Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Are You Hiding Now, Mr. President?  
User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2109 times:

First it was his refusal to speak with the 9/11 Commission while under oath. I believe he said he and Vice President Cheney would be happy to "meet with those folks" but not under oath. Big of you Mr. President, thanks. And now he is refusing to allow White House officials, specifically Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to give sworn testimony regarding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Bush has said he'll allow a bipartisan group of committee members to interview Rove, Miers and their two deputies, but not under oath and without a transcript of the proceedings. Basically he is saying he doesn't want them to be held legally accountable for any statements they make. Now why do you suppose that is? What was that Bush said he was going to bring back to the White House? Oh yes, integrity. Isn't that a hoot?  rotfl 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/us.attorneys.firings/index.html

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8107 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Bush won't allow anything under oath because the MO in his administration has been lies, lies and more lies and nobody knows what the truth is anymore. He's not about to subject anyone to perjuring themselves.

The thing about Bush is I believe he's a man of integrity for the most part - the trouble is, he actually believes what he says and does. The larger issue is the players who comprise his administration. Bush is fiercely loyal and they know as long as they present the appearance of working toward the same aims, they will have won the trust of their boss. What has happened in the halls of the White House on behalf of those aims has been a display of anything but integrity, and Bush knows this now more than ever. But his loyalty comes first and that's why this story is repeating again and again.

I'm sure Pat Leahy's liable to blow a few arteries over this. Only one thing is for certain - nobody deserves a sworn grilling more than Karl Rove.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

It's pretty obvious that you have something to hide if you refuse to speak under oath and without written record. But wait a few minutes for Bush fans to come in here and turn it on "liberals" and give no actual assesment of the situation.


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

i understand any president wanting to protect executive privelage, as any president has to have confidential and non-public advice on many matters, but I don't see where this is part of that process.

It looks like-again-another case of this Administration's never-ending attempt to hide everything it does from Congress and the American people. And it shows again how Congress was bereft in it's responsibilities by allowing in the "Patriot Act", a provision that gives up their Constitutional roll of approving judicial appointments. I'm glad they struck that part of the Act down, but it shows again what kind of paranoia and fear we were under right after 9/11.

If the truth is to be sought here, Mr. Bush's advisors must be held to account under oath, and with transcripts. If neither is allowed, then if there was any wrongdoing here, it will never be brought to light.


User currently offlineDavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Oh the hypocrisy. Clinton once said he would bring a stuffed animal back to the White House, BUT HE LIED. There was no fluffy toy in sight. And yet no outrage from those on the left. Typical.

Dave



Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
And it shows again how Congress was bereft in it's responsibilities by allowing in the "Patriot Act", a provision that gives up their Constitutional roll of approving judicial appointments

Except that U.S. Attorneys are not judicial appointments....



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

"Our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. " Gerald R. Ford

Perhaps we should shout this out en masse in January 2009.

Or put it above Bush's jail cell.

Either one works for me.

John


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

It should be obvious to all why he doesn't want testimony under oath.

He's afraid, and rightly so, that the dems will pick apart the testimony for the littlest contradictions, intentional or not, then fire up another libby style purgury trial.

That is of course what the dems are looking for here.

Hell, I think he should let them testity, then pull a Iran/Contra defense and suddenly "not recall" anything for the CSPAN cameras.

F'you Dems. Drop this ludicrous attempt at a circus and get back to the buisness of governing our nation.

And no, that doesn't mean cramming more pork into the current Iraq spending bill.


User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
It should be obvious to all why he doesn't want testimony under oath.

He's afraid, and rightly so, that the dems will pick apart the testimony for the littlest contradictions, intentional or not, then fire up another libby style purgury trial.

That is of course what the dems are looking for here.

Hell, I think he should let them testity, then pull a Iran/Contra defense and suddenly "not recall" anything for the CSPAN cameras.

F'you Dems. Drop this ludicrous attempt at a circus and get back to the buisness of governing our nation.

That was about time.

Putting your politics aside, don't you even remotely think that they don't want to speak under oath because, I don't know, illegal things have been done?? If it were reversed, I'd think you'd be clamoring for an investigation ASAP.



"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

To me, what President Bush and his administration is hiding now is the cover up of what happened. That is how Watergate took down President Nixon and Iran-Contra hurt President Bush - 41).
Yes, these US Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President, and they can dismiss them with or without cause, even for political ones, but still in reality there has to be reasonable justification not just for purely poltical redirection. It is a shame that this issue could become the biggest scandal of his administration that will be pursued by Congress rather on his lies used in going into Iraq, his post-9/11 power grabs and other mistakes.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 8):
If it were reversed, I'd think you'd be clamoring for an investigation ASAP.

Was I clamoring...

Wait, never mind.. wasn't a member of the forum.

You'll just have to take my word for it. I didn't clamour for an investigation when the previous administration used their authority to remove federal prosecutors from office. It's not illegal. It's a power of the President.

And don't go joining the Falcon boat and assume I'm a republican. You can't "reverse" someone who doesn't belong to either party.


User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
It should be obvious to all why he doesn't want testimony under oath.

He's afraid, and rightly so, that the dems will pick apart the testimony for the littlest contradictions, intentional or not, then fire up another libby style purgury trial.

That is of course what the dems are looking for here.

Hell, I think he should let them testity, then pull a Iran/Contra defense and suddenly "not recall" anything for the CSPAN cameras.

F'you Dems. Drop this ludicrous attempt at a circus and get back to the buisness of governing our nation.

And no, that doesn't mean cramming more pork into the current Iraq spending bill.

At what point do you people ( GWB Worshipers) sit down, have a Sierra Mist and take a fresh look at these people. I don't love either party but this administration is blatantly corrupt. So much so it's embarrassing.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting J.mo (Reply 11):
this administration is blatantly corrupt.

A GWB worshipper now, am I?

I'm sure to you that's a comparison to something horrible to you.

So now I've become the embodiment of what you consider degenerate and detestable? And for what?

Because I insist on actual crimes having being committed?

Huh...

Why do I suddenly feel a deep pity for our nation


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
If the truth is to be sought here, Mr. Bush's advisors must be held to account under oath, and with transcripts. If neither is allowed, then if there was any wrongdoing here, it will never be brought to light.

IF there was any wrongdoing. IF!

As far as I know, nobody has managed to indicate the possibility that any law has been broken. How would you like to be subpeonaed if you haven't done anything wrong, but you know they want to find something - anything - to hang onto you?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
He's afraid, and rightly so, that the dems will pick apart the testimony for the littlest contradictions, intentional or not, then fire up another libby style purgury trial.

Exactly. This is a fishing expidition. While they have Rove under oath, they will ask him about all sorts of stuff completely unrelated to the Attorney issue, hoping to find some little thing to trip him up, whther it's about Iraq, 9/11, No-Child-Left-Behind, whatever. They want to simply throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks.

Quoting J.mo (Reply 11):
I don't love either party but this administration is blatantly corrupt.

I know of no clear evidence of corruption, but I will acknowledge clear evidence of incompetance, especially concerning public relations but also in the conduct of the war and many other issues.

The maddening thing is that IMHO we have no better choice. While Bush & Co seem to be incompetant boobs who seem to scurry for cover every time a liberal says, "Boo", the Democrats appear certainly far more corrupt and tolerant of corruption among their members (look at William Jefferson, D-La). Many of those who are not visibly corrupt are loons, like Nancy Pelosi.

More and more, it seems like we have on the menu a choice between the horseshit and the vomit.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting Itsjustme (Thread starter):
Basically he is saying he doesn't want them to be held legally accountable for any statements they make

In other words, very similar to Libby, where I may remind you no crime was found, and no further prosecutions for the 'crime' are forthcoming.


User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
To me, what President Bush and his administration is hiding now is the cover up of what happened. That is how Watergate took down President Nixon and Iran-Contra hurt President Bush - 41).

Not even close...

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
Yes, these US Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President, and they can dismiss them with or without cause, even for political ones, but still in reality there has to be reasonable justification not just for purely poltical redirection.

Which is it? You admit the US Attorneys can be fired for political reasons, and in the SAME sentence say they can't....

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 10):
It's not illegal. It's a power of the President.

{Checkmark}

Quoting J.mo (Reply 11):
this administration is blatantly corrupt.

So corrupt that the Democrats have chosen an issue everybody admits is legal...

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Executive Privilege has been vigorously defended by all Presidents, no matter the party. The issue is much larger than why Bush fired eight people everyone knows he had every right to fire.



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

[

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
He's afraid, and rightly so, that the dems will pick apart the testimony for the littlest contradictions, intentional or not, then fire up another libby style purgury trial.

Maybe he's afraid, MD, that something untoward did go on, and he doesn't want it on record? Ever thing of that?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
Hell, I think he should let them testity, then pull a Iran/Contra defense and suddenly "not recall" anything for the CSPAN cameras.

Which, with the lack of trust the American people have for him and his administration right now, no one will believe a thing any of them say if they do that.

Maybe, just MAYBE, the best defense is to TELL THE TRUTH? And if they have nothing to hid, MD, the Dems will end up with egg on their faice if noting untoward happened? Or, is that just too simple?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
F'you Dems. Drop this ludicrous attempt at a circus and get back to the buisness of governing our nation.

Gee, that's what Dems yelled for 8+ years when the GOP was looking for anything to try and hang President Clinton with any wild story imaginable.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 10):
And don't go joining the Falcon boat and assume I'm a republican.

Problem is, my friend, you never do anything to make anyone think otherwise. You're always the first to shrug off or apologize for anything this Administration and this President does. Why should we think anything else? You put yourself up for such accusations.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12):
A GWB worshipper now, am I?

Again, if the shoe fits.....

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
IF there was any wrongdoing. IF!

Yes: IF. That's what investigations like this are for, Charles. Duh.  Yeah sure

Damn, I thought you might be happy that I gave them at least some benefit of the doubt.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 7):
F'you Dems. Drop this ludicrous attempt at a circus and get back to the buisness of governing our nation.

Isn't that what Dems were saying during Monica Lewinsky investigation? What ever bacame of that? Oh, that's right.... a president was almost removed from office for a personal indiscretion.

And we are comparing that with how many lives lost so far? 3000+ on our soil and 3000+ overseas plus civilians in another country. But no one in the current administration is allowed to testify under oath. Did that happen with the Monica debacle? No one being able to testify under oath? Hmmmmm...... Hypocracy?

GO CANUCKS!!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Yes: IF. That's what investigations like this are for, Charles. Duh.

Is it ok for the police to do a full investigation of you if there is no accusation of a crime? The police simply arrive on your doorstep one day and say, "You are the proud recipient of a random search", and then go through your home, your business, just on the off-chance they might find something to prosecute?

Last I heard, in this country, you need a little something called probable cause to rip into someone.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting Itsjustme (Thread starter):
Bush



Quoting Itsjustme (Thread starter):
integrity



Quoting Itsjustme (Thread starter):
 rotfl 

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 


The ONLY reason I'd be EXCITED about the Dem's taking back the whitehouse (if they do) will be seeing all these puppets forced to testify under oath and the video calvacade of 'I'll invoke my 5th ammendment rights' quotes to follow.

The Bush Administration is BEGGING for the magnifying glass treatment like an ant in the eyes of a 4 year old ON a UV 15+ day.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Ever thing of that?

Perhaps the POTUS has done something illegal that may eventually come out.

But this is not how it needs to be done.

How would you like it if the police departments around the US started calling in people off the street, putting them under oath and grilling them to see if they admit to something? Sounds kinda creepy and Big Brotherish doesn't it?

So why are we rooting for Congress to do just that?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Gee, that's what Dems yelled for 8+ years when the GOP was looking for anything to try and hang President Clinton with any wild story imaginable.



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 17):
Isn't that what Dems were saying during Monica Lewinsky investigation?

I was not a fan of the Repubs actions during those years either.

But as I said, I wasn't a member of this forum at that time so I can't prove that to you.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Why should we think anything else?

Perhaps you should read more threads then. Imigration, social spending, lack of domestic policy... etc. The Bush admin is not my friend.

[Edited 2007-03-22 03:51:54]

User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
the Dems will end up with egg on their faice if noting untoward happened?

Did any Dems end up with egg on their face from the Plame 'scandal'.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 18):

Last I heard, in this country, you need a little something called probable cause to rip into someone.

Really? How do you explain TravelGate? WhiteWater? Vince Foster? Ron Brown? Should I go on? Pot---> Kettle ---> Black.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
How would you like it if the police departments around the US started calling in people off the street, putting them under oath and grilling them to see if they admit to something?

Sounds like the Patriot Act.

Oh, wait.....

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Why should we think anything else?

Perhaps you should read more threads then. Imigration, social spending, lack of domestic policy... etc. The Bush admin is not my friend.

Fair enough, then. I will accept what you say on that regard. Unfortunately, we can't read every thread, and I will take you at your word on that, as far as other policy goes. Fair enough?


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 22):
Really? How do you explain TravelGate? WhiteWater? Vince Foster? Ron Brown? Should I go on? Pot---> Kettle ---> Black.

Last I remember, several people went to jail for these, except for Ron Brown, that's just another kooky conspiracy theory.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 4):
Oh the hypocrisy. Clinton once said he would bring a stuffed animal back to the White House, BUT HE LIED. There was no fluffy toy in sight. And yet no outrage from those on the left. Typical.

Wow, I think we have new A'Net record. It only took 4 replies to mention the C name in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton. If you can't stay on topic, Dave, please don't waste our time with your mundane ramblings.

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 15):
The issue is much larger than why Bush fired eight people everyone knows he had every right to fire.

Nobody is disputing the fact that it's Bush's right to fire the 8 U.S. attorneys. It's been common practice for PotUS to replace all 90+ US Attorneys but it's normally done when the new administration takes office, not midterm. What's even more suspicious is several of the 8 attorneys who were fired had not only received excellent performance reviews but some were in the middle of investigating alleged political corruption.


25 Itsjustme : Why, yes it does! Just as "creepy and Big Brotherish" as having the Guv read my emails, listen to my phone calls, look over my financial records, etc
26 AsstChiefMark : Dems: "Mom! the Reps are doing illegal shit again!" Reps: "But...but...but... The Dems did hanky-panky shit like that 8 years ago and you did nothing.
27 MDorBust : Hey, why is it exactly that the Dem majority hasn't repealled the Patriot Act yet? Surely, if you're going to tag it as a Republican intrusion of rig
28 Itsjustme : Hey, I haven't tagged it as anything other than an intrusion of rights, period. You're the one who titled the Dems actions for wanting testimony unde
29 Baroque : Which describes a setting for disaster in terms of actually administering a country I would think. A leader has to show critical thinking to have hal
30 Post contains images B777-700 : Classy. Rovian twisting of facts. What Clinton did was nothing different than what many other president have done. Firing select USA's in the middle
31 MDorBust : Ah so now I'm Rovian too. A Rovian GWB worshipper is it? And people wonder why actual political discourse has become increasingly irrelevant and disp
32 Post contains images B777-700 : I didn't say YOU were. I was saying that talking point was. But I can tell by how defensive your being that all these accusations are striking a chor
33 Post contains images AGM100 : They have turned over approx 22000 documents. If the DEMS get them into to testify under oath , a conflict of even a date something was said could be
34 Post contains images B777-700 : Don't be ridiculous. This issues with the USA's has nothing to do with anything you just said. Stay on topic.
35 MDorBust : Always a failed premise. If, by your theory, a person who became defensive was guilty of the charge leveled at them, then hiring a defense attorney w
36 B777-700 : But we're not talking about that, are we? and? Gee whiz, now you must know what Clinton feels like!...lol
37 MDorBust : I was not a fan of the Repubs actions during those years either. But as I said, I wasn't a member of this forum at that time so I can't prove that to
38 B777-700 : You've given me no reason to think otherwise. And yes, it's funny.
39 MDorBust : So is it a condition of proper posting, in your opinion, is that a person must state in every thread their entire political standing? As a counter th
40 Nosedive : way to lead by example...
41 AGM100 : Oh really , read up on the Scooter Libby trial. He never actualy lied , he only stated who he remebered hearing it from and it was different from ano
42 767Lover : My feeling is that if there was nothing to hide, being under oath or recorded should not matter. I have to admit I haven't read up on this issue enoug
43 AGM100 : The way I look at is like this... Could you go testify under oath about something you talked about or sent emails about in 2005 ? Sure you may be abl
44 Post contains images DavestanKSAN : Please read my comment again. It was a joke. I was being sarcastic as in these threads Clinton is sure to come up as a....yeah, but Clinton did so an
45 Itsjustme : You're going to have to do better than this. In a nutshell, the answer to your question is not only "yes" but its not unheard of for a good portion o
46 Post contains images MaidensGator : When you're trying to catch a witness lying, it really only matters if it's an obvious lie, and not just poor memory. You are asked if you've ever be
47 AGM100 : Not all the DEMS fault , no way. But the effort to take down the administration now has alot to do with politics. The DEMS are hard up with their vot
48 Post contains images Disruptivehair : Like the Republicans listened to what the American people wanted when they impeached the president for lying about a blow job? Get real. If any presi
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...
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 07:01:18 by AislepathLight
What Are You Drinking Right Now posted Sun Jul 16 2006 00:14:21 by ABfemme
What Are You Listening To Right Now, Part Whatever posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:49:59 by Falcon84
What Are You Listening To Now? posted Tue Feb 14 2006 13:11:03 by QR332
What Are You Supposed To Be Doing Right Now? posted Mon Feb 28 2005 09:47:39 by Saxdiva
What Are You Listening To Now? posted Fri Feb 11 2005 19:05:27 by QR332
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Tue Sep 28 2004 17:18:59 by NonRevKing
What Are You Doing Right Now? posted Wed Aug 18 2004 00:21:42 by CVGpilot
What Computer Are You Using Now? posted Sat Dec 16 2000 06:14:44 by Fanoftristars
Tax Refund: What Are You Going To Spend It On? posted Mon Mar 12 2007 19:33:26 by IFEMaster