Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
-" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "  
User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

Pres. Bush's Propaganda slogan -" You're either with me or you're against me. "

"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes. The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are. Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out. Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound. "

Who wrote this?

Adolph Hitler

From Chapter VI, Mein Kampf


57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

You can say the same thing about the other side, with such slogans as "Make love not war", "No War for Oil", etc. The one at the end shows how little the people who shout it have actually thought about the situation - this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view.

But it is a universal truth - the masses, on the whole, are pretty stupid. Hitler was not the first to discover this - Lenin said the same thing, and I'm sure if you look it up the same conclusion has been reached since antiquity.

People individually can be rational and intelligent. But when you get many together, the mob mentality takes over, and essentially brings them down to their lowest common denominator.

Charles


User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4227 times:

Charles - Better watch out - They'll be calling you a (sob) Nazi soon.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

LOL! Just because I agreed with a universal truth that Hitler mentioned does not mean I believe in National Socialism, Fascism, or Jewish conspiracies.

I'm sure that at some point in his life Hitler said that the sky is blue. Agreeing with him on a particular point does not a Nazi make.

Charles


User currently offlineThumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Charles:I wouldn't worry about it,your posts are excellent,if anyone would be called a closet Nazi its the other guy!

User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4183 times:

this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view.

This statement is incorrect. Americas economy is based upon war, and thrives on war. Government money goes to American companies goes to the American people, more jobs are created and this helps the *appearance* of a successful economy.

Indeed, a war also helps hide the fact that the real economy in America is failing. This can clearly be seen by comparing the Aussie $ to the American greenback. December 47.5c in the dollar, February 61c inthe dollar and rising. Means they've lost 12c in every dollar of foreign trade with Australia. Not much, but an indicator and a very worrying one as our dollar has always been so closely tied with the American greenback.

The American Government has driven it's own economy down the toilet and continues to do so with ill thought out subsidies and this attitude of bailing their countrymen out at all costs. Paying the farmers *acceptable* prices for wheat and then dumping it out on the world market at pitifull prices isn't good economy and never will be. The American Government won't make the hard decisions and that's the sign of a bad government.

But the general public in America is more concerned with hating arabs they aren't really aware of the issue of their economy.





ADG


User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3397 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

This statement is incorrect. Americas economy is based upon war, and thrives on war. Government money goes to American companies goes to the American people, more jobs are created and this helps the *appearance* of a successful economy.


Yes, in a long war you are correct. During long wars (such as the two world wars) the economy does thrive.

When you talk about short wars, it has a negative effect on the economy as the war isn’t long enough to justify orders of military supplies. People are taxed for the cost of the war and gives less people money to buy consumer goods.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

This statement is incorrect. Americas economy is based upon war, and thrives on war. Government money goes to American companies goes to the American people, more jobs are created and this helps the *appearance* of a successful economy.

This is fiction. It is frequently a misconception of people who think of 1 unit of output being equal to any other unit of output. The most extreme of these types were communists.

Without going into a lot of detail, (I'm tired, I need to go to bed and I still have some work to do before I do), such an attempt at stimulating the economy is extremely inefficient - you are collecting vast amounts of money from the private sector through taxes to create stuff which will be turned into a lot of smoke and noise, instead of something that adds value to people's lives (like roads).

Indeed, a war also helps hide the fact that the real economy in America is failing. This can clearly be seen by comparing the Aussie $ to the American greenback. December 47.5c in the dollar, February 61c inthe dollar and rising. Means they've lost 12c in every dollar of foreign trade with Australia. Not much, but an indicator and a very worrying one as our dollar has always been so closely tied with the American greenback.

I think you have something to learn about FOREX and what causes exchange rates to change. It is about the flow of one currency versus the reciprocal flow. Supply and demand. For example, if the U.S. economy is booming, and the rest of the world was doing poorly, and Americans were buying lots of expensive imported items ('cause they're rich), and other countries were buying nothing from the U.S. ('cause they are poor), but US capacity is fully utilized and unemployment is low, the dollar would fall like a rock because a lot of dollars would be flooding the market trying to be exchanged for Yen, Dmarks, etc., whose value would rise due to supply and demand. There are other aspects of course, but your simplistic interpretation of FOREX movements is much to simple to be taken seriously.

The American Government has driven it's own economy down the toilet and continues to do so with ill thought out subsidies and this attitude of bailing their countrymen out at all costs. Paying the farmers *acceptable* prices for wheat and then dumping it out on the world market at pitiful prices isn't good economy and never will be. The American Government won't make the hard decisions and that's the sign of a bad government.

On this I largely agree with you. I am a strong opponent to subsidies of large-scale industries of all types (there are a few exceptions for strategic purposes, like sugar beets in France, but they are few and far between). However, this is hardly limited to the U.S.. Most industrialized countries are guilty of this to the same extent or even more. As far as "bailing out their countrymen at all costs", this simply is not true. Did the government bail out Enron? The U.S. government very rarely gets involved in rescuing private companies. They did it with Chrysler 25 years ago because the implications of its bankruptcy were truly massive. I'm still not entirely sure it was the right choice, but it was a relatively extreme situation. Other countries are much quicker to get involved, like France and Switzerland.

Charles


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4140 times:



"this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view."

Not completely true.

In 2002, the top 10 countries from which the United States imported oil were the following


  1. Canada

  2. Saudi Arabia

  3. Mexico

  4. Venezuela

  5. Nigeria

  6. Iraq

  7. UK

  8. Norway

  9. Angola

  10. Nigeria



Taking into account that 60% of the world oil deposits are in or around the Middle East, the importance of the whole region becomes clear. Also, of these known reserves, Saudia Arabia alone has 25%, followed by Iraq (11%) and Iran (9%). Although other countries outside the region also produce oil, their reserves are not as high as these 3 countries I just mentioned. This means that in the near future, oil production from these 3 countries is likely to grow again purely because of its reserve base.

As the US is still the worlds' top consumer of oil, (more than numbers 2 to 6 together on a annual basis) and with an estimated increase in consumption of 36% over the next 20 years, the importance of assuring access to the world reserves should not be underestimated.

Now if oil hasn't got anything to do with economics, then what has?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

Schoenorama,

This war (if it happens) has a present value of $60-95 Billion - and that is just the american portion. It is quite likely that it will exceed even that number by a large amount.

Considering that the there are plenty of reserves elsewhere in the world for the next 100 years or so, you can consider that any real future value only comes at that time. Now if you know anything about the time value of money, there is no way that such a huge present value can be equated to any future value 100 years away. OPEC will continue to largely control the price of oil, and will control the output of Iraqi oilfields. The oil revenue will continue to flow into Iraqi coffers, so I am naturally curious to know where the economic benefit you speak of is supposed to come from.

Charles


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

But the general public in America is more concerned with hating arabs they aren't really aware of the issue of their economy.

*****************

I just don't experience this at all, it isnt the view of anyone I know, and while I am sure there are some, I feel that it is pretty inaccurate at best


User currently offlineLubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

who reads mein kampf? seriously

User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3958 times:

Artsyman - You are correct. We have been programmed to hate Arabs by the group that controls so much of the mass media.

Likewise, we have been programmed to love Israel, and Israelites, by the same group.

My own personal experiences with Arabs has been positive, and very negative with regards to Israel and it's fanatic supporters.


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

"who reads mein kampf? seriously"

That's what I keep asking myself. I personally don't give a flying sh#t about what Hitler had to say.

And could we please stop these asinine comparisons of GWB to Hitler? They completely flawed and wholly innappropriate. GWB's misdeeds, actual or percieved, are tens of thousands of times less than those of Hitler. To constantly compare Bush to Hitler is to minimize Hitler's Horror. Please stop this!

'Speed


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Quoting myself from Manni's "cost of war" thread:

If Bush really wanted to help his buddies in big business, he would roll back the troops today. The prospect of war in Iraq has created tremendous uncertainty in the economy. Uncertainty is really, really bad for business. It forces consumers and firms to delay purchases, holds down equity prices, and probably worsens consumer expectations of the future.

I reiterate that the argument Bush would go to war for the oil is idiotic. It is only true in the most jaundiced and cynical of minds. If you look at the war as economically driven, it is plain to see that the war would have a huge negative NPV for the United States. The non-economic repercussions look bad as well.

Bush genuinely believes that Iraqi WMD could easily end up in the wrong hands and end up killing Americans. Bush thinks that those weapons must be neutralized even if that requires preemptive war by the US alone. I don't agree with the latter point. Those WMD are the world's problem and not our's alone.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

"this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view."

At least not for Europe, who's business entanglements with Hussein dwarf US interests. 1) US "oil" 1nterests are that we get about 15-25% total fro mthe entire middle east in the agggregate which pale to European dependence.
2) Lukoil, TotalFina, Aventis, Dassault, BASF, Siemens, Daimler-Chrysler, Renault, Aventis, Akzo-Nobel, Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer etc are the ones making EU foreign policy for the same motives that ChIRAQ and Schroeder accuse the US of--to protect financial interests--namely not to upset the friendly and profitable trade with Iraq--such hypocrsy!


User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

I think any book banned by our schools, libraries, etc., is worth looking in to.

Most of Hitlers writings are irrevelant, but hey, so is most history.

The internet has these books available for the search, no charge. I like this.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm glad Mein Kampf and other such books are still around. Books like Hitler's, plus things like the Communist Manifesto, must be examined so that we understand how millions of people can be deluded so easily, so that we can more easily recognize when another such book (or set of ideas) appears.

Charles


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3876 times:

You can say the same thing about the other side

You can, sorta, Charles but Hitler's first line sums up where liberal arguments fall flat:

"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to.

It is intellectual in nature to come to a mean conclusion based on two opposing arguments. That whole process becomes pointless in an arena where the credibility of one argument has been destroyed. That's called demogougery, and I'm sorry if you differ, but these last few years right wingers have had it hands down over anyone else on the quality of their assaults. The proof is simply all around us.....conservatives run everything, and their media appeals to a higher number of the same people you call "pretty stupid".

Without going into a lot of detail, (I'm tired, I need to go to bed and I still have some work to do before I do), such an attempt at stimulating the economy is extremely inefficient

Coming from someone with your outstanding credentials, I'm glad you said that. From the present stable of leadership, I don't see any OTHER viable stimulant being presented. These are oil boys running things, pure & simple. They understand petro dollars better than any other model. I really do think they're betting the economic farm on the black goo under the sands of Iraq.

That's what I keep asking myself. I personally don't give a flying sh#t about what Hitler had to say.

You should, Speed.

I agree with you that by and large the 'Nazification' of present day leaders is a beyond-tired cheap shot. I have way WAY more issues with GWB than to go down that idiotic road.

BUT.....the stunningly detailed history of the Third Reich and its' leader give us a "how to" guide on getting to an absolutely horrific human existence. The Nazis, and most especially their leader, wrote for us a diabolical checklist on power, propaganda, control over the masses, a suffocating of dissent, and how to reach an eventual 'critical mass' of hate who's only outcome is ....well, holocaust, in every sense of the word.

Sometimes I look at the world around me and see some of those things being 'checked off'.....up to now, never with the perfection that Hitler mastered, but still. It starts with being wary, and for me that was awhile ago.

If Bush really wanted to help his buddies in big business, he would roll back the troops today. The prospect of war in Iraq has created tremendous uncertainty in the economy.

I KNOW who's column you read this weekend, En, and man, did he nail it or what? Dubya is betting the house. Plain & simple. If he wins, I foresee the start of Pax Republicana, a brash and ominously effective new foreign policy, a mass confidence at home approaching raw nationalism, and a new era of entitled corporate aristocracy, "trickle down" enrichment taken to the Nth degree.

If the roll comes up empty, at the very least, he will take his party down, open a new era of corrosive dischord in the Capital, and quite possibly take us into a Depression.

Now you know why my stance is like Friedman's, and his wifes. I have to hope Dubya's every wish comes true, a smarmy and disgusting position for me personally to be in, but what is the alternative?

Excellent thread. I work at a talk radio station, and the above quote is now hanging in my studio...as a warning.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

HM,

I actually missed his column this weekend. I will check it out...sort of psyched that I had a parallel thought with TLF.


User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3865 times:

Hitler was a great admirer of Henry Ford. I never understood why, until I came across Fords books.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm

These are banned, too, in most libraries. Never mind the fact that Henry Ford was a great American, an inventor, an industrialist, etc., he was also an anti-semite, so he's useless. Don't dare read his books.

So they say.


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

"You should, Speed."

Naw, I think you do enough worrying for the both of us.

'Speed



User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Naw, I think you do enough worrying for the both of us.

Does that mean they'll come for me first?  Wink/being sarcastic




User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

HM,

I just read the column. As usual, it was outstanding. For those of you who want to read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02FRIE.html?8hpib

I feel the same ambivalence that you do about this whole thing. I really identify with Friedman's feelings on the issue. I particularly liked the idea of telling Israel that we will dock their aid by $100 million for each new settlement they build. At the risk of sounding like someone trying to take credit for another's thoughts, I have had this idea before as well albeit with a slightly different formulation.

As far as demagoguery goes, I think the left and the right engage in it when it suits their purposes. I don't think the right's attempts to demagogue issues as of late have worked particularly well. The Iraq situation and the resultant distrust of the Republicans is sapping energy from every other issue that Bush has on the agenda.


User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

I laid over in Tel Aviv many times. I was shocked and disillusioned by what I saw, compared to what I had read about Israel. No Democracy, the Jewish State is just that, a Theocracy.

I started putting my observations in print with letters to the editor. In no time at all. the ADL was all over me, telling my employer what a maniac I was, a dangerous nut, etc., and first pleading that I be fired, then demanding it. They lost. They are not accustomed to losing.

Next came the Jewish War Veterans. They failed too. Even after I retired, the JDL threatened my life for a letter that appeared in a NYC newpaper, where I referred to Rabbi Meier Kahane as a Fascist. I had to get the FBI on him.

No trouble since.



25 Mandala499 : "you're either with me or against me"... is definitely a very very BAD propaganda line... because it doesn't suit the purpose of guiding the majority
26 N79969 : Meir Kahane was a nut. That is for sure. Israel is a pretty lively democracy though. It is no Saudi Arabia.
27 ADG : When you talk about short wars, it has a negative effect on the economy as the war isn’t long enough to justify orders of military supplies. People
28 N79969 : ADG, The bottom line is that the US does not start wars to prime the economy. The impending war on Iraq is wrecking the US economy. Money that could b
29 Lehpron : N79969: "The bottom line is that the US does not start wars to prime the economy. " REALLY?! I always wondered why we went to Vietnam...? "The impendi
30 Cfalk : I'm really curious how people managed to convince themselves that war is good for the economy. It does have a stimulus effect, yes, but look at the co
31 Toner : Congressman Ron Paul - House of Representatives 203 Cannon - Washington D.C. 20515 If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no feder
32 N79969 : Lehpron, If I did not know better, I would have mistaken you with Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz when you argue that the US should go on without the
33 Toner : "Pithy"? Pith on that.
34 Post contains links Eg777er : It's all very well saying that the war isn't about oil because the US imports so little from the Arab world today, but this is twisting the issue. The
35 N79969 : Eg777ER, I think you also need to attend an economics course with ADG and Lehpron. The longer time horizon makes war an even worse economic propositio
36 Eg777er : Why should I attend an economics course? I never said anything about war's relation to the economy! Personally I think it will be disastrous for the e
37 Toner : Oil is a factor, but so is currency. Three OPEC nations are now dealing in EU'ros that had previously used onl US Dollars. If Pres. Bush would level w
38 N79969 : Eg777ER, You made a false inference from a geological survey. The bottom line is that the Middle East is the world's gas pump and lies at historically
39 Post contains images Arsenal@LHR : Imperialism is about land-grabbing and colonial rule. This has not been the American way. Nice try with your own freestyle definition of imperialism.
40 N79969 : I do not want the US and UK to go to war to neutralize this problem. I am trying to refute the following nonsense though: 1. War to seize oil 2. War t
41 Arsenal@LHR : What does this mean exactly? Since you have run out of genuine arguments for a war, you bring up the colonialism card, accusing colonialism as the cau
42 N79969 : I am not arguing for war. Nor I am blaming European colonialism for today's problems in that region. The US was and is not imperial power. We are a he
43 Eg777er : Imperialism is about land-grabbing and colonial rule. This has not been the American way. Nice try with your own freestyle definition of imperialism.
44 Post contains links Eg777er : Oh and by the way, I have lived in Bahrain for the last 12 years. You may want to have a look at http://www.vob.org for more information on their 'Dem
45 N79969 : Nonsense. By your standards, we are throwing elbows since the world is so crowded with 'imperialists.' Damn. Where should I begin? Let's start with th
46 N79969 : "Now, tell me again that the United States is not an Imperialist/Colonialist power based on these definitions." I will tell you again and again so lon
47 Eg777er : OK, N79969, why are we disagreeing? I didn't single out the US. If you read exactly what I've posted: Personally I can understand why they are doing i
48 B757300 : Oh boy, yet another person who thinks everyone that isn't a left wing radical communist must be a Nazi for Fascist. For some reason, I remember Toner
49 Cfalk : Eg777er, The US will simply go in, secure whatever interests it needs, and let the rest rot. Just as every imperial power has done since the dawn of c
50 Eg777er : An Imperialist or Colonial power would put into place its own permenant government control aperatus in the targeted area. Again, you are using a parti
51 Toner : The USA gave up it's furthest point of Empire, when it gave Independence to the Phillipines. We do have a state in Hawaii, but I would hardly call tha
52 N79969 : Eg777ER, The US cannot rationally be lumped in with the European colonialists of yesteryear. We are not doing anything similar to what Belgium did in
53 N79969 : Clarification: I realize that France and Belgium were not the only colonial powers.
54 Cfalk : Eg777er, Your definition of imperialism is far too vast. According to it, The U.S. is a part of a Japanese empire, and at the same time is part of a C
55 N79969 : According to that definition, Japan would be an imperialist country in both pre and post 1945 eras. I think Japan's neigbors would beg to differ.
56 Eg777er : Well, my definition comes from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, widely regarded as the foremost authority on current English. (Will post in more
57 Lehpron : "I think you also need to attend an economics course with ADG and Lehpron. The longer time horizon makes war an even worse economic proposition. " Don
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...
Posts That Begin With "Is It Is Just Me Or....? posted Fri Aug 23 2002 18:57:26 by Zrs70
Telling Your Boss "you're Too Uptight" posted Tue Aug 9 2005 23:25:42 by Redngold
"You're Not My Type" posted Sun Jan 16 2005 00:49:12 by Lehpron
Vicious "hate Crimes" Are Okay If You're Black. posted Mon Apr 7 2003 07:24:42 by MD-90
You're UN SECGEN: How Do You Resolve It? posted Sun Aug 20 2006 23:59:43 by DL021
This Is A Rant -- But You're Here For You posted Sun Jul 9 2006 23:01:32 by Lehpron
Can You Be Friends With A Crush... posted Mon Nov 13 2006 23:11:04 by MaverickM11
Have You Done This With Your Bigma Or Equivalent? posted Thu Jun 22 2006 03:23:48 by VasanthD
How Fast Have You Been Driving With A Car? posted Sat Jun 3 2006 20:52:43 by Bofredrik
If A Girl Says, "you Had Your Shot" posted Sun Apr 16 2006 02:35:53 by Lehpron