Bush is a hero

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#161932 May 11, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
Relax, guys. I think willie was playing with guns and accidently shot his sense of humor off. He used to know when I was kidding. Besides, the post was more to Lyndi than willie.
Lol.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161933 May 11, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>That's just it. Willie can pretend that what went wrong in Benghazi has nothing to do with clinton or Obama but he is only fooling himself. You cannot separate what went wrong from the leadership. They screwed up whether purposely or because of total incompetence remains to be seen, but the buck stops somewhere.
Willie is so tangled in his "I have the corner on what is logical" that he is totally blinded to true logic.
I don't know why you're suggesting I'm making some claim to a corner on logic, since I haven't used the word in this conversation, but hey ...

whatever works for you.

I've never said that what went wrong in Benghazi and thereafter had nothing to do with Obama and Clinton, no matter what you may have thought you read or superimposed in advance on anything I've posted.

You have two issues here - one political, one operational and far more important.

The political one is disgusting, but it's not the unprecedented high crime or misdemeanor that opponents of Obama are making it out to be. It's as predictable as it is disgusting. This is where I at one point would have been tempted to point out historical perspective (what you trivialize as "Willie saying all President's do it"), but you're not interested.

Okay, I can't help myself. This obsession with the Benghazi talking points reminds me a great deal of the sixteen word controversy surrounding Bush's 2003 State of the Union address making the case for war with Iraq. It's excellent political payback if you're keeping score on a chickens**t scoreboard, but that's the only value it has.

I think it's wishful thinking in the extreme to claim that the Administration's bungled attempt to deny/distract from the fact that this was a terrorist attack was a 2012 election game changer. I understand the desperate need to explain the loss; hell, I once voted for a guy who actually won the popular vote and still lost the election.

You get up, dust yourself off, and move on.

The operational stuff - that REALLY is far more important. Here's the thing about the operational stuff, though: before you get to assigning more than general (the buck stops here) responsibility to Hillary, you've got to go through a whole boatload of most decidedly unsexy wonky policy geek stuff related to the way the State Department operates as an entity. It's boring, and there's very few political points to be scored from that.

Could Hillary Clinton have engineered a coverup of how much she knew and when she knew it? Certainly.

Did she? I don't know the answer to that. I'd like to, but I think the opposition to Clinton is helping her obscure that as much as any of her own actions, or those of her supporters.

Believe it or don't.

Here's the thing, for me at least. Blind hatred of all things liberal, all things Obama, all things Clinton is not evidence that she engineered that coverup. As an example, I see no reason to pay the slightest bit of attention to people who go off on tangents about who she was married to and what he did; I'm not really sure I see a reason to pay attention to people who let that irrelevant rot go unchallenged.

So ... if you need to think I'm fooling myself because I see this as a far more complicated issue that it's being discussed as, that's fine with me. If you need to assume I don't agree with you because I'm as motivated to 'defend' Clinton as some of her opponents are to 'get' here, that's fine too.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161934 May 11, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>That's just it. Willie can pretend that what went wrong in Benghazi has nothing to do with clinton or Obama but he is only fooling himself. You cannot separate what went wrong from the leadership. They screwed up whether purposely or because of total incompetence remains to be seen, but the buck stops somewhere.
Willie is so tangled in his "I have the corner on what is logical" that he is totally blinded to true logic.
Did you even read my answer to Rider's post, or would that interfere with the views you've assigned me?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161935 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really this stupid, bob?
I don't care that heat's been put on the State Department. In the aftermath of something like Benghazi, heat SHOULD be on the State Department and the White House.
What I do care about is the fact that any actual accountability for what happened in Benghazi and its aftermath will NEVER COME TO FRUITION so long as any hearing or investigation is motivated more by the desire to get Obama or Clinton than they are in figuring out what went wrong.
If anything's going to let "Slick Hilly" escape what responsibility may actually properly land on her desk (beyond the general 'buck stops here'), it's going to be the obvious witch hunt that's been underway since before the bodies got back to the United States.
Show me something, bob, other than bodies and yelling and screaming. Show me, for example, that the reason the rescue assets weren't deployed was based on political rather than tactical reasons.
The only way you're going to show me that is through some kind of unbiased, impartial investigation - something that's as likely to come out of the House of Representatives now as an unbiased, impartial investigation of the Iraq War would have come out of the House circa 2007 under Pelosi.
You tell me smart guy. How long would it take for fighter jets from Italy to scramble and fly across the Med to Benghazi? 2-3 hours? How long did the attack in Benghazi last, 7+ hours?

Unarmed drones were circling overhead during the attack, you think if they HAD been armed and unleashed a few HELLFIRE missiles, that may have saved some lives? Or how about the real-time video feed that was being monitored here in DC for several hours. You'd think SOMEone would pick up the phone and call for help for those folks in Benghazi.

Who gave the freakin' order to have our military "stand down" rather than try to save the Ambassador and the other 3 men, vastly outnumbered. I don't claim to know exactly what happened that night, and who stopped the rescue attempt. That's what the hearings are for.

But we DO know that the CIA Talking Points were changed 12 times, not 1 minor stylistic change as the President's spoke person (Carney) just stated yesterday. If you don't think that was a blatant effort to alter the facts from "radical Muslim terrorists" to something less sinister, that's not MY problem.

As for showing YOU unbiased proof of ANYthing, you are SADLY misguided. With your resources and multiple feeds, I'm sure you can do your OWN d@mn research. And I don't really care HOW stupid you think I am. At one time I did, but not any more.

It's no secret that I can't stand Obama or any of his minions. He should NEVER have been put in the WH in the 1st place. I hope the b@stard is impeached, the sooner the better. But the best part of that is that the millions of his drooling, adoring fans finally get to see him for who he really is. Just another cheap Chicago thug.

Oh one more thing, Grasshoppah. Instead of bitchin' about the circle jerk trending of this thread, how about tossing some of YOUR favorite topics out for discussion. I may be stupid, but there are several in here who aren't, such as HipG, and a few others. Maybe they'll be able to stimulate your need for intelligent exchanges.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161936 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Uhhhhh ... the Kennedy Assassination?
Huh.
I'm skeptical of Congressional investigations because of the inherent political nature of Congress. The problem of wildly biased 'investigations' goes way back way before the JFK assassination, btw; I've read some from reconstruction through the 20s, not to mention some of the McCarthy Committee stuff from the 50s, that would make John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi look downright apolitical.
(yes, I mean read them. I'm a history geek - sue me.)
Being skeptical, however, is not the same thing as dismissing them outright in order to pursue wild conspiracy theories about the sinister forces behind everything from the 60s assassinations up through 9/11, because, you know, THEY are hiding the truth from us.
Truly unbiased is a goal I don't know can ever be achieved, but in normal times Congress does a much better job than you might expect out of professional pols with significant events.
The thing is, these aren't normal times. These are highly polarized times that make the 60s look downright amicable. It started probably toward the end of the term of Bush I and has been increasing exponentially since. IMO you've got to go back to 1939-41, or before that 1859-60, to find a comparison.
Firstly, and as usual, I do appreciate the perspective...Kennedy was the first conspiracy I could think of - and I realize it's hardly the only one in the last four decades.

Second, these times may have diverged in 'normalcy' from 20 years ago, but this is the new normal - which, as you rightly pointed out, has been he case since the end of G.H.W. Bush's term as President.

My question still stands - what makes any of you think there is going to be an independent, much less unbiased, investigation into Benghazi, or any other incident involving the Presidency??

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161937 May 11, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the deal, Willie. The mother of one of the seals said happy mother's day to Hillary. She said at least she had a child left. That mother doesn't. Hillary has totally left the building on this with no thought of what she "should have" done.
I don't have your insight into Hillary Clinton's mind, lisw.

I don't know what she's thinking, let alone what possible value her talking about what she's thinking might have at this time. I'm sure she'd find a real receptive audience among the regulars of this thread, and despite what views the script might call for you to assign me - I'm likely to be as skeptical as anyone.

I feel for the mother of the Seal, just as I felt sympathy for Cindy Sheehan.

Here's the thing, though. I disagreed with the way Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ran the war in Iraq, but I would NEVER lower myself to the point where I'd claim they are heartless bas**rds who don't care that their decisions cost lives.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161938 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have your insight into Hillary Clinton's mind, lisw.
I don't know what she's thinking, let alone what possible value her talking about what she's thinking might have at this time. I'm sure she'd find a real receptive audience among the regulars of this thread, and despite what views the script might call for you to assign me - I'm likely to be as skeptical as anyone.
I feel for the mother of the Seal, just as I felt sympathy for Cindy Sheehan.
Here's the thing, though. I disagreed with the way Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ran the war in Iraq, but I would NEVER lower myself to the point where I'd claim they are heartless bas**rds who don't care that their decisions cost lives.
Actions speak louder than words, Willie. Actions and inaction both.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#161939 May 11, 2013
Hi, folks.

The bloom is officially off the Obama rose.

How delightful :)

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161940 May 11, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me smart guy. How long would it take for fighter jets from Italy to scramble and fly across the Med to Benghazi? 2-3 hours? How long did the attack in Benghazi last, 7+ hours?
Unarmed drones were circling overhead during the attack, you think if they HAD been armed and unleashed a few HELLFIRE missiles, that may have saved some lives? Or how about the real-time video feed that was being monitored here in DC for several hours. You'd think SOMEone would pick up the phone and call for help for those folks in Benghazi.
Who gave the freakin' order to have our military "stand down" rather than try to save the Ambassador and the other 3 men, vastly outnumbered. I don't claim to know exactly what happened that night, and who stopped the rescue attempt. That's what the hearings are for.
But we DO know that the CIA Talking Points were changed 12 times, not 1 minor stylistic change as the President's spoke person (Carney) just stated yesterday. If you don't think that was a blatant effort to alter the facts from "radical Muslim terrorists" to something less sinister, that's not MY problem.
As for showing YOU unbiased proof of ANYthing, you are SADLY misguided. With your resources and multiple feeds, I'm sure you can do your OWN d@mn research. And I don't really care HOW stupid you think I am. At one time I did, but not any more.
It's no secret that I can't stand Obama or any of his minions. He should NEVER have been put in the WH in the 1st place. I hope the b@stard is impeached, the sooner the better. But the best part of that is that the millions of his drooling, adoring fans finally get to see him for who he really is. Just another cheap Chicago thug.
Oh one more thing, Grasshoppah. Instead of bitchin' about the circle jerk trending of this thread, how about tossing some of YOUR favorite topics out for discussion. I may be stupid, but there are several in here who aren't, such as HipG, and a few others. Maybe they'll be able to stimulate your need for intelligent exchanges.
I do not think you are stupid, bob, and don't believe you when you try to play dumb.

The question ... the question comes back to your insistence that I'm upset because Obama and/or Hillary is being questioned, that everything I say is an attempt to blindly defend Obama or Clinton or (insert target here).

The questions being asked of Obama and Clinton by most of their opponents are of the 'when did you quit beating your wife' variety, not a Howard Baker-esque "What did the President/Secretary know and when did he/she know it?"

That don't cut it with me, whether the President or Cabinet official is from my party or not.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161941 May 11, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Or it could be that Bob is kind of tired of the never ending lies. Over the last year all I heard was "Romeny lies, Romeny lies. Strange that when the Pres, the one we have now is caught its the same crap I've been hearing since 2008. You hate him, don't like him because he is black, don't like him because he is a Muslim (yet to hear anyone I know say it but the left says it often) Do you have anything other than the same crap thats now close to 6 years running?
You don't read my posts anyway, Chris - you've told me that.

So ... how the hell do you know what I've said?

I'll ask you the same question I asked you before - show me any posts where I've shared any of the views you attribute to me.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161942 May 11, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Actions speak louder than words, Willie. Actions and inaction both.
I have no idea what this means, SKL.

What actions do you think Hillary Clinton could possibly take in these circumstances that would speak to anyone, let alone a bereaved mother, in this poisonous environment?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161943 May 11, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I will say one thing here for Michelle Obama. She seems to care about the military and the familes that gave so much. Don't know if thats real or p/r but I would like to think so. It too bad Michelle Obama isn't the potus. Don't really get that vibe from Pres Obama or Hillary. Disdain is all they have.
I've not seen the evidence that Michelle Obama has or has not helped military families so I can't say. I am beginning to believe that those in very high positions should have military experience just because you have to "feel" the no man left behind imo to lead in foreign policy. I'm not after liberals. I'm sorely disappointed because I really was giving Hillary the benefit of what seemed to me to be her extremely hard work. But I think she caved to ambition. She could not defy Obama on Benghazi if she wanted any hope of election in 2016 so she took the low road. And people died.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#161944 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You don't read my posts anyway, Chris - you've told me that.
So ... how the hell do you know what I've said?
I'll ask you the same question I asked you before - show me any posts where I've shared any of the views you attribute to me.
Dude, you just posted to Bob in Tx. and let me quote if for you....
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.

Those are your words Willie. How do you know Bob hates Obama? I ask because I've heard that a few thousand times since 2008. I will say this much, the bs I hate. Not the man but the bs. My car being keyed up wasn't much fun either. Just another lib with love and tolerance you know.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161945 May 11, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I've not seen the evidence that Michelle Obama has or has not helped military families so I can't say. I am beginning to believe that those in very high positions should have military experience just because you have to "feel" the no man left behind imo to lead in foreign policy. I'm not after liberals. I'm sorely disappointed because I really was giving Hillary the benefit of what seemed to me to be her extremely hard work. But I think she caved to ambition. She could not defy Obama on Benghazi if she wanted any hope of election in 2016 so she took the low road. And people died.
I'll ask you the same basic questions I asked bobin.

What information do you have that proves the decision not to attempt a rescue was political?

What tactical information regarding the situation on the ground do you have in your possession to support the idea that a rescue mission had a reasonable chance of success?

For that matter, do you know for a fact that the terrorist attack on the embassy wasn't mounted with the intent of drawing in a response that they could counter with other irregulars/militia in the area? That's the kind of thing Iraqi insurgents did; unless I'm mistaken, that's also what the Taliban does or has done in Afghanistan.

So ... you're behind the desk now, lisw. What do you do? Do you launch a rescue mission without knowing if you have sufficient force to effect a rescue and retrieval? It's the ultimate rock (four dead) and a hard place (maybe a rescue, maybe many more dead), although the ones getting squeezed to death aren't the person making the decision.

Let's be clear here - I don't know if that's what was happening on the ground in Benghazi on 9/11/12 or not, and this is eight months after the attack. It's not some wild, crazy theory, however; it's the sort of consideration that the person making the decision was faced with.

If you see an easy answer there, show it to me - because I sure as hell don't.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161946 May 11, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you just posted to Bob in Tx. and let me quote if for you....
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.
Those are your words Willie. How do you know Bob hates Obama? I ask because I've heard that a few thousand times since 2008. I will say this much, the bs I hate. Not the man but the bs. My car being keyed up wasn't much fun either. Just another lib with love and tolerance you know.
I know it because I read his posts, Chris, and I'm not using hate in the spiritual sense.

I'm sorry your car was keyed, but I didn't do that. If you think that kind of ignorance is a trait specific to or more commonly found on one side or the other, you're a blind fool.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161947 May 11, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you just posted to Bob in Tx. and let me quote if for you....
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.
Those are your words Willie. How do you know Bob hates Obama? I ask because I've heard that a few thousand times since 2008. I will say this much, the bs I hate. Not the man but the bs. My car being keyed up wasn't much fun either. Just another lib with love and tolerance you know.
To put this another way, Chris, I use the term hatred of Obama the same way bad bob used "Bush haters" to refer to certain opponents of President Bush.

(Not to be confused with the way some shallow minded people used it to refer to anyone who criticized President Bush.)

I think it's the same damn thing, actually. Always have, and have always said so. I've always known there were Bush haters; we had more than a couple pass through this thread. I've never been particularly nice to them, because mind numbing rot is mind numbing rot no matter what 'side' you're on.

Now, if I wasn't particularly kind and tolerant of mindless bots who could do nothing but barf up bilge on cue about a President I didn't like at all, am I supposed to act any different to those who barf up bilge on cue on one I voted for, even if I haven't been particularly impressed with his accomplishments?

(Certainly nowhere near as impressed as my assigned position, but hey - you gotta make the arguments you're equipped to make.)

I don't think so; Homey don't play dat, as they say.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161948 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'll ask you the same basic questions I asked bobin.
What information do you have that proves the decision not to attempt a rescue was political?
What tactical information regarding the situation on the ground do you have in your possession to support the idea that a rescue mission had a reasonable chance of success?
For that matter, do you know for a fact that the terrorist attack on the embassy wasn't mounted with the intent of drawing in a response that they could counter with other irregulars/militia in the area? That's the kind of thing Iraqi insurgents did; unless I'm mistaken, that's also what the Taliban does or has done in Afghanistan.
So ... you're behind the desk now, lisw. What do you do? Do you launch a rescue mission without knowing if you have sufficient force to effect a rescue and retrieval? It's the ultimate rock (four dead) and a hard place (maybe a rescue, maybe many more dead), although the ones getting squeezed to death aren't the person making the decision.
Let's be clear here - I don't know if that's what was happening on the ground in Benghazi on 9/11/12 or not, and this is eight months after the attack. It's not some wild, crazy theory, however; it's the sort of consideration that the person making the decision was faced with.
If you see an easy answer there, show it to me - because I sure as hell don't.
I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#161949 May 11, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.
Well said, Lis. And it might interest you to know that my dad said exactly what you did: the military units available should have gone in, no matter what. Mr. Hicks said that when they were told to stand down, they were furious. Anyone surprised by that?

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161950 May 11, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.
Still waiting for some evidence to suggest that the decision was made to save face rather than on the tactical situation on the ground, lisw, and your suspicions of liberals, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al is not evidence.

Think about what you're saying here. You'd have sent them in no matter what, even with zero chance of success. What you're guaranteeing is at least the possibility that the four dead Americans becomes more - potentially many more.

That would certainly have delighted the Islamic fundamentalists, and maybe some opponents of Obama.

I don't believe for a minute it would have delighted you, but I feel pretty damned confident that you would be even more incensed if a failed rescue operation resulted in the deaths of even more Americans.

Easy answers in hindsight aren't real, lisw.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#161951 May 11, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me smart guy. How long would it take for fighter jets from Italy to scramble and fly across the Med to Benghazi? 2-3 hours? How long did the attack in Benghazi last, 7+ hours?
Unarmed drones were circling overhead during the attack, you think if they HAD been armed and unleashed a few HELLFIRE missiles, that may have saved some lives? Or how about the real-time video feed that was being monitored here in DC for several hours. You'd think SOMEone would pick up the phone and call for help for those folks in Benghazi.
Who gave the freakin' order to have our military "stand down" rather than try to save the Ambassador and the other 3 men, vastly outnumbered. I don't claim to know exactly what happened that night, and who stopped the rescue attempt. That's what the hearings are for.
But we DO know that the CIA Talking Points were changed 12 times, not 1 minor stylistic change as the President's spoke person (Carney) just stated yesterday. If you don't think that was a blatant effort to alter the facts from "radical Muslim terrorists" to something less sinister, that's not MY problem.
As for showing YOU unbiased proof of ANYthing, you are SADLY misguided. With your resources and multiple feeds, I'm sure you can do your OWN d@mn research. And I don't really care HOW stupid you think I am. At one time I did, but not any more.
It's no secret that I can't stand Obama or any of his minions. He should NEVER have been put in the WH in the 1st place. I hope the b@stard is impeached, the sooner the better. But the best part of that is that the millions of his drooling, adoring fans finally get to see him for who he really is. Just another cheap Chicago thug.
Oh one more thing, Grasshoppah. Instead of bitchin' about the circle jerk trending of this thread, how about tossing some of YOUR favorite topics out for discussion. I may be stupid, but there are several in here who aren't, such as HipG, and a few others. Maybe they'll be able to stimulate your need for intelligent exchanges.
What are you, Nuts? Sending fighter planes All the way from Italy, just to save a few lives? That would be a Terrible waste of jet fuel. Before you start griping about the two hundred plane, one hundred and fifty million dollar convoy to India a few years ago, That Trip Was Necessary! After all, whats the use of being president, if you can't be a little extravagant once in awhile?
Heck, michelle's aluminum foil dress for the oscars cost more than the jet fuel to and from Bengazi. She Did too recycle it! OK, OK. She got two dollars and eight cents for it, and not the buck sixty two I reported earlier. Never mind that it cost seventy thousand dollars, even with the presidential discount. Funny, though. the prez discount is kind like the military discount. They jack up the price by eight hundred percent, then shave of six percent. Could be worse, I guess. They could just give a five percent discount.
fashion note. michelle would have looked better if she had covered the 'Reynolds Wrap' logo.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 min Justise League 854,769
The Christian Atheist debate 17 min HipGnosis 988
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Liam 596,280
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 21 min ChristineM 444,332
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr PortaBella ITA 612,614
my wife neha ki chudai (May '14) 1 hr raavan 15
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 2 hr WasteWater 6,138
More from around the web