Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Must Read For All Americans  
User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

The bill:

* Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.
* Expands the section of law that allows the attorney general to authorize spying on foreign embassies, so long as there's no "substantial likelihood" that an American's communication would be captured.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that allows the government unfettered wiretapping and physical searches without warrants or notification for 15 days after a declaration of war. The lack of any congressional restraint on the president's wartime powers arguably puts the president at the height, rather than the ebb, of his powers in any time of war, even an undeclared one.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that limits the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches to a period of 15 days after a declaration of war.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that puts a time limit on the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches against Americans. Under current law, the president has that power for only 15 days following a declaration of war.
* Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.
* Moves all court challenges to the NSA surveillance program to a secretive court in Washington, D.C., comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only government lawyers would be allowed in the courtroom.
* Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71778-0.html?tw=wn_technology_3

Robert NWDC10

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

So much for the tough talk for Sen. Specter, seem he gave the White House everything they wanted and more. Another sad day for American's Civil Libertys in the name of the War on Terror.

User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2296 times:

I haven't seen the actual bill, but if its as described above, this pretty much puts to rest the right wing question of, "What Specific Liberties Have You Lost"?


"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
"What Specific Liberties Have You Lost"?

Ditto.

Please explain . . .

What liberties are now lost on you?

If you're not a criminal asshole, associating with other criminal assholes, go on about your business.

If the gov't wants to see my dirty text messasges between what ever bimbo of the week I have and myself - fine . . . what the hell do I care.

If the gov't wants to monitor my weekly call to Dominoes pizza and knows I prefer Hawaiian Pizza over Meatball, so what.

If the gov't can save ONE american life because they intercepted a terrorist transmission, fine by me.

Much ado about nothing - as long as you're not breaking the law . . . . .


User currently offlineJalto27R From United States of America, joined May 2004, 857 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 2253 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 1):

A couple months ago we found out guys were trying to design a plan built around liquid explosives going off in multiple planes, killing hundreds if not thousands, and you are concerned the government is reading your text messages, and making sure you not planning a terrorist attack on your phone?

What's more important to you? Not having your phone tapped, or keeping more Americans from dying? I hate to narrow it down to that, but prove me wrong. Yoy want better intelligence, but you don't want it to require any sacrifice on your part. Talk about NIMBY on drugs.

Mike


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 2246 times:

All these references to the declaration of war have me confused. We haven't actually had a declaration of war recently, or did I sleep in and miss it somehow?

User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

So, what if the government wants to put a camera in your house and access your medical records?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Much ado about nothing - as long as you're not breaking the law . . . . .

On many levels I agree, but it's a very slippery slope.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 6):
access your medical records?

I'm a VA retiree . . . too late to argue now . . .

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 6):
On many levels I agree, but it's a very slippery slope.

Concur. It bears considerable watching and monitoring. Fortunately, it will be around if the Democrats win the White House . . .

So this is NOT a Republican tool, it is a Bi-Partisan tool, that if used properly - by either side of the aisle - can save lives and help eliminate terrorist threats . . . if used properly. Therein lies the rub.

Still, my original thoughts apply:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

Quoting Jalto27R (Reply 4):
I hate to narrow it down to that, but prove me wrong. Yoy want better intelligence, but you don't want it to require any sacrifice on your part.

And yet we've fought multiple wars, been involved with terrorism since the 70s and the government hasn't had the need to have unfettered rights to tap our phones and monitor our communications.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
What liberties are now lost on you?

If I'm reading the above correctly, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not a legal scholar, during a time of war, the government now has the unfettered right to monitor and search anyone, including US Citizens, without warrent or showing cause. Additionaly, the AG can authorize the same, even in peace time, as long as they don't keep anything 'not related to terrorism'.

Both of these, to me at least, directly contrevene the IV Amendment.

I'm going to look up the actual text of the bill tonight and try and get a better understanding of it.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
What liberties are now lost on you?

As your repeated posts and attitude against civil liberties attest, without limits on cops, they can and will search and seize whoever they like without regard to anything but their own redneck outlook. Unregulated cops are only half a step above criminals, and very often become criminals - as history and the situation in other countries proves.

Not only will cops be left free to do what they like, which is the opposite situation of a free democracy, the police will become tools of whichever despot manages to gain political power - again as history and the state of unfree nations suggest.

IF this bill was only about electronic communications, you might arguably have a point - but it is also about PHYSICAL SEARCHES, giving cops the right to go wherever they want, whenever they want - which given what cops are and historically have done, must absolutely be avoided if democracy is to be retained.

The COMPLETE failure of democracy is when the police have complete power - this bill moves us very much closer to this failure by allowing warrantless physical searches.

The more power the police have, the weaker a democracy is - because democracy means the ability to get rid of its current government and even the police force, which the government and police are always trying to avoid.

Cairo


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 9):

Thanks for your opinion.

Now, can you answer the question I posed?

What civil liberties have you lost???

Has there been any direct affect on you???

Quoting Cairo (Reply 9):
As your repeated posts and attitude against civil liberties attest, without limits on cops, they can and will search and seize whoever they like without regard to anything but their own redneck outlook

 laughing 

Please demonstrate my attitude against civil liberties. Because I don't think criminal terrorist pieces of shit deserve any liberties above free air? Because I don't subscribe to bleeding heart mentality - like yours - that we have to be politically correct ass kissers to everyone? Because I believe if we save one life by monitoring some extremists phone calls it's a good idea?

That makes me anti-civil liberty! And a redneck. Laughable. Assinine and laughable.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 9):
but it is also about PHYSICAL SEARCHES, giving cops the right to go wherever they want, whenever they want

BUZZ, go read it again. You're missing the boat . . . but I'll let you figure it out. There are restrictions . . . go look for them.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 9):
which given what cops are

Just what are cops, if I might ask?


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 8):
And yet we've fought multiple wars, been involved with terrorism since the 70s and the government hasn't had the need to have unfettered rights to tap our phones and monitor our communications.

Have there been any changes in world communications in the last 20 years??? Communications are completely different than the previous wars we fought. There was no internet and widespread cell phone use during the 91 Gulf War.


User currently offlinePadraighaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Please demonstrate my attitude against civil liberties. Because I don't think criminal terrorist pieces of shit deserve any liberties above free air? Because I don't subscribe to bleeding heart mentality - like yours - that we have to be politically correct ass kissers to everyone? Because I believe if we save one life by monitoring some extremists phone calls it's a good idea?

Asked and answered.

As for your concern for saving lives, I assume you must be a strong advocate for Universal Healthcare.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

Quoting Jalto27R (Reply 4):
A couple months ago we found out guys were trying to design a plan built around liquid explosives going off in multiple planes, killing hundreds if not thousands

"We" found out guys were trying to design a plan..."? Sorry, but is that not a United States flag you are flying? Wasn't it the Brits who were key in exposing the terror plot? I think the closest the U.S. has come to exposing a terror plot has been 4 wannabe terrorists in FL who made some suspicious comments to UC FBI agents and a couple of other guys in, OH I believe it was, who were caught with numerous stolen cell phones in their possession (which, by the way, resulted in zero terror-related charges being filed).

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
If the gov't wants to see my dirty text messasges between what ever bimbo of the week I have and myself - fine . . . what the hell do I care.

If the gov't wants to monitor my weekly call to Dominoes pizza and knows I prefer Hawaiian Pizza over Meatball, so what.

I, too, have nothing to hide (although I DO like Hawaiian pizza). However, to be brutally honest, I do not trust these intrusive 'liberties' with my right to privacy in the hands of the current administration. Do I care if my text messages to Michelle Pfeiffer begging her to return my calls are monitored by the Feds? Not really. But who's to say today's monitoring of my text messages won't be tomorrows forcing entry into my home in the name of the war on terror? An extreme comparison? Maybe. But if 5 years ago someone had told me I would have to be concerned about the government reading my emails, monitoring my phone calls, text messages, etc...I would have suggested they get fitted for a tinfoil hat.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 13):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Please demonstrate my attitude against civil liberties. Because I don't think criminal terrorist pieces of shit deserve any liberties above free air? Because I don't subscribe to bleeding heart mentality - like yours - that we have to be politically correct ass kissers to everyone? Because I believe if we save one life by monitoring some extremists phone calls it's a good idea?

Asked and answered.

Well, then I call  redflag  on that . . . doesn't make me anti-civil liberties - it makes me smarter than most others . . if being a non-asskissing terrorist hating law abiding citizen makes me anti-civil liberties, well - piss on it - it's better than the alternative.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 14):
, too, have nothing to hide (although I DO like Hawaiian pizza). However, to be brutally honest, I do not trust these intrusive 'liberties' with my right to privacy in the hands of the current administration. Do I care if my text messages to Michelle Pfeiffer begging her to return my calls are monitored by the Feds? Not really. But who's to say today's monitoring of my text messages won't be tomorrows forcing entry into my home in the name of the war on terror? An extreme comparison?

Hence the need to closely scrutinize and monitor this program . . . CLOSELY monitored.

Send me Michelle's number will ya  silly . Maybe if she won't return your calls she'll return mine.


User currently offlinePadraighaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2116 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
if being a non-asskissing terrorist hating law abiding citizen makes me anti-civil liberties,

No, it makes you complicit to undermining our values and freedoms at the altar of Security, and someone who simplisticly assumes there are only two possibilities - being a non-asskissing terrorist hating law abiding citizen or a defender of civil liberties that presumably kisses terrorist ass. The world is more complex than this.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 16):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
if being a non-asskissing terrorist hating law abiding citizen makes me anti-civil liberties,

No, it makes you complicit to undermining our values and freedoms at the altar of Security, and someone who simplisticly assumes there are only two possibilities - being a non-asskissing terrorist hating law abiding citizen or a defender of civil liberties that presumably kisses terrorist ass. The world is more complex than this.

 sarcastic 

I've been called worse by better people - lots better people.

I'm happy then - being complicit - and I'm secure as well. Can you say the same.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
Hence the need to closely scrutinize and monitor this program . . . CLOSELY monitored.

Agreed but when you have an administration that has been as secretive (perhaps even misleading) as the current one has about it's "war on terror" practices, how do you suggest we do that? Hence, my lack of trust.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
Send me Michelle's number will ya . Maybe if she won't return your calls she'll return mine.

Apparently you already have it. Bitch just texted me back. Said something about needing a parka and a dogsled team to visit the man of her dreams.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 10):
given what cops are and historically have done,

The hell does this comment mean? "Given what cops are and historically have done"? Well, historically, in the last 96 hours Cairo, I have assisted in the birth of a child, interrupted an armed robbery in progress and apprehended the shithead (and cleared 3 other "open" armed robberies in the process) and interceded in a domestic violence incident in which the female half was in the process of being beaten to death at the hands of her drunken husband and a Louisville Slugger. Is that what you meant when you said "what cops are and historically have done"?


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12673 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
Hence the need to closely scrutinize and monitor this program . . . CLOSELY monitored.

And there's the rub.

To quote Juvenal "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" Who shall guard the guards themselves?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Dear ANC Flyer,

you can not put a whole nation an entire continent under general suspicion just to get 2-3 terrorists. It is not reasonable
Having worked with a D.A. I know how useful it is to listen to the phone calls of a suspect but this is a very restricted option in Germany. It can only be directed by a judge (not by the police or a prosecutor) and there must be the high possibility of the perpetration of a felony (and not all crimes justify the monitoring of the telecommunictaion). Afterwards the suspect had to be informed that the police was monititoring his phone calls, e-mails etc..
America always was a country that put a huge stress on liberal rights and less interferance by the state as possible. By giving up these rights you are giving up what has made the US special over the years and the US would not be the land of the free anymore but land of the fear where everybody who has a telephone and internet is a potential suspect.

Regards
Columba



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 8):
If I'm reading the above correctly, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not a legal scholar, during a time of war, the government now has the unfettered right to monitor and search anyone, including US Citizens, without warrent or showing cause. Additionaly, the AG can authorize the same, even in peace time, as long as they don't keep anything 'not related to terrorism'.

Before everyone overreacts, I would like to point out that what everyone is talking about is SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act. It has only been voted out of committee. It hasn't been taken up by the full Senate, nor has it been sent to Conference, or signed by the President.

IOW, let's wait to see what the final law says before jumping off the deep end.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
IOW, let's wait to see what the final law says before jumping off the deep end.

While I agree that jumping off the deep end is a little premature, you have to remember the mindset of the administration we're dealing with here and how heavy handed it can be (ie: an "I'm going to do this because I can" mentality). So, no, I'm not about to jump off the deep end but I do have my trusty water wings ready if need be.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 21):

Thanks for your great input. I don't think I've given up any right however. I don't foresee police officers kicking the doors in on every house on the street. It's a pretty good bet, my friend, the targets of these warrantless searches* will not be Mom and Pop Smith at 1234 Elm Str.

* By the way - something Cairo missed the boat on completely - and something I'd like to highlight for you Columba - is these warrantless acts are only good for 15 days after the country enters a state of war - or so says the information in the thread starter.


User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Anyone who says SO WHAT? and this doesn't affect me because I'm not a bad guy is either naive or has drunk too much of the Kool Aid.

It's only a matter of time until these expanded surveillance powers become misused/abused for things that have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

It's only a matter of time. Imagine if a populist leftie president takes over after Bush (an impossible nightmare for most of the rightie wingnuts here but humor me  Wink ). The temptation would be too great NOT to use these surveillance capabilities to eavesdrop on his political adversaries.

And of course, it'll all be done through 3rd and 4th parties in order to have "plausible deniability."  Yeah sure

In the words that most scholars attribute to Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


25 Padraighaz : Of course not - I don't want to be complicit in undermining the constitution and I'm under no illusions concerning security. Sheesh.
26 Searpqx : No, this is what is so disturbing about the House version of this bill, the 15 day limitation was stripped, leaving the President unfettered during a
27 StarAC17 : I think his point is that this can be used by law enforcement to search your house or car without actually having a warrant or any consent by the own
28 Halls120 : I saw the first drafts of the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, and they bore a faint resemblance to the finished products.[Edited 2006-09-27 21:0
29 N1120A : Sorry, but you got this one all wrong. The government are breaking the law here, namely the Constitution.
30 Searpqx : Agreed. I just don't like where we're starting from.
31 ArtieFufkin : What civil liberties have I lost???? Well for starters the right to privacy. The right to habeus corpus? Wiretaps on US citizens should be subject to
32 ArtieFufkin : Waterboarding, prolonged exposure to cold, rendition to foreign countries for more abusive treatment. All this is going on at Bush's request. And all
33 OlegShv : I'm with you on this. Good post.
34 Jalto27R : I doubt that. It's just for the last 30 years people knew to keep their damn mouth shut about secret intelligence gathering. And even if they didn't,
35 ArtieFufkin : That's a silly conclustion. So since we didn't have illegal wiretaps in the past and more wars and terrorism came about, that means we should have ha
36 ArtieFufkin : This is another strawman argument. This is not a question about if wiretapping potential terrorists should be done. YES OF COURSE. We all agree on th
37 Searpqx : Not quite sure what you're saying here. That we've actually been under surveillance by our government for many years, and these new laws just make it
38 Jalto27R : No, I'm saying that the methods we were using to fight terrorism in the past were obviously not good enough, therefore we need to improve and adjust
39 ANCFlyer : Thanks - I obviously missed that - and in that case I believe the House needs to reinstate the time limit. Period. I will support the bill with the t
40 FlyMIA : Exactly something I would say. If your a person who follows the law and has nothing to hide than who cares what the government does. There is just on
41 AndesSMF : What! You are kidding, right? There are other countries that give prisioners more abusive treatment? That cant be right! After all, YOU ARE NOT COMPL
42 Seb146 : Uh, huh.... I'll believe that when I see it.... No one knows. The way I understand FISA law, any agency doing surveillance has up to 72 hours *after
43 ArtieFufkin : Oh joy we only squandered 300 Billion and 2700 lives doing it. Looking forward to the next "Terrorist free" five years. We should be past 500 Billion
44 ArtieFufkin : Ah! We shouldn't have judges involved because we don't really know what we are looking for with the illegal searches? Got it. We should take this to t
45 Post contains images AndesSMF : Finally! (BTW, who said that in this thread, cause it wasnt me, and I cant find out who said it, except you) Again, you havent given an article refer
46 Itsjustme : A completely different topic? I don't think so. Your post clearly tries to justify the actions of the United States ("and you are concerned the gover
47 Padraighaz : Therefore the Bill of Rights is a waste of time? After all, why should law abiding citizens care about what the government does? Why do law abiding c
48 ArtieFufkin : Andes I'm not here to school you. It's too big a job. Bush has admitted to the program whereby he wiretaps without FISA oversight. Period. End of Stor
49 Padraighaz : Or the risk, and Al Queda's capabilities, were considerably overstated.
50 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Heard everything now . . . . credibility to zero. Like it had far to fall in the first place.
51 ArtieFufkin : You're correct. Intelligence analyst have admitted this. Al Queda was a rag tag bunch before 911 of twenty or so cells. Hold up primarily in Afghanis
52 ArtieFufkin : You know for someone that bought hook line and sinker every GOP talking point about WMD, and ties to 9/11, and "there trying to destroy our freedoms"
53 Post contains links Itsjustme : I not only follow the law, I enforce it. I certainly have nothing to hide but I do have a problem with my government taking liberties with my right t
54 AndesSMF : That's a damn good ragtag bunch if they pulled off 9/11. BTW, I thought the UN supported our action in Afghanistan. Now I hear you are complaining? T
55 StuckInCA : So, what if the government decides to send a large, sweaty, obese man to live in your house with you. To share your bed with you. To watch you all da
56 ANCFlyer : Opinions vary. Some matter, some do not . . . . Say Artie . . . what know you of what I think or what I've posted anyway . . . Get back to me when yo
57 Post contains images DavestanKSAN : That's not very nice to call Lew a bimbo. Dave
58 Jalto27R : Your topic went off post because I made a reference to the recent terrorist plot unfoiled. It just happens to be that the Brits caught this men, and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
For All Us Americans: Back To Work! posted Tue Jul 5 2005 19:11:02 by S12PPL
French Bashing: The Cure For Sick Americans? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 10:03:11 by Sebolino
Question For All French Smokers? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 19:58:00 by 9V
This Is For All You Catlovers Out There ;o) posted Wed Sep 6 2006 10:27:21 by Clogman
Evangelists: Israel Must Exist For The Parousia! posted Fri Jul 28 2006 12:04:50 by Singapore_Air
For All You Computer Experts Out There..... posted Sun Apr 30 2006 13:04:07 by Leigh pilgrim
For All The Newbies That Need Condom Help! posted Mon Apr 24 2006 03:55:52 by Luv2fly
Heres For All You Virgin A.netters posted Sat Apr 1 2006 16:22:02 by RichardPrice
For All Of You People In Cymru! posted Sat Mar 11 2006 15:05:06 by RootsAir
Important Announcement For All US Citizens posted Thu Mar 2 2006 12:59:27 by 7LBAC111