiots" are not restricted to only being Obama supporters, or Democrats, or liberals, etc.

Democrats actually fall second from the bottom, as poll after poll show that the most accurately informed of facts (as opposed to being knowledgeable of opinions of talking heads) are the non-affiliated; followed by 3rd-Party members, followed by Democrats; with the GOP-affiliated being the least knowledgeable of facts.

My theory is that the differences are due to the predispositions of each group.

Republicans include the most self-described conservatives, who by definition accept opinions of authorities and the status quo.

Democrats include the most self-described progressives, who by definition look for opposing views to the established authorities.  

3rd-Party members are mainly ideologues who have dumped both the Dems and Reps as not being ideologically pure, so they almost paranoically research every position.

And the non-affiliated most often research and think for themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your theory is bullshit.
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jewish groups softening resistance on Hagel nomination

by Ron Kampeas, JTA
January 8, 2013

Now that Chuck Hagel is officially President Obama's nominee to be secretary of defense, Jewish groups concerned about Hagel's record on Israel and Iran are faced with a choice.

Do they fight hard to derail his nomination, joining common cause with Republican opponents?

Or do they temper their fire for a Vietnam War hero who insists that opponents have distorted his views on Israel and has a good chance of securing one of the most sensitive posts in the U.S.-Israel relationship?

So far, it appears to be the latter.

Jewish opponents appear to be toning down the criticism that greeted the news last month that Hagel, a Republican who served as a U.S. senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009, likely would be Obama's defense choice.

The Anti-Defamation League, one of the most outspoken critics of Hagel's potential candidacy, issued a statement reiterating some of its concerns after Obama made the announcement Monday -- but deferred to the president. "Sen. Hagel would not have been my first choice, but I respect the president's prerogative," Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director, said in the statement. In his statement, Foxman alluded to past proposals by Hagel to engage with Iran and with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah; the nominee's skepticism of sanctions and the efficacy of a military strike on Iran; and his criticism of Israel in how it deals with the Palestinians. Foxman called on Hagel to address positions that the ADL chief said seem "so out of sync with President Obama's clear commitment on issues like Iran sanctions, isolating Hamas and Hezbollah and the president's strong support for a deepening of U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation."

The National Jewish Democratic Council drew back from the tough criticism it leveled against Hagel in 2007 when he was considering a run as a Republican presidential candidate. NJDC said Monday that it is now "confident" Hagel would follow Obama's lead on Israel.

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has asked to be appointed interim senator should Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) become secretary of state, on Monday softened his opposition to Hagel for his comments on Jews and gays.

The shift on Hagel in some Jewish corners may be enough to give the 11 Jewish senators room to support Hagel, or at least to not oppose him -- a significant gain in a body in which senators tend to take their cues on special interests from colleagues who belong to the group in question.

The dimming of the prospect of an all-out lobbying effort by some pro-Israel groups against Hagel's candidacy appears to be the product of White House outreach to Jewish groups in recent weeks, pushback by Hagel's supporters and Obama's own record on Israel.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee was silent on the nomination -- and not just as a matter of its traditional reticence to comment on nominations. Capitol Hill and pro-Israel insiders told JTA that AIPAC has not taken a stand in this battle. Steve Rosen, a former foreign policy director for AIPAC who now consults for a number of pro-Israel groups, said it would not help Israel's interests to undercut a candidate for this key security post. "It's about making friends, not getting into fights with people," Rosen said.

Rabbi Steve Gutow, who directs the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said his public policy umbrella group would not take a position on Hagel but that he looked forward to a thorough vetting process.

In an interview with the Lincoln Journal Star in his home state of Nebraska, Hagel said his record of support for Israel was "unequivocal" and had been subject to "falsehoods and distortions." "I have said many times that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism," he said. "I have also questioned some very cavalier attitudes taken about very complicated issues in the Middle East." Hagel suggested that differences on policy were a matter of nuance and tactics, not of goals. "I have not supported unilateral sanctions" on Iran "because when it is us alone they don't work and they just isolate the United States," he said. "United Nations sanctions are working. When we just decree something, that doesn't work." In the interview, Hagel did not refer to the controversy over his use in 2006 of the term "Jewish lobby" and his assertion when he was a senator that his loyalty was to the United States, not Israel.

Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York and a contributing fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, said Israeli leaders naturally would have concerns about past Hagel statements. But Pinkas said they would deal with Hagel not as the loquacious one-time senator who often was critical of Israeli policy, but as the defense secretary hewing to a policy set by Obama of a close U.S.-Israel security relationship. "What a senator says at a three-martini lunch and what a secretary of defense says are two different things," Pinkas said.

Obama made clear the White House would aggressively tout Hagel's bona fides as a wounded Vietnam War veteran, twice calling him a "patriot." There also was a veiled reassurance to Israel in Obama's remarks. "Chuck recognizes that American leadership is indispensable in a dangerous world," Obama said. "I saw this in our travels together across the Middle East. He understands that America stands strongest when we stand with allies and with friends."

Peter Medding, a political scientist at Hebrew University, said Israel''s leaders understand that the White House shapes the defense relationship and it would be counterproductive to create distance with the U.S. president at a time of increased regional tensions. "Making policy is a matter for Obama, and the Israelis are not interested in taking on Obama at this time," Medding said.

Hagel is by no means out of the woods. A number of Republican senators already have pledged to vote against him. His apostasy on President George W. Bush&rsquo;s Iraq policies -- in 2007, Hagel supported Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal from Iraq -- is still an open wound in the party. A lone Republican senator could hold the nomination unless the Obama administration is able to muster 60 votes, which could be daunting in a chamber in which Democrats control 55 of the 100 seats.

Support among Democrats and liberal groups also is not assured. Gay groups want to hear more about his apology for opposing a 1998 ambassadorial nomination because the nominee was gay. In the Senate, Hagel was a pronounced conservative on domestic issues, including government spending, abortion and gun control.

Susan Turnbull, a former vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and now chairwoman of Jewish Women International, called Hagel's views "knee jerk" and "worrisome."

A range of rightist pro-Israel groups remains committed to upending the nomination, among them the Zionist Organization of America, Christians United for Israel, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Emergency Committee for Israel, which on Monday launched a website headlined "Chuck Hagel is not a responsible option."

Among centrist Jewish groups, the American Jewish Committee has written to Democratic senators urging them to oppose the nomination. "AJC has shared our concerns with members of the U.S. Senate, who have the responsibility to ask the probing questions about Hagel's record and vision," AJC said in a statement.

For their part, Hagel's Jewish allies have pushed back hard. J Street, Americans for Peace Now and Israel Policy Forum all have endorsed him. "It is particularly troubling that some claiming to represent the pro-Israel community have tried to impugn Sen. Hagel's commitment to the U.S.-Israel special relationship and our countries' shared security interests," J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a letter sent to all senators.
                                        •
Internet source: http://www.jewishjournal.com/nati...ng_resistance_on_hagel_nomination

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> National Politics All times are GMT
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 1 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum