+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 31 of 31

  1. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    There are facts given by, Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei, and Hans Blix, that do not seem to be brought up as important or relevant. Also the report from Charles Duelfer The quotes in your post, are from politicians, not people qualified to determine the threat level of Iraq's weapons program. Personally I want to hear information from, people on the ground, and army specialists, scientist, and the like, before I make up my mind about anything. S. Ritter, M. ElBaradei, and H. Blix, say one thing and politicians say something else, and politicians are doing the work of the Iraq Survey Group or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Charles Duelfer Report

    DeeDee1965
    While you may be one of the few here not screaming "Bush Lied", it is very prevalent on this forum. You are right in that the people in question are politicians, and they are simply going on the words of people on the ground who have provided them with information. However, it is the political arena that we are discussing here.

    Those one the right are really tired of hearing the "Bush Lied" argument, it is old, has been proven incorrect time and time again. As Grim points out, even the liberals in Congress have moved away from that argument.

    I did go to your link that you posted. Yes I do read many of the links people post because, like you I think, I am looking for information not propoganda from one side or the other.

    As you said, each person is going to view information with some sort of bias. Either looking for it to be a fact or to disprove the information.....kind of the nature of humans I guess.

    So here it goes from your link. I have numbered the points for easier reference.

    On September 30, 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's WMD programs. The main points of the report are as follows:

    1. Iraq's main goal was to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute WMD production.

    2. Iraq's WMD programs had decayed significantly since the end of the first Gulf War.

    3. No senior Iraqi official interviewed by the ISG believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever.

    4. Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.

    5. The ISG judged that in March 2003, Iraq would have had the ability to produce large quantities of Sulfur Mustard in 3-6 months, and large quantities of nerve agent in 2 years.

    6. There was no proof of any biological weapons stocks since 1991.

    7. Iraq's nuclear program was terminated in 1991, at which point micrograms of enriched uranium had been produced from a single test gas centrifuge.

    8. Iraq had intended to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, a prospect that the Iraqi government saw coming soon.

    9. Smuggling was used by Iraq to rebuild as much of its WMD program as could be hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors.

    10. Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items banned by sanctions.

    11. Until March 2003, Saddam Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD that could be used against any U.S. invasion force, in order to prevent a coup over the prospects of fighting the U.S.-led Coalition without these weapons.

    12. Iraq used procurement contracts allowed under the Oil for Food program to buy influence among U.N. Security Council member states including France, China, and Russia, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and anti-sanctions activists.
    Item 1 points out that Iraq was preserving the capability to begin to build the WMD again.....this is not close to restroying his weapons and the ability to make them

    Item 2 is an indication our intel was wrong. Of course that does depend on the definition of "significantly" buy I will assume it means almost completely.

    Item 3 shows us even Sadams own people believed he was going to restart his programs

    Item 4 does not say their where no WMD, just that there where none that where deployable and had not made new ones.

    Item 5 Shows just how quickly the WMD could be replenished

    Item 6 and 7 again points out problems with our Intel.

    Item 8 indicates just how quickly Iraq was ready to start building ALL banned weapons.

    Item 9 shows us that Iraq was in fact trying to rebuild the program and hiding it as expected by our intel. Because of Item 7 we have to assume they are talking about non-nuclear weapons.

    Item 10 is interesting in that it seems to somewhat disagree with previous items. If they where not building anything and they had not since 12991, just what type of procurement system did they need? Either way, it shows signs of life in a program that was supposed to be completely gone.

    Item 11 should be a very eye opening item in my opinion. Saddam had his own military commanders they had access to WMD up until the start of the war. They surely would have seen things to make them believe this. No wonder the majority of the intel believed it as well.

    Item 12 is not surprising. I often wonder if Saddam "bought" the no vote / threatened Veto from France.

    Now this is simply how I see this report. I am curious as to what you see when you read it though.
    Last edited by RegulationE; 12-09-2005 at 03:53 AM. Reason: added qoute box

  2. 12-09-2005, 04:22 AM

    the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self


  3. #18
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    As you said, each person is going to view information with some sort of bias. Either looking for it to be a fact or to disprove the information.....kind of the nature of humans I guess.

    .
    True as a door nail, Perception or Deception or in the eye of its Beholder,, Any information can be fabricated to fit the Posters needs,, It would Be nice to have a few middle of the road people here to join in discuss their views. Find me a decent independent to vote for and im there...
    Every Bit of it is a chose of weather you choose to believe or not, And no ones got the magic abilty to change your mind if you do not wish to change it
    So debate is hoping to find people whos belief in this perspective is up for sale
    war_on_scam

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Thanks....by the way...I think :)

    Quote Originally Posted by war_man
    So debate is hoping to find people whos belief in this perspective is up for sale
    I see debate as something a bit different. Real debate I mean, the kind that can affect change.

    It is not trying to get someone to buy what you are selling as much as it is to get your message out there for people to see. Someone who is skilled at debate will be able to take either side of an issue and argue it.

    I don't see debate as trying to convince you I am right and you are wrong as much as convince my self I have provided you with all the information necessary to make an informed decision. And, at the same time, I have listened to you close enough that I can take what you present and include it with what I believe I know and come to my own, even more informed then I was before, decision.

    Political debates of late have been more like trying to tell an Italian who speaks no English how to find the bus when you speak no Italian. One keeps getting louder and slower, thinking that will make the difference. Go figure.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Grim,

    I did not say Pres. Bush lied, and I am not referring to that notion.


    Prominent Democrats are not in the White house, so if they did reinterpret the facts, and the administration did not take their advice, or agree with their conclusion, how would it have prevented the war? The President is in charge of deploying the troops, not Congress.

    An investigation is done when trying to search for the facts, not in interpreting them.

    There are facts given by, Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei, and Hans Blix, that do not seem to be brought up as important or relevant. Also the report from Charles Duelfer The quotes in your post, are from politicians, not people qualified to determine the threat level of Iraq's weapons program. Personally I want to hear information from, people on the ground, and army specialists, scientist, and the like, before I make up my mind about anything. S. Ritter, M. ElBaradei, and H. Blix, say one thing and politicians say something else, and politicians are doing the work of the Iraq Survey Group or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Charles Duelfer Report

    DeeDee1965
    Since you bring up the Duelfer report, I guess you didn't read my post from earlier very well, but thats ok.

    Here is a Duelfer gift for you

    http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/01/intelligence/

    Go there and click the video link and watch that report. In it, they interview Duelfer himself.

    Oh, and by the way DeeDee, I have read the Duelfer report cover to cover, as is my normal practice. I don't like to post on political boards unless I know what I'm talking about. Here, this is a link to the key findings from that report.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

    How about the fact that the Bush administration decided to fight back against these BASELESS allegations a few weeks ago, by calling them the lies that they are, and now you don't hear any prominent member of the democratic party saying "Bush lied" anymore. What does this say to you?

    Also, you site all these other people who you say are relevant, but relevant to what? All the investigations to date have but one conclusion, and "Bush Lied" isn't it.

    One last thing DeeDee... What are you talking about when you said something about the democrats re-interpreting the reports? That one has me stumped.

    .

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    It tells me that the Republican party which does the same exact thing, taught them well.

    Lady Mod
    I can't for the life of me LadyMod remember the republicans saying that a democratic president lied about facts that he had based to go to war, while our troops were fighting that war.

    Maybe you can refresh my memory.

    .

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    I agree with Reg, the "Bush lied" thing is getting old and it doesn't help the cause of finding a solution to what's happening in Iraq right now. The situation in Iraq needs to be taken care of, THEN they can play witch hunt to their hearts' content.

    I now see why the "right" says to stop causing havoc in America by stirring up the nest. It is interfering with things getting finished in Iraq.

    For the "left", push for the war to come to an end, but not by rushing things and causing worse problems. There will be lot's of time to pursue Gdub if that's what they want to do.

    As far as Bush being the victim of bad intelligence, I guess it wouldn't take too much to fool him now would it ? Imagine if Kerry was in his place ; Captain Flip flop would show us lot's of things to make cartoons about. He might even surpass Bush if he were president. maybe...

    Quote Originally Posted by grimm17
    If the democrats have to use conjecture, exaggerations and lies in order for their position to gain support, what does this tell you about democratic party and what they stand for?

    Shameful.
    This is what many parties will do, it's politics. The other side of this coin is that the Republican party is pro-war. They just battle back an forth, focusing on issue(s) that never address the underlying issue of it all. It appears that all politicians are liars, and most will never admit the truth. I will say about Clinton, he was at least man enough to admit the truth eventually.

    My opinion on WMD's

    Since the US supplied Iraq with many types of weapons and such during the 80's, the reason why there were no WMD's in Iraq by the time GW Bush decided to take action is because Saddam actually thought things out in advance. He kept all of his receipts and records and merely returned the WMD's to the US. Money back guarantee ? Those extended warranties are a novel idea. Walmart style.

    Britain also supplied Iraq during the 80's as well from what I have read.

    Maybe because he had them for too long past the acceptable date on the receipts, the US would only give him a credit, instead of cash. Hmmmm... a get out of jail free card ??

    OR

    it is interesting to note that two countries that supplied Saddam with weapons in the 80's were the two to invade them this last time. I guess Saddam paid his bills to the other suppliers (like russia and China ?) but had something against the US and Britain. So, Bush and Blair were just playing Baliffs and went to seize their collateral.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    While you may be one of the few here not screaming "Bush Lied", it is very prevalent on this forum. You are right in that the people in question are politicians, and they are simply going on the words of people on the ground who have provided them with information. However, it is the political arena that we are discussing here.

    Those one the right are really tired of hearing the "Bush Lied" argument, it is old, has been proven incorrect time and time again. As Grim points out, even the liberals in Congress have moved away from that argument.

    I did go to your link that you posted. Yes I do read many of the links people post because, like you I think, I am looking for information not propoganda from one side or the other.

    As you said, each person is going to view information with some sort of bias. Either looking for it to be a fact or to disprove the information.....kind of the nature of humans I guess.

    So here it goes from your link. I have numbered the points for easier reference.

    Item 1 points out that Iraq was preserving the capability to begin to build the WMD again.....this is not close to restroying his weapons and the ability to make them

    Item 2 is an indication our intel was wrong. Of course that does depend on the definition of "significantly" buy I will assume it means almost completely.

    Item 3 shows us even Sadams own people believed he was going to restart his programs

    Item 4 does not say their where no WMD, just that there where none that where deployable and had not made new ones.

    Item 5 Shows just how quickly the WMD could be replenished

    Item 6 and 7 again points out problems with our Intel.

    Item 8 indicates just how quickly Iraq was ready to start building ALL banned weapons.

    Item 9 shows us that Iraq was in fact trying to rebuild the program and hiding it as expected by our intel. Because of Item 7 we have to assume they are talking about non-nuclear weapons.

    Item 10 is interesting in that it seems to somewhat disagree with previous items. If they where not building anything and they had not since 12991, just what type of procurement system did they need? Either way, it shows signs of life in a program that was supposed to be completely gone.

    Item 11 should be a very eye opening item in my opinion. Saddam had his own military commanders they had access to WMD up until the start of the war. They surely would have seen things to make them believe this. No wonder the majority of the intel believed it as well.

    Item 12 is not surprising. I often wonder if Saddam "bought" the no vote / threatened Veto from France.

    Now this is simply how I see this report. I am curious as to what you see when you read it though.

    I am not going to tell you what I think about anything. If you have read any of my posts and threads, you can guess what I might think about the summary of the Duelfer Report. Information, and the understanding of it, is hard, tedious, and not always clear. Such is life.

    I am trying to make the point that, information can and will have different interpretations. No one ever seems to comment on the information provided by, Hans Blix Scott Ritter, and Mohamed ElBaradei, when I bring up their statements. I have done so before, there seems to be no answer to it.

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

    For the curious, here is the text as written on the site, make up your minds:

    Duelfer Report

    On September 30, 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's WMD programs. The main points of the report are as follows:

    ~Iraq's main goal was to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute WMD production.

    ~Iraq's WMD programs had decayed significantly since the end of the first Gulf War.

    ~No senior Iraqi official interviewed by the ISG believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever.

    ~Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.

    ~The ISG judged that in March 2003, Iraq would have had the ability to produce large quantities of Sulfur Mustard in 3-6 months, and large quantities of nerve agent in 2 years.

    ~There was no proof of any biological weapons stocks since 1991.

    ~Iraq's nuclear program was terminated in 1991, at which point micrograms of enriched uranium had been produced from a single test gas centrifuge.

    ~Iraq had intended to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, a prospect that the Iraqi government saw coming soon.
    ~Smuggling was used by Iraq to rebuild as much of its WMD program as could be hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors.

    ~Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items banned by sanctions.

    ~Until March 2003, Saddam Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD that could be used against any U.S. invasion force, in order to prevent a coup over the prospects of fighting the U.S.-led Coalition without these weapons.

    ~Iraq used procurement contracts allowed under the Oil for Food program to buy influence among U.N. Security Council member states including France, China, and Russia, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and anti-sanctions activists.
    DeeDee1965

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    DeeDee, did you watch the video I linked you to?

    If so, what is your take on it.

    Thank you.

    .

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    I am not going to tell you what I think about anything. If you have read any of my posts and threads, you can guess what I might think about the summary of the Duelfer Report. Information, and the understanding of it, is hard, tedious, and not always clear. Such is life.
    Yes DeeDee, it is possible for me, or anyone else, to guess how you might think of the report. But that is where we get ourselves into trouble. Guessing who will think what about something.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    For the curious, here is the text as written on the site, make up your minds:
    You do realize the only difference between your cutting and pasting, and my cutting and pasting of the same information is that I replaced the "~" with ascending numbers right?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    DeeDee, did you watch the video I linked you to?

    If so, what is your take on it.

    Thank you.

    .
    Hi Grim,

    I have said time and time again, my computer is an archaic piece of junk. I cannot see video, or hear audio.

    So to answer your question, No.

    DeeDee1965

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Grim,

    I have said time and time again, my computer is an archaic piece of junk. I cannot see video, or hear audio.

    So to answer your question, No.

    DeeDee1965

    Well to sum it up for you, it stated that the president said the democrats saw the same intelligence that he did. The democrats responded by saying that isn't true. Then the reporter agreed with the democrats, siting the presidential daily briefs. The reporter then said that those PDB's had been looked at by the bi-partisan Silverman Commission, and found them to be more of an endorsement for invading Iraq, then the intelligence the senate and congress saw.

    Then the part I wanted you to see... They interviewed Charles Duelfer himself and he said two things:

    1) That the energy department did disagree with several other intelligence agencies that said that those aluminum tubes were likely for nukes. They thought they were for conventional rockets and they were right. Then Duelfer stated that even though the energy department disagreed on the use of the tubes, they still concluded based on other evidence that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program.

    2) He said that for someone to say the intelligence was formed to meet the needs of a political leader or administration, was just not true.

    Well, there ya go... lol

    .

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Hi Grim,

    The reason I can look at information that might not agree with my point of view, is simple. All information is good. The Duelfer report, the report by Hans BLix, Scott Ritter, and Mohamed ElBaradei. Also, intelligence from the CIA, FBI, MI5, InterPol. In other words any information that is honest, as unbiased as possible, and gather in a scientific concern for accuracy.

    It seems like my linking the Duelfer Report was in agreement with you, or an oversight on my part. It was not. I like to look at all the information out there. Not opinion, webblogs, desires, wishes, wants or needs. Just properly gathered information.

    Having said all that I will come to my point; The information gathered was/is complex, detailed, has some holes, and does not answer all the question. This kind of information was not enough to invade a country over. That is my bottom line.

    If you are so inclined, can you comment on the other Weapons Inspectors and their findings.

    DeeDee1965

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Try reading the senate intelligence report and the Silverman report DeeDee, they more directly deal with this issue than the Duelfer report does.

    .

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Since you bring up the Duelfer report, I guess you didn't read my post from earlier very well, but thats ok.

    Here is a Duelfer gift for you

    http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/01/intelligence/

    Go there and click the video link and watch that report. In it, they interview Duelfer himself.

    Oh, and by the way DeeDee, I have read the Duelfer report cover to cover, as is my normal practice. I don't like to post on political boards unless I know what I'm talking about. Here, this is a link to the key findings from that report.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

    How about the fact that the Bush administration decided to fight back against these BASELESS allegations a few weeks ago, by calling them the lies that they are, and now you don't hear any prominent member of the democratic party saying "Bush lied" anymore. What does this say to you?

    Also, you site all these other people who you say are relevant, but relevant to what? All the investigations to date have but one conclusion, and "Bush Lied" isn't it.

    One last thing DeeDee... What are you talking about when you said something about the democrats re-interpreting the reports? That one has me stumped.

    .

    funny,you never claimed the "i'm a stump" defense or lack of offense before!/or mayb you did!/to suit your PLEA!?you propaganda of the superior!?it'a ll about bein SUPERIOR with you is it not!?is that biblical!?just checkin!?died on the cross!?what a loser!? dont wanna be like HIM now!?thanks fer clarifyin that point!?guess YOUR "man" IS A LIAR!?hehe!! :eek: :p :rolleyes:

  16. #31
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Come On Gwb The Truth For A Change

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    funny,you never claimed the "i'm a stump" defense or lack of offense before!/or mayb you did!/to suit your PLEA!?you propaganda of the superior!?it'a ll about bein SUPERIOR with you is it not!?is that biblical!?just checkin!?died on the cross!?what a loser!? dont wanna be like HIM now!?thanks fer clarifyin that point!?guess YOUR "man" IS A LIAR!?hehe!! :eek: :p :rolleyes:
    It is about the truth Lexx, nothing more.

    .

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 10:58 PM
  2. Here is some more Change for you:
    By DoubleP in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 01:27 PM
  3. Change...this is the change Obama will make
    By oneway in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 02:53 PM
  4. Why we need a change....
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 04:44 PM
  5. Ahhhh hope, and ahhh change are a good change.
    By oneway in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 08:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
129, 2008, access, accomplished, accuracy, accurate, accusation, action, address, administration, admit, advance, advice, age, agen, agency, agreed, agreement, ain, allegations, allowed, alot, amendment, american, another, answer, appears, army, art, ation, attempt, audio, away, babies, bad, ban, banned, base, based, bat, bet, biblical, biggest, bit, boards, bought, brain, break, bring, brown, buddy, building, bush, buy, calling, cannot, cant, captain, card, care, career, cartoons, cash, causing, cease, cer, chain, change, charles, cheney, choose, claim, claims, cli, click, clinto, close, coin, coming, commit, completely, complex, con, constantly, continue, conversation, correct, couldn, countries, country, coup, cover, crap, credit, current, damage, date, dead, debates, decided, decision, defense, definition, democrats, department, desire, didn, different, difficult, ding, dirty, discussing, disgrace, doesn, don, donald, dont, door, dropped, duc, earlier, effect, effective, electio, ells, eme, ended, ends, england, evils, extended, eye, favor, fears, feel, fight, final, finding, flag, flop, fool, for sale, forever, forget, forgot, fra, france, fraudulent, fully, fun, funny, gain, gas, george, gift, giving, goal, gonna, good, gov, great, greater, grim, ground, group, grow, grown, guarantee, guess, guru, had, hands, happened, happening, hard, hats, head, hear, heard, hearts, help, hey, hidden, hiding, him, his, holding, hose, house, html, huma, human, humans, hussein, ial, ice, ignorance, ill, imagine, ime, important, include, influence, intelligence, inter, interested, interpol, interview, invade, investigations, ion, iraq, isn, issue, issues, jail, jimmy, join, judge, junk, kennedy, kerry, key, kind, large, last, laugh, led, lesser, lets, lewinski, lexx, liar, liars, liberals, lied, lies, line, link, lis, long, loser, losing, lot, lying, main, make, make cartoons, makes, malicious, man., many, matter, mea, meet, member, memory, mi5, mind, misunderstood, mohamed, more, moron, nail, nation, national, nations, nature, need, net, nice, normal, note, now, nuclear, numbers, official, only, order, org, outs, page, par, part, party, pas, passionate, pdf, pelosi, people, perception, person, personal, personally, picture, piece, place, play, playing, plea, plenty, point, pos, position, post, posted, posters, posting, posts, potential, power, presiden, prevent, production, propaganda, prospect, protect, prove, proven, published, push, qualified, question, quickly, quote, quotes, read, ready, real, reason, received, red, refuses, registered, released, remember, report, reporter, reports, research, respect, rest, returned, rice, rick, rock, run, sal, sale, scientific, scott, search, seem, selling, senate, september, sexual, shows, shred, simple, simply, site, sometimes, soo, sorry, speaking, speaks, speed, star, stated, states, stay, stones, stop, style, such, sum, summary, suppliers, supported, survey, system, take, taken, talking, tas, taste, ted, tells, test, text, theory, they, thing, thought, thread, threads, threatened, threw, time, tired, today, told, tom, top, trac, trick, troops, trouble, truth, types, ubes, uni, uranium, url, uses, usual, version, victim, video, view, vince, voted, walmart, wanted, waste, watch, weeks, wikipedia, witch, woma, working, worse, worth, wrong, www, years, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •