According to this sign, I apparently am if I have an unregistered firearm at Ft. Benning.
What the bloody, festering fuck??? Curtis has more.
If I’m a Soldier exercising my Second Amendment right, I’m apparently now considered a terrorist by the powers that be.
Last time I checked military members are military members 24/7.
Last time I checked they should be proficient with their tools.
Last time I checked, firearms are the tools of a Soldier.
Last time I checked, Nidal Hasan walked onto a military base, carrying a weapon and killed a dozen Soldiers and civilians. His weapon wasn’t registered. I guess we’re allowed to call him a terrorist now? The PC ban on calling that camel fucking scumbag a terrorist is over?
Or are all military gun owners terrorists, except for the ones who proclaim the glory of Allah while murdering their fellow servicemembers, carry business cards identifying them as Soldiers of Allah and exchange cozy emails with al Qaida?
Appalling.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:22:45
Shock, gasp! The Empire only wants its slaves armed while murdering brown people that don’t believe in compounded interest, shopping malls, and Taco Bell or giving up their resources? The sooner we realize the real terrorist is “our” government and not boogeymen with turbans 10,000 miles away, the sooner we’ll take the country back. The government doesn’t like you, they want to USE US.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:26:03
That is quite possibly the most histrionic, hyperbolic and downright stupid thing I’ve seen anyone say on this site. Let me guess, you’re one of those “the eeeeeeevil gubmint flew planes into buildings on 9-11″ assholes, aren’t you?
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:28:09
Well stated, Nicki. Unbelievable – I’da never thunk that sort of sign would be posted at a U.S. MILITARY base.I’d like to learn who authorized this unmitigated, pernicious, horseshit.Hopefully, next time a follower of the “Religion of Peace” goes on a murder spree, an armed “terrorist” will stop him.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:37:10
@ zach: Newsflash – most organized groups want to use you for one thing or another. Think for yourself.@ Nicki: I love gubmint especially in gum flavors and in my coffee.For the record, Taco Bell is delicious.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:38:25
Taco Bell gives me indigestion.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:40:35
Me too. Isn’t it grand?
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:41:22
At least I don’t have to share my bathroom with anyone! :-p
Dec 18, 2009 @ 15:45:54
How about that, i’ve been a terrorist all these years and didn’t know it !!!
Dec 18, 2009 @ 16:14:07
They can call me a terrorist all they want, but I am not a terrorist. I am a Patriot. One who no longer trusts his government.I don’t believe that the gov’t is responsible for 9/11, but I do believe that it is the enemy of the people. California has proven that gov’ts lie. Observe our “assault weapons” ban. First, they said, “Register your guns. We promise we won’t take them.” A year later, they said, “Turn them in, or face police action.”That is one of several reasons why I no longer trust our government. And this sign is yet another reason.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 16:20:12
Crotalus, having a healthy distrust of our government is much different than branding everyone in government an “enemy of the people.” Yes, politicians lie. Yes, they pass laws that are absolutely contrary to the very fundamental principles on which this nation was elected. But guess what! Who elects these assholes over and over and over again?If we want someone to blame, we need to look no further than the general population.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 16:35:55
Where is this at on Benning ? I would love to drive out and see it myself – since I live close by and have post access.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 16:47:42
The guys on AR15′s forums seem to think it’s somewhere in a company area. You’ve seen the cheesy posters in company areas, right? They seem to think this looks like one of those.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 16:47:46
The thing is, all the troops in BEQ DID register their guns and check them into the armory. That’s part of why Hasan knew it was safe to go on a spree.This is just an idiotic rant of, “Oh, yeah? A shooting spree? Well, we’re going to pass a new POLICY to make that impossible! Register their guns!”Yes, because every extremist Muslim cocksucker bent on murder will DEFINITELY think twice if he might be reprimanded or demoted for not registering his gun!I wonder if someone should write the provost marshal and ask if we have to register bombs as well.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 18:52:42
Just bloody disgusting, proof that Politicians in Uniform are all too often in charge of things. Add this to the ‘PC at any cost’ idiocy that let Hasan keep getting away with his jihadi bullcrap…
Dec 18, 2009 @ 18:57:40
now you know why the founders abhorred the concept of a standing army!the military is a microcosm of a utopian, socialist society.a tyrant’s wet-dream of highly-organized workers who can be called up with a number — no rights, no social contract — just sitting around awaiting his arrival at the top of the heap, like a tin-pot anti-christ.plato’s silver class of so-called warriors for the “noble lie.” and that lie is that “we” need to tax “ourselves” into submission, and show deference, to secure our own liberty.that’s right: slavery is liberty. the slaves don’t all have to believe it, but the ones that do will be handed guns when the state says and to do what the state says to do.the difference between a wolf and a sheepdog is right there to see. it has nothing to do with enlistment and everything to do with pointing the rifle in the direction of the enemy, foreign or domestic.also, it helps if you buy your own goddamn rifle.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 19:13:33
Actually a military is one of the few truly legitimate functions of a national government. This is why man left the state of nature in the first place – to protect himself from violent threats. That is the legitimate and correct function of the military.And frankly I’m a bit sick and tired of the “military as dumb slaves and tools of oppression” line.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 19:16:39
Lessee, Nicki has a masters, my wife has two degrees, I have no degree but close to 200 credits and an international audience in the millions that pays my bills and then some. A friend is now head of security for Deutschebank, making close to 7 figures salary. Yup, we must all be ignorant tools.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 19:35:07
Yes, the majority elect these arrogant tyrants, and the rest of us must tolerate it for the duration. In many ways, we are our own worst enemy, because we don’t use what is arguably the best government system yet devised wisely.”But when a long train of abuses evinces a design”, as the Declaration says, to subjugate the people, does that not qualify those in power as an enemy of the people, albeit a subtle one?Of course, it is true that not all in power are tyrannically inclined.Where does a government become an enemy of the people to you, Nicki? We may have differing definitions, but I don’t think we’re that far apart.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 19:40:50
Generally, a government becomes an enemy of the people when its purpose consciously changes from serving the people to ruling them. I know that sounds broad, but I know what it is in my own mind. It has to be a conscious switch – not what it is currently, with a bunch of wannabe tyrannical buffoons trying to increase their own worth. Does that make any sense?
Dec 18, 2009 @ 19:53:25
At the same time, a rabid dog may not consciously be your enemy, but you still have to shoot it.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 20:54:18
Nicki, I see you are little behind in your study of the Constitution, if you were to actually read it, you would find that it specifically bans a standing army. One can be raised for the common defense, but it is only authorized for a period of two years at a time. If the threat has passed, the army is to be disbanded. Of course, there is not much more than shreds left of this document, the feds ignore it at will.I will take your bait and accuse just about everyone in government to be an enemy of the people. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t seek employment in the parasitic class.Michael, having a degree or two or three does not make one educated. You are simply trained in a certain field to perform a job function, kinda like a monkey. This doesn’t mean you are necessarily intelligent or capable of critical thought. Your comment shows you to be neither.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 21:08:17
Hey, Bill: The Defense budget is renewed every year, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.This is something I had to learn to become a citizen. It’s testable material.Now, I would like to see less foreign involvement and a smaller military, but it’s certainly constitutional. That’s number 1.Number 2, The Constitution doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means what the Courts think it means. You can rant all you want, but at the end of the day, if the courts don’t back you up, you’re the loser.Number 3: Check out my website. If you can find a monkey to do my job, I’ll hire him and give you a million dollars.But do please tell us what you do for a living. This should be good.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 21:19:44
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”Translation for the Compleat Shithead or Conspiracy Nut:Congress may raise and support an army (which is any military force, in this context).Congress may assign money for that purpose from the budget.Such money may not be budgeted more than two years ahead, so that each session of the House (two years in duration) will have to reconsider the budget, and decide if it is in need of adjustment.I’m looking for the part where it says an army must be disbanded after two years. Hmm…can’t find it.It must be in that OTHER Constitution.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:09:49
Not many people know this but every two years, in order to fund the military Congress must declare a national emergency. And they do so, very quietly. I am of the opinion that a standing military is necessary to this nation’s security. However, the rules say no.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:20:01
Um…no. Read the Constitutional quote above.Dang, Nicki, you drew out every mouthbreather, conspiracy nut and tire-changer with delusions of intellect on the net.Not many people know this, but no one gives a shit what armchair political scientists think.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:21:46
Wow, a little testy aren’t we Michael? Get a grip on yourself man. Well then, according to your infinite wisdom, if the courts rule we can no longer own firearms, you’ll turn your’s in without question? Or if the courts decide the cops can search your home without a warrant you’re Ok with that too? What you are saying is that whatever the courts decide is the rule of the land. I completely disagree. If you go back to original intent, the army was to be disbanded. Hence, we had no standing army ready for WWI or WWII. Hence the complete authorization for the Navy. I will agree that your description is the way it is today in the US.I didn’t claim you are a monkey, I said going to college or trade school doesn’t make you intelligent or capable of critical thought, it merely prepares you to do a particular job. You are then trained, like a monkey. Get it?While you, on the other hand, implied that a college degree makes you a veritable genius.Why is it you government worshippers always resort to name calling and insults? And, it doesn’t seem to matter whether it comes from a left wing loon or a right wing one, it is still the same old childish nonsense. Did I mention anything about conspiracy theories? Did I call you a shithead? Please, do try to act like an adult.Why should I tell you anything myself? You have not shared your personal details, other than you seem to be rather immature. Why do you demand I share mine?
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:25:04
Actually, yes, that does make sense, Nicki. I think that’s a good guideline. But it sure looks like our current crop of politicians is getting real close to that line.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:27:06
Nice, Michael, real nice. I can see it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you as you are incapable of civilized discourse. You just can’t seem to discuss anything without resorting to childish name calling and insults. Go back to the school yard, and try to get an education this time.BTW, I don’t care what some poorly read keyboard commando thinks either.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:36:16
So, what do you do for a living, Bill? Tire changer? WalMart greeter?And if you’d looked at my site, which has my personal details(please try to read for content next time. My site might take some basic computer skills and literacy…a little more than a trained monkey has. Apparently more than you have), you’ll see I’m no friend of governments.Nor did I say a college degree makes one smart. However, I know what I do for a living. I know what Nicki does for a living. I know the head of security for Deutschebank, a former SEAL. I know what my wife does. I know what several thousand people in the military do. None of them are trained monkeys. There are others, of course, who are, but your statement shows a contempt for all of them, which says to me that not only can’t you read for content (yet again. Perhaps some remedial work is in order. My 6th grade daughter offers tutoring), but also that you’re jealous of people who might be your betters.I don’t agree with a lot of things that are constitutional. But I don’t whine that they’re somehow unconstitutional just because I disagree with them.There are even issues over which I’ve threatened physical violence, and will do so again.I even fight to defend the rights of morons to speak freely. So have at it.
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:42:29
Hey, Bill,You’re the one who challenged us to “actually read the Constitution,” and attacked people for being “trained monkeys.” I quoted the relevant part, which contradicts what you impute it to say. That means those “trained monkeys” are smarter than you.You then claimed I didn’t say a lot of things I did say, didn’t say a lot of things I didn’t say, and started another round of petulant whining.So, you were repeatedly wrong, demonstrate no ability to read for content, and don’t want to pony up any credentials for your misinformed position.And, you seem to agree with “soldiers are terrorists,” with the statement that “Everyone in the government is an enemy of the people.”Actually, “enemy of the people” is a classic Marxist-Leninist phrase. Makes me wonder.One last thing. This:http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh119/mzmadmike/Promo/universe.jpg?t=1260735068
Dec 18, 2009 @ 22:55:48
Whatever loser. Still going with the name calling huh, boy? Insulting everyone who’s station in life is perceived to be below yours. That really bolsters your credibility. It also speaks volumes about your intelligence.Ohhhhhhhh you know a former SEAL. WOW! I am sure impressed now. Speaking of reading for comprehension, you need to sit down with your daughter, if you even have one. More like you have an older sister who is in 6th grade.I AM sure you regularly threaten physical violence, mostly likely every time you overhear someone who has an opinion that differs from yours. Or, when you don’t get your way.You have shown yourself to be irrational and immature. You also are completely lacking any self control. You assume things about people you have idea about. Go home, grow up and come back when you can hold an adult conversation. Until then, you are just embarrassing yourself.
Dec 19, 2009 @ 00:12:21
So, what do you do for a living, Bill? What can the rest of us learn from you?I pointed out the former SEAL because that’s about as gung ho military as you can get, yet one of the largest banks on Earth sees fit to pay him several hundred thousand dollars a year to protect their assets. Of course, since any “trained monkey” who’s been to college can do this, I’m sure you have advice on how he could do better, yes?You started the name calling with that “Trained monkey” and “Enemy of the people,” shit, Bill. You have no moral high ground here.That you have nothing more substantive to offer suggests your hero is Walter Mitty.
Dec 19, 2009 @ 20:09:13
Ok, Michael, use your head for something other than an ear-spacer. Congress can raise a military in time of need. Congress can fund that military for no more than two years at a time. Therefore, Congress must show the nation is in a time of need, ergo the justification for the funding requires a finding of national emergency. So, technically, and technically only, we do not have a standing military, but a temporarily raised and funded military. Such was the way around the intent of the founders, which in this day is a good thing. I don’t often agree with cheating the intent of the founders, but this is a case where it is more than justified.Now, call some more names. It’s so much easier than learning.
Dec 19, 2009 @ 21:02:36
Can you source your opinion with statements from the Founders?It is true they didn’t want a standing army, but that theory died in the War of 1812.And that Constitutional quote is exact and very clear. They wrote it to be simple to understand. “No Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”It doesn’t say “The Army must be disbanded.” Just that the appropriation shall not be for more than two years.I’m also interested in this “secret” emergency declared every two years. Can you source that?
Dec 19, 2009 @ 21:36:46
First of all, Bill – you’re a fucking illiterate jerk, who came over here and insulted me, as well as tried to troll absolute nonsense. There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires an Army to be disbanded. Not a damn thing. Article 1, Section 8 specifically states that Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defense. That’s what a military is for. Mike is absolutely correct in that the clause that you erroneously refer to as requiring the military to be disbanded every two years is simply an appropriations requirement that the defense budget needs to be renewed every two years. There’s ZERO requirement for the military to be disbanded every two years! None. It specifically grants the power to Congress to raise and support Armies. Period. Learn to read. Here are the powers of Congress vis-a-vis the military: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Hmmm…. Gee… nothing there that requires the military to be disbanded. Second of all, shitbag. Both Michael and I came to this country as immigrants, seeking a better life and freedom, as both of us came from socialist shitholes (mine worse than his, although today that’s debatable!). We chose to serve this country because we were grateful for the freedoms and opportunities it guaranteed, and because we wanted to help preserve and protect those opportunities. And for that, swine like you call us “enemies of the people.” For that, ungrateful cretins like you claim we’re nothing but trained monkeys, incapable of critical thought. You’re disgusting, Bill. You’re an ignorant, paranoid cretin who doesn’t understand his country, doesn’t understand her laws and doesn’t want to. You’d much rather insult people whose true desire is to make a difference and protect this nation and her citizens in your zeal to condemn the eeeeevil gubmint. You’re the real problem in this nation, Bill. You and ignorami like you who aren’t capable of simple comprehension, but simply spew impotent venom against anyone in government. The people I’ve known in the military and in government are some of the most intelligent, capable, dedicated people you’ll ever meet. That doesn’t mean the gargantuan bureaucracy is lacking in indolent jerks, but to condemn everyone who chooses to serve their country as “enemies of the people” requires a special kind of twisted lunatic. Mike and I and many others in this country took an oath, Bill. We took an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. We protect your very right to spew the uninformed, ignorant crap you’re spewing. We are the reason there’s no police at your door arresting you for being an anti-government conspirator. I’d be willing to bet you’ve done absolutely nothing for your country, but sit at your computer and complain, and I’d probably win big. With utter contempt,A military veteran (and trained monkey)Nicki
Dec 19, 2009 @ 21:38:47
Straightarrow, I’ve looked it up. There’s absolutely no requirement of which you speak. There is certain supplemental funding – above and beyond the regular defense budget – that required Congress to declare a national emergency to pass. But other than that I’ve seen absolutely nothing to support this contention.I’d like to see a source as well.Nicki
Dec 19, 2009 @ 22:15:38
Oh, and by the way, Bill. Those who believe that government has a legitimate function in a rational society aren’t government worshippers. But those who believe that any type of governing body is necessarily tyrannical are extremist asshole anarchists.While our educational credentials do not make us veritable geniuses, they do help us think critically and understand a simple document such as our Constitution without seeing it through the prism of paranoia.
Dec 20, 2009 @ 06:45:23
Uh huh, how do you not disband the military, if you don’t fund it?the answer to that one question allows the founders’ intent to be viewed from the lens they used to prohibit a “standing army”. to date that hasn’t changed. I don’t agree that that is a proper course for us today since a standing military is a necessity, but the founders’ intent is clear. They didn’t get much wrong, but this they did, probably as an emotional reaction to the “standing army ” of George III, rather than a reasoned effort to provide a permanent military and provide other measures to keep it subordinate the civilian government besides just having to justify funding it every two years or letting it disband because there is no money for pay, logistics, intelligence, etc. etc. I would favor an amendment to rectify that particular part of the constitution simply to provide stability in the planning of future developments rather than us always starting from a deficit when we must send our young men and women into harm’s way. It would be much better if we didn’t always have to “ramp up” prior to such and were always able to maintain the level of preparedness necessary for real security in this fast moving and often hostile world.For Christ’s sake look at our record, we have never entered a war or armed conflict when we were ready. That needs to be corrected.
Dec 20, 2009 @ 06:55:46
It needs to be corrected to lessen the number of deaths the first in the line suffer because they are under-equipped, under-funded, under-manned,and under-trained.Korea is a perfect example of needless loss because we were all of these things, but still had to go in harm’s way. Then we turned around and did it again.In fact, the only time I can think of when we didn’t were the Gulf Wars, but in each we gave the enemy months of warning while we “ramped up”. Now all the bad shit is in Syria and Iran,and we will face it again. However, militarily we proved how effective a force that is ready can be. We need to alway be ready.
Dec 20, 2009 @ 12:24:19
SA, while the founders indeed had reservations about a standing army, and the appropriations clause showed that distrust, it’s more like a check than anything else. It’s absolutely NOT a requirement that the military be disbanded, but a check on a government-controlled military. As long as you have to renew the defense budget every year, there’s a conscious reminder there. I doubt they meant that the army should be disbanded, because otherwise they would have specifically said so. They were pretty damn clear about everything else.The requirement is pretty arcane, but I doubt it makes much of a difference today. I doubt it affects planning. Hell, other nations have to pass a defense budget annually. It’s a serious pain in the ass, but it doesn’t affect our readiness. Trust me on this one. There are other problems, especially the way procurement is done, and the huge bureaucracy that is involved in that mess, making things a lot more cumbersome and expensive. To me, that’s the bigger problem – not the fact that the defense budget has to be renewed every two years. I actually prefer it be renewed annually, simply because Congress is shitty at anticipating the military’s needs year to year, and even shittier at anticipating events that could seriously affect defense spending, such as the global economic crisis. While other nations adjust fire due to reduced government revenues brought on by recessions, our Congress just plods along, borrows more and spends more.
Dec 20, 2009 @ 12:25:03
I think that’s more a function of HOW we train, not funding for training. We always seem to be a war behind.
Dec 21, 2009 @ 16:46:45
Obviously, a new budget that takes effect upon expiration of the old one.This is what happens every year.Most years, everyone gets told, “We’re still finalizing the budget, continue as you were for the next few weeks, but keep costs to a minimum until we have details.”"Disbanding the military” is just such a bogglingly idiotic idea in context I don’t think I need to address it, but I will if you wish.Most of the founders were still alive in 1812, and readily agreed to the concept of the standing army being a fix that needed made…and no Constitutional change was needed. It was just, “Okay, so that becomes a permanent part of the budget.”I do favor a gradual–since the problem happened gradually–drawdown of forces and interference worldwide. But in the modern world, a complete cessation is beyond impossible, but national suicide.
Dec 22, 2009 @ 08:24:42
How do you not disband any entity that is not funded? Then answer to that question is the key.If you can’t answer that question, all of our opinions of the appropriateness of same are irrelevant. (including mine)
Dec 22, 2009 @ 08:41:17
Because the new funding takes effect the day the old funding runs out.Every major business on the planet does this, EVERY YEAR. Every bureau of the government does this every year.Really, is the concept so hard?So, when we disband to suit you, what do you propose to do with 7000 aircraft, 8 carrier groups, 800 missiles, god knows how many main battle tanks, etc?If we only have an Army when needed, how do you propose to deal with a 6-15 month training cycle to get troops trained and online, and a 10 year or longer lead time for most weapons systems? (Which, incidentally, get unfunded and killed on a regular basis…per the 2 year limit in discussion).A “No standing Army” is a great theory…if you have muzzle loaders.
Dec 22, 2009 @ 21:34:22
Oh c’mon Michael, don’t be intentionally obtuse. If Congress is reserved the power to fund the military every two years, they are also accorded the power to not fund it at all. That was also an incremental part of the founders’ thinking. Now answer the exact question asked, not the false question you tried to sneak an answer to.Now, pay the FUCK attention. Quit your silly ass moaning about what you think my motives are or what suits me and read what I said. If you can’t do that then shut the fuck up.I have made it quite plain that I do not agree with the present system. I much prefer a guaranteed floor of funding, perhaps as a percentage of GDP, and if adjustments are needed then that can be done every year or two years. At present Congress has the power to fund or not. To our great benefit in recent years they have funded fairly generously, but that has not always been the case. Look at our military in 1940, 1950, etc. There is no guarantee we won’t eventually end up with an administration and Congress of the same mindset at some time in the future. Instead continuing to try to start a fight with me on false grounds just pay fucking attention. Or stfu.
Dec 22, 2009 @ 21:42:06
They COULD unfund it, but why? You’ve pretty much admitted this “secret declaration” of a state of emergency not only doesn’t have to exist, but doesn’t exist at all. It would be idiotic and national suicide not to have a standing military, so we have a standing military. This is constitutional and always has been.Where exactly do you work, btw? Presumably not in any field that involves law, mathematics or deductive reasoning. Nor, I presume, have you ever worked on contract, where the contract ended at 2359 one day and renewed at 0000 the next, which is to say, continuous.Since elementary school explanations have failed, and only elicited profanity, I’m not going to waste any more time.I never questioned your motives. I don’t even question your clue. You have none.Have a good day.
Dec 23, 2009 @ 21:28:22
Michael you’re an ass. And a stupid one at that. You’re right about me not having a clue. I didn’t have a clue that you would rather lie and avoid and evade rather than admit the truth. You ask, “why would they do that?” How old are you? Who knows why they would do that? Why was it done before? That it was done before is historical fact (not completely, but enough that training was done with broomsticks for rifles, etc and our military was manned far below any reasonable level). So why do you think it impossible to recur?I propose removing that option from the table and you somehow think that means I am anti-military. What? Are you 16? Or just can you not read? Or is it that once you see an opinion that differs, even if only slightly from yours you must win an argument that doesn’t really exist?Oh, and your presumptions are also wrong. And your denial of attributing motives to me which I do not hold is simply a lie.
Dec 23, 2009 @ 21:32:47
so what do you do for a living, Straightarrow?I’m asking because I have no idea what your latest post means.
Dec 24, 2009 @ 02:21:14
this is so exciting.
Dec 24, 2009 @ 20:34:24
Michael you have no idea what anything means. No, I am not going to play the game of making this about me, instead of ideas, which as you admit you have none.Go away, little boy!