|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
SteppingRazor
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:48 PM Original message |
Luskin cannot be lying... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:49 PM Response to Original message |
1. What lamebrain thinks Luskin is "lying"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SteppingRazor
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:51 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. I completely agree, but HEAPS of people are saying... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:53 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. Oh |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:02 PM Response to Reply #1 |
31. Deleted message |
Humor_In_Cuneiform
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:23 PM Response to Reply #31 |
87. What specifically |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pale Blue Dot
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:50 PM Response to Original message |
2. It's not just that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Epiphany4z
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:51 PM Response to Original message |
4. he is not lying |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:55 PM Response to Reply #4 |
14. Read the law Fitzgerald was charged with enforcing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Epiphany4z
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:03 PM Response to Reply #14 |
36. I agree |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:06 PM Original message |
No, I think you were fooled |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Epiphany4z
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:12 PM Response to Original message |
59. It is possible I was fooled |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:14 PM Response to Reply #59 |
65. Grassroots, baby..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Epiphany4z
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:18 PM Response to Reply #65 |
77. Thank you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:04 PM Response to Reply #14 |
39. And your pal KKKarl hasn't perjued himself? To the investigators? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Epiphany4z
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:07 PM Response to Reply #39 |
47. Hu? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:13 PM Response to Reply #47 |
64. OLL keeps telling us Rove is innocent and "the Wilsons jumped the shark" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Epiphany4z
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:17 PM Response to Reply #64 |
73. I keep hearing he had |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Igel
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:45 PM Response to Reply #64 |
129. I think the problem is that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 05:03 PM Response to Reply #129 |
131. I do believe you have nailed it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hang a left
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:56 PM Response to Reply #39 |
113. Yeah and Libby is only charged with perjury. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:52 PM Response to Original message |
5. Attorneys simply don't lie about provable things |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:53 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. He was given permission by Fitzgerald |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:54 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. Of course, I do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:01 PM Response to Reply #7 |
29. I actually do think that likely - but I'll wait to see the actual letter |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:02 PM Response to Reply #29 |
32. Huh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:11 PM Response to Reply #32 |
57. I want it Personally delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:12 PM Response to Reply #57 |
58. You're wearing crinolines, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:15 PM Response to Reply #58 |
67. Not where anyone can see them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:17 PM Response to Reply #67 |
72. Same here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:21 PM Response to Reply #72 |
83. Thank God my daughter has left defense for estate planning! She |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:28 PM Response to Reply #83 |
92. Good for her |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:34 PM Response to Reply #92 |
97. LOL - I'll warn her! :-) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:02 PM Response to Reply #92 |
116. Hey, have you seen this Partridge guy's stuff? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:18 PM Response to Reply #32 |
74. we have a verbal report so far - wording is important - prior letters |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:06 PM Response to Reply #7 |
45. Again, are you Luskin? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:08 PM Response to Reply #45 |
49. I am an attorney |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:11 PM Response to Reply #49 |
55. So am I. And followed OLL attacking the Wilsons, defending Rove |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:12 PM Response to Reply #55 |
61. And she's been right about everything so far |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:18 PM Response to Reply #61 |
75. So...Rove is innocent, right? okey dokey - that much sanity I don't need |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:22 PM Response to Reply #75 |
84. Innocent of violating the statute as written? Probably |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:25 PM Response to Reply #84 |
90. Probably? Did you read the facts at the link? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:29 PM Response to Reply #90 |
93. What does this have to do with the war? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:40 PM Response to Reply #93 |
103. Karl told the truth to investigators who came at the WH in 2003? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:43 PM Response to Reply #103 |
105. If he did, Fitzgerald can't prove it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:51 PM Response to Reply #105 |
107. I don't know Fitz's reasons - or even his plans. Never heard from him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:54 PM Response to Reply #107 |
110. I am not advocating his "innoncence" in any moral sense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:36 PM Response to Reply #75 |
100. What if it's true? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:53 PM Response to Reply #100 |
109. Did he tell the truth to the investigators in 2003? I recall the opposite |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:11 PM Response to Reply #109 |
121. This is Luskin |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:29 PM Response to Reply #121 |
125. Not saying he's lying - it's a nice vague statement that does NOT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:38 PM Response to Reply #125 |
127. It pretty much does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 07:24 PM Response to Reply #127 |
132. No exoneration whatsoever. Why is DU going further than Luskin? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 11:03 PM Response to Reply #132 |
133. Exoneration from indictment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter
![]() |
Wed Jun-14-06 10:51 AM Response to Reply #133 |
134. "doesn't anticipate" IS NOT exoneration. "SHALL NOT INDICT" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:35 PM Response to Reply #49 |
99. Exactly. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hang a left
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:01 PM Response to Reply #49 |
115. Is that kind of like when Luskin said.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:10 PM Response to Reply #45 |
54. Deleted sub-thread |
Name removed
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:57 PM Response to Reply #7 |
114. Deleted message |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:46 PM Response to Reply #7 |
130. Aren't they actually friends? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DoYouEverWonder
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:54 PM Response to Reply #5 |
11. Then show the letter |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:55 PM Response to Reply #11 |
15. Why? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
IsIt1984Yet
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:07 PM Response to Reply #11 |
48. Why should he release it? To appease the six DUers who bought |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:09 PM Response to Reply #48 |
52. ::::: WILD APPLAUSE ::::::: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
IsIt1984Yet
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:12 PM Response to Reply #52 |
60. It's over, Johnny. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:20 PM Response to Reply #52 |
81. Once bitten by the prince of darkness they need a steady diet of . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:25 PM Response to Reply #81 |
89. What the hell did you put in the spray starch? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:43 PM Response to Reply #5 |
104. You're kidding right... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rich4468
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:53 PM Response to Original message |
8. Jason Leopold still standing by his story |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:56 PM Response to Reply #8 |
16. My money is on "unhinged" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:57 PM Response to Reply #16 |
18. The guy's a certifiable head case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:57 PM Response to Reply #8 |
19. His "sources?" Who, his neighbor's labrador retriever? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:03 PM Response to Reply #19 |
35. Oh, nice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karlrschneider
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:01 PM Response to Reply #8 |
28. He promised to 'reveal the sources'...so he lied about THAT too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:13 PM Response to Reply #8 |
62. have JL's "sources" confirmed that Luskin is lying? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bertha katzenengel
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:54 PM Response to Original message |
9. I know Bob Luskin. Not intimately, mind, but I know him. He's not lying. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:03 PM Response to Reply #9 |
34. LOL - "Not intimately" can we trust you on that? - just kidding :-) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bertha katzenengel
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:05 PM Response to Reply #34 |
41. Heh heh. I'll tell you one thing: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:54 PM Response to Original message |
10. and if Luskin was lying wouldn't one of Leopold's "sources" tell him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:20 PM Response to Reply #10 |
80. Like Leopold has any standing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
htuttle
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:55 PM Response to Original message |
13. Luskin is a mob lawyer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:56 PM Response to Reply #13 |
17. HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
htuttle
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:57 PM Response to Reply #17 |
20. Did you have to pay part of the money back, because it was laundered? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:01 PM Response to Reply #20 |
27. I still don't see what that proves |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:22 PM Response to Reply #27 |
85. People confuse |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:26 PM Response to Reply #85 |
91. It's not clear why "mob attorney" is somehow an insult |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:29 PM Response to Reply #91 |
94. Agreed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:34 PM Response to Reply #94 |
98. I don't think they are in any physical danger.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:38 PM Response to Reply #98 |
102. I'd work for the good old Mob, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:37 PM Response to Reply #27 |
101. They're never quite the scum the prosecutor claims they are, though. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
calimary
![]() |
Wed Jun-14-06 11:02 AM Response to Reply #27 |
135. Hey, in this country scum run the whole freakin' government. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:04 PM Response to Reply #20 |
38. What money? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:00 PM Response to Reply #17 |
24. I have defended child molesters. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
htuttle
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:01 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Did you get in legal trouble for doing so? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:05 PM Response to Reply #26 |
42. Federal prosecutors are overreaching pricks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:02 PM Response to Reply #24 |
33. I give defense lawyers a ton of credit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:14 PM Response to Reply #33 |
122. This thread is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:08 PM Response to Reply #24 |
50. Weenie-waggers were my specialty for a while |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:13 PM Response to Reply #50 |
63. You make me laugh. I still hate this profession. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:16 PM Response to Reply #63 |
70. Icky |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChairmanAgnostic
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:01 PM Response to Reply #17 |
25. but was it a topless carwash? huh? Huh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:58 PM Response to Reply #13 |
21. And mobsters deserve defense attorneys |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
titoresque
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:02 PM Response to Reply #13 |
30. but,but,but,but........ |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
htuttle
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:06 PM Response to Reply #30 |
43. Technically, Richard Perle and Fred Phelps are "Registered Democrats", too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
titoresque
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:15 PM Response to Reply #43 |
69. Yes, I was agreeing with you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SteppingRazor
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:20 PM Response to Reply #69 |
82. For every time you've been called a CT nut or idiot for believing this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karlrschneider
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:06 PM Response to Reply #13 |
44. Gold bars aren't worth anything? Hell, I'd be HAPPY to get paid |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sammy Pepys
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:59 PM Response to Original message |
22. Luskin has much too lose...and at this point..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 02:59 PM Response to Original message |
23. material fact in reporting what you thought you heard? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patcox2
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:03 PM Response to Original message |
37. Thank God for this thread; an oasis of sanity. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SteppingRazor
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:07 PM Response to Reply #37 |
46. Somebody's got to try to push back the tide... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Marie26
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:09 PM Response to Reply #37 |
119. Hey! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mz Pip
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:05 PM Response to Original message |
40. Lying at this point would make no sense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:11 PM Response to Reply #40 |
56. Looking like a turd is in his job description |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:14 PM Response to Reply #56 |
66. And lying here would have the exact opposite impact |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:15 PM Response to Reply #56 |
68. and fabricating a story about being told by Fitz that Rove's off the hook |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:18 PM Response to Reply #68 |
76. He's not telling "all" the truth - show us the letter |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:24 PM Response to Reply #76 |
88. excuse me, but shove your sanctimonious crap |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:29 PM Response to Reply #88 |
95. Rage? Where do you get that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:32 PM Response to Reply #95 |
96. I haven't heard anyone say that they shouldn't be held accountable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofthedial
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:08 PM Response to Original message |
51. not lying |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:10 PM Response to Original message |
53. He's just "parsing" the truth, perhaps? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:16 PM Response to Reply #53 |
71. I suppose he might show us the letter when JL reveals his sources |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:20 PM Response to Reply #71 |
78. More GOP talking points |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cigsandcoffee
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:20 PM Response to Reply #71 |
79. If Joe Wilson accepts Luskin's statement... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:23 PM Response to Reply #79 |
86. They didn't "accept" it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DisgustedTX
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:18 PM Response to Reply #79 |
123. Sanity? NOOOOOOO!!! TRUTHOUT? YES!!!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pathwalker
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:50 PM Response to Original message |
106. I saw and heard a lawyer lie in open court! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dogday
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:52 PM Response to Reply #106 |
108. How about David Westerfield's lawyers? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SteppingRazor
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:54 PM Response to Reply #106 |
111. But that's not a lie about material fact... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pathwalker
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:02 PM Response to Reply #111 |
117. The man had already PLED GUILTY. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:11 PM Response to Reply #117 |
120. Why was there a trial after a guilty plea? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pathwalker
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:27 PM Response to Reply #120 |
124. No, during the trial, the prosecutor called the son to testify, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:32 PM Response to Reply #124 |
126. That attorney did the right thing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pathwalker
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:45 PM Response to Reply #126 |
128. It's over now. He's in prison where he belongs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
theboss
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 03:55 PM Response to Reply #106 |
112. That's not a lie; that's a defense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
whalerider55
![]() |
Tue Jun-13-06 04:04 PM Response to Original message |
118. Show me the letter |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sun Jun 23rd 2024, 08:21 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC