See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama Remark ‘Elitist,’ McCain Says
Source:
New York Times
URL Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... remark-elitist-mccain-says/?hp
Published: Apr 14, 2008
Author: Ariel Alexovich
Post Date: 2008-04-14 14:36:12 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 712
Comments: 56
Obama Remark ‘Elitist,’ McCain Says April 14, 2008, 12:35 pm By Ariel Alexovich WASHINGTON — John McCain called Barack Obama’s recent comments that Pennsylvanians are “bitter” an “elitist” remark but stopped short of calling Mr. Obama himself elitist. “I don’t know Senator Obama very well,” Senator McCain said, addressing a packed crowd of journalists at a newspaper editors’ conference on Monday. Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, spoke at length about how small town Americans in places like Pennsylvania are the backbone of America. Those folks don’t support the Second Amendment because of recent economic hardships, Mr. McCain said, they do it because that’s been part of their values system for generations. “These are the people that produced a generation that made the world safe for democracy,” Mr. McCain said. “These are the people that have fundamental cultural, spiritual, and other values that in my view have very little to do with their economic condition.” To suggest otherwise, Mr. McCain said, is “a fundamental contradiction to what I believe America is all about.” Senator McCain also denied flip-flopping on the mortgage issue. He has been criticized for initially being against government aid to homeowners struggling under the weight of their hefty mortgages. Now, Mr. McCain has said he supports limited bailouts because “Americans are hurting.” But he warned against too much government intervention. “Massive bailouts puts debt on future generations,” he said. The chummy question-and-answer portion of Monday’s event began with a mutual peace offering. The panel hosts gave guest speaker John McCain a coffee with cream and sugar, and several Dunkin’ donuts — with sprinkles. “My favorite!” he said. In return, he told the packed auditorium of journalists that he supports a shield law — which allows reporters to protect their sources — albeit narrowly. He doesn’t support the shield law if it infringes upon national security, specifically citing The New York Times’s decision to disclose a government wiretapping program “too close to crossing that line.” “It is, frankly, a license to do harm, perhaps serious harm,” Mr. McCain said in his opening remarks. “But it is also a license to do good; to disclose injustice and unlawfulness and inequities; and to encourage their swift correction.” Mr. McCain didn’t give up the names of people he’s considering for vice president, only that he hopes to make a decision “sooner rather than later.” During the casual Q-and-A, he also joked that he’d fall into a “deep depression” if he loses the general election.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
McCain continues to butter up the press, hoping that they will continue to give him a free ride.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Hillary and McCain are not elitists. They are just your typical multi-millionaires. --------- mediamatters.org/items/200803140010 Indeed, Money magazine estimates John McCain's net worth at $40 million. ---------- www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...3/politics/p000930D78.DTL As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. ---------- money.aol.com/special/can...tial/20080118143209990001 Lifestyles of the Presidential Candidates By JONATHAN BERR, FREELANCE WRITER The Wealth Factor The original Republican and Democratic candidates are wealthier than the vast majority of Americans. Republican Mitt Romney, who ended his candidacy on Feb. 7, is the richest, with assets of between $190 million and $250 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He is estimated to have spent at least $20 million of his own money on the race. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is worth between $10 million and $50 million, while former senator and trial lawyer John Edwards, who ended his candidacy on Jan. 30, is worth $30 million. Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul seem paupers with assets of between $456,012 and $1.1 million and $3.5 million respectively. Trumping them all is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was reportedly considering an independent bid but has recently denied it, with a fortune estimated by Forbes magazine at more than $11.5 billion. * * * The Cars It's nothing but American-made when it comes to the candidates' cars. Thompson's may be the most famous in this context. His red pickup truck that helped him get elected to the Senate now sits rusting in the parking lot of his mother's house; his current ride is unknown. John McCain drives a Cadillac. Romney has some classics: a 2005 Ford Mustang convertible and 1962 Rambler American. Hillary Clinton is driven around in a Ford hybrid by Secret Service agents when she is at home. Huckabee drives a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe and 1995 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck. --------
McCain still has not released his taxes. It has been reported that John and Cindy own 8 homes, and through her, they live a lavish lifestyle, well beyond what most in the Senate live; certainly well beyond the way most Americans live. So who is the elitist again?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
They're ALL elitists...that what we're trying to tell you.
People here refuse to believe that we have one party, namely, "the ruling elite party". They are blood (money) brothers and the two party believers are the sheep, ready to be sheared, year after year. One of these days the elite will be looking for lamb chops.
I have always disagreed with some of the views of whomever I supported for POTUS. I don't see Hil's recycling of hubby's bogus put 100,000 cops on the streets to be anything more then a display of how well she can make a totalitarian measure sound good to those receiving the shackles. McCain is also all about controlling and managing people while keeping a good image to the fore. I don't agree with Obama's views on gun control, but he can be neutralized on that point fairly easily. He has other fish to fry higher on his agenda and will compromise on this point easily enough. I do not want to see unrest manufactured before the election which can be used to spring the situation this POTUS has created where he can declare Martial law and turn thousands of political opponents into 'domestic insurgents' and inter them in FIMA compounds. They would like to do this to take out the most leadership capable people opposing them and to cow the rest of us into getting back in line with their agendas. The pace must not be forced, and I will continue now to support the best choice of these three as someone with some good views, beliefs and potential for good though I find this discussion interesting. I respect JT and others views on this, but I don't see this level of confrontation as the best way to go at this point. The system has allot of enertia to it, getting change has some swimming with the current to it. I support Obama right now and will see how things go as this primary season winds itself up.
Amazing that some people still can't grasp that. It's like George Carlin says: It's a big elitist club, and you ain't in it...
People should wise up to the fact that you can't win the Presidency if you aren't part of the ruling elite, or without the rest of the ruling elite batting for you. Folksy populism is just red meat for the gullible.
Doesn't really matter if they are elitists or not. What does matter are their voting records. That alone is enough to oppose all of them. Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil. That's the game the real elite want you to keep on playing. I will never play that game again. Never.
God is always good!
So you wouldn't have voted for Kerensky against Lenin? You wouldn't have voted for German democrats (many of whom were socialists) against Hitler?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Voting for evil gives you evil. The German democrats could have been just as bad or worse than Hitler. We will never know becasue they didn't win. If Obama wins someday people may look back and say McCain would have been the lesser of the two evils. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback after the game has already been played. I refuse to play their game. I will vote for the person who stands for what I believe in. If no such person is running or exists then I will vote for myself. Feeling good about who you vote for is something very few people can do. If more people said to heck with the media-picked candidates and voted for who they really liked then we would have true democracy. What we have now is really an illusion of democracy which is in reality a mainstream media controlled autocracy.
God is always good!
Only they weren't, for the nearly 15 years that they ruled Germany.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That is one mans opinion Ari. Having had friends from Eastern Germany for many years, they did not and would not mow agree with you.
I guess it depends a lot on who writes the history books and who wins the wars.
God is always good!
Anybody who thinks the Weimar Republic was as bad as the Third Reich, or worse, is either nuts or a Nazi.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Have I ever called you names? I just happen to have friends that were in Germany long before Hitler but left when the Communists arrived.
And we all know that Nazi's were scum of the Earth becasue the history books tell us so. If Nazi Germany had won WW2 the history books account of WW2 would have been very different. In most wars there are evil on both sides. The fire bombing of Dresden is just one example that even the victor of WW2 couldn't keep out of the history books. You can choose one evil over another, while I will choose only good.
God is always good!
Ari's little Oxford profs prolly forgot to teach him about Weimar's decadence and corruption. That prolly explains why ari appears to be a good little Marxist NWO lapdog.
I didn't know Ari was a college kid. Oh well, that explains his naivete.
God is always good!
I don't think Ari is currently a student, but he often boasts about his Ivy league education and claims to have also attended Oxford and lectured at Yale.
Ari has an obsession about Hitler. My friends were there before Hitler, after Hitler, but left after the "communists" liberated them. One, his Godfather was thrown in Dachau, another her Father was thrown in prison several times by the Gestapo. When the German Jews and their Russian friends arrived, thousands fled. Ari never mentions Marcus Wolf and his Stasi friends but he recalls Hitler vividly.
Funny how the commies are always trying to "liberate" people. Obama and his commie friends are trying to do the same damn thing now!
But what has that to do with Weimar? Who here thinks Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Here comes ari's little bootlicker friend, right on cue! haha- j/k robin
But do you think that Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany? Not that I asked you, but since you've chimed in.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Prolly depends on who you ask. A Jew, Communist, or other minority would probably say the Nazis were worse. Some white, working class Germans would probably say Weimar was worse because the leaders sold out Germany and turned the country to decadence. Now your turn: Who was worse, Lenin or Stalin?
I know a woman who danced nekkied on a table in during dat ol' debbil the Weinmar Republic. Now she's in her 90s and I don't want to think about what she did!
I can kill you with my brain or bash you with my shell -- you choose. -- YertleTurtle
Probably Stalin. I cannot imagine any German saying Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany - the fallout was a killer.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Ever see the starvation photos after WW1 in Germany? Germany was prostrate. It was put in that position so the communist Jews could take over Germany as they had Russia. The socialists were in two segments, fascists and communists, Hitler won. Who here? All I know is what people that lived there, thru that time told me. It is like I can tell you about the depression, but you u cannot tell me how it was,because I was there. During the Weimar time, Chancellor Bruning told Churchill the two largest financial supporters of Hitler were Jewish bankers in Berlin. No one had clean hands.
The troubles of that time were due to the Versailles Treaty not Weimar.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Yes, but the fallout to Weimar was -- Nazi Germany.
Weimar + Versailles + World Depression = Nazi Germany Weimar itself was not an evil, aggressive regime.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
If you check the records, three months after Versailles, the Weimar General Staff, General Hans von Seeckt in particular was drawing up the invasion plans for France and the Low countries. In fact, von Seeckts plan of invasion thru the Ardennes was used by Hitler with only minor changes. Further, if you check, you will find that thousands of German soldiers and airmen were trained in the Soviet Union during the Weimar time. Trained for what???? World War two. All of this long before Hitler arrived on the scene. It is all there, but usually not in the history books. Russia was the main instrument in the training of the German army and air force, all in contravention of Versailles. All during the years of Weimar.
I never heard that, but history says he didn't get his way either - Weimar invaded nobody.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Weimar was a corrupt and incompetent regime that left the country in political chaos and in an economic crisis. Living under anarchy, mass unemployment, and hyperinflation seems worse to many people than living under a tyranical government that keeps order. In the abstract, "more freedom" always sounds good, but not to somebody who's without a job and whose savings have become worthless.
The Army they built and trained in secret in violation of the Versailles treaty DID. Mind you this was all done with the full aid of the Soviet Union at hidden bases. Did you ever consider it odd that the opening bell of WW2 was the invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia? Their armies and air forces had been training together for years. All under the Weimar.
robin... Even wikipede has a writeup that explains Weimar and Russia.
Possibly corrupt and incompetent, with a Versailles Treaty and a World Depression to deal with, is NOT the same as Nazi Germany.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
What do you really know about Nazi Germany? I highly doubt you were there at the time, so your knowledge of them is either directly from those that were there, or from historical accounts of the time.
God is always good!
Why were they making plans to invade France and training secret Armies in Russia????
Anybody who thinks Weimar's decadence and corruption made it as bad as or worse than the Third Reich is either nuts or a Nazi. And I didn't just learn about the Nazi time from profs and books, by the way. I was stationed in Berlin for two years in 1970-72, and spoke to plenty of Germans about the Nazi tyranny.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
And what does that have to do with the Weimar Republic?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
They're all elitists but I'm voting for the guy with the tan.
lol I prefer the one with the tan too, and not just b/c he gives nice speeches. He's saying the right things, like he'll restore habeas corpus. The other two are not even saying the right things, they never have. I see it as a gamble, but the other two are dead certainties.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
You seem not to have noticed that my first question to RickyJ was whether he would really not have voted for Kerensky against Lenin. That question he -- conveniently -- did not answer. Maybe you would not vote for the German democrats against Hitler, even with hindsight about what Hitler ended up doing, presumably because of some obsession with not voting for the left, or out of some hidden sympathy for fascism. But it's hard to imagine a person with such views also not voting for Kerensky against Lenin. Unless he just happens to sympathize with -- or at least regard as acceptable -- tyranny of both the Bolshevik and National Socialist varieties. And that makes my point: it is utterly absurd to think that it is never right to vote for the lesser of two evils.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Just the thought of another 4 years of Billy Bob, Hillary and their group like Carville and Lanny Davis and the rest of that circus, back in the While House scares the crap out of me.
I occasionally mention my degrees and my past work experience when I think they are relevant to the discussion, just as I sometimes mention my military experience. Some people think education disqualifies a person from discussions. That's a perfect example of the anti-elitism canard now being used against Obama, as it's been used in the past against people like Kerry. By the likes of Limbaugh, in the process of defending true Yale-educated blue bloods like Bush fils. And fools are taken in by the canard.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Republican Party spends a billion dollars to build up a propaganda engine to fool these rubes into voting for the interests or the wealthiest 2% of the country - an interest that bears no relationship to the interests of these everyday Americans. McCain, who got through life on his daddy's coat tails, then uses this propaganda engine to tell the rubes that anyone who talks sense to them is an "elitist". Fifth generation blue bloods such as George W. Bush nod in agreement.
.
You would get more respect here if you were a hillbilly or at least have one on your family tree like I do. Maybe you have some half-starved or imprisoned Irishmen in your family tree you could mention from time to time?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I go back to rural Texas periodically and I see a dynamic where people are actually proud to be stupid and uninformed. They think they see a simple truth that people with more understanding of the problem miss. I've found the best way to handle these types is to preface every remark with "Ah's purty dumb but ......". I've found that they'll then listen to just about anything you say.
.
Who are these people? Really, I don't know anyone that thinks that education disqualifies someone from anything. Obama is a perfect example of a racist. Calling him an elitist just sugar coats what he really is.
God is always good!
Is Obama rubbing off on you? Unbelievable.
God is always good!
You replied to my #48 (which was not addressed to you), but not to my #46 (which was). Still no answer to my question on voting for Kerensky against Lenin?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
John McCain called Barack Obama’s recent comments that Pennsylvanians are “bitter” an “elitist” remark
#3. To: aristeides (#0)
#4. To: robin (#3)
(Edited)
So who is the elitist again?
#5. To: angle (#4)
They'ra ALL elitists...that what we're trying to tell you.
#6. To: angle, Jethro Tull (#4)
Obama for president 2008
#7. To: angle, robin (#4)
They're ALL elitists...that what we're trying to tell you.
#8. To: aristeides (#0)
#9. To: Vitamin Z (#7)
Amazing that some people still can't grasp that. It's like George Carlin says: It's a big elitist club, and you ain't in it...
#10. To: aristeides (#0)
#11. To: RickyJ (#9)
Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil
#12. To: aristeides (#11)
#13. To: RickyJ (#12)
The German democrats could have been just as bad or worse than Hitler.
#14. To: aristeides (#13)
Only they weren't, for the nearly 15 years that they ruled Germany.
#15. To: aristeides (#13)
(Edited)
Only they weren't, for the nearly 15 years that they ruled Germany.
#16. To: Cynicom (#14)
#17. To: aristeides (#16)
Anybody who thinks the Weimar Republic was as bad as the Third Reich, or worse, is either nuts or a Nazi.
#18. To: aristeides (#16)
(Edited)
Anybody who thinks the Weimar Republic was as bad as the Third Reich, or worse, is either nuts or a Nazi.
#19. To: Cynicom (#14)
That is one mans opinion Ari. Having had friends from Eastern Germany for many years, they did not and would not mow agree with you.
#20. To: Vitamin Z (#19)
Ari's little Oxford profs
#21. To: RickyJ (#20)
I didn't know Ari was a college kid. Oh well, that explains his naivete.
#22. To: Vitamin Z (#19)
Ari's little Oxford profs prolly forgot to teach him about Weimar's decadence and corruption.
#23. To: Cynicom (#22)
My friends were there before Hitler, after Hitler, but left after the "communists" liberated them.
#24. To: Cynicom (#22)
#25. To: robin (#24)
#26. To: Vitamin Z (#25)
#27. To: robin (#26)
But do you think that Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany? Not that I asked you, but since you've chimed in.
#28. To: robin (#24)
Who here thinks Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany?
#29. To: Vitamin Z (#27)
#30. To: robin (#24)
But what has that to do with Weimar? Who here thinks Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany?
#31. To: Cynicom (#30)
#32. To: robin (#29)
I cannot imagine any German saying Weimar was worse than Nazi Germany - the fallout was a killer.
#33. To: Vitamin Z (#32)
#34. To: robin (#33)
Weimar itself was not an evil, aggressive regime.
#35. To: Cynicom (#34)
General Hans von Seeckt
#36. To: robin, Cynicom (#33)
Weimar itself was not an evil, aggressive regime.
#37. To: robin (#35)
- Weimar invaded nobody.
#38. To: robin (#35)
#39. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#36)
#40. To: robin (#39)
Possibly corrupt and incompetent, with a Versailles Treaty and a World Depression to deal with, is NOT the same as Nazi Germany.
#41. To: robin (#39)
Possibly corrupt and incompetent, with a Versailles Treaty and a World Depression to deal with, is NOT the same as Nazi Germany.
#42. To: Vitamin Z (#19)
(Edited)
Ari's little Oxford profs prolly forgot to teach him about Weimar's decadence and corruption.
#43. To: Cynicom (#17)
(Edited)
I just happen to have friends that were in Germany long before Hitler but left when the Communists arrived.
#44. To: robin (#3)
So who is the elitist again?
#45. To: Arete (#44)
#46. To: Cynicom, RickyJ (#22)
Ari has an obsession about Hitler.
#47. To: robin (#45)
#48. To: Vitamin Z (#21)
I don't think Ari is currently a student, but he often boasts about his Ivy league education and claims to have also attended Oxford and lectured at Yale.
#49. To: RickyJ (#9)
John McCain called Barack Obama’s recent comments that Pennsylvanians are “bitter” an “elitist”
#50. To: aristeides (#48)
#51. To: aristeides (#48)
Some people think education disqualifies a person from discussions.
#52. To: aristeides (#48)
Some people think education disqualifies a person from discussions.
#53. To: robin (#50)
You would get more respect here if you were a hillbilly or at least have one on your family tree like I do. Maybe you have some half-starved or imprisoned Irishmen in your family tree you could mention from time to time?
#54. To: RickyJ (#52)
#55. To: aristeides (#0)
#56. To: TwentyTwelve (#55)
DOH!
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
