Bill Richardson is Vice Presidential material for the Dems. A lot hinges on who Hillary decides she can get along with better. If she sees Obama as
too headstrong, she may not want to deal with him in the White House. On the otehr hand, is she regards Richardson as more of a team player...
Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?, page 7
privacy
reply posted on 27-8-2007 @ 09:47 AM by Justin Oldham
The resignation of Alberto Gonzales would seem to be the
news item of the day. There can be no doubt that this will be another 'stain' for the Republican canddiates to try and wipe off. Again, I find
myself thinking that this is just one more chance forthe GOP field to change its tune and push for the reforms they know the voters want.
Update: it's being reported that Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff could be the Bush pick to replace Gonzales.
[edit on 27-8-2007 by Justin Oldham]
Update: it's being reported that Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff could be the Bush pick to replace Gonzales.
[edit on 27-8-2007 by Justin Oldham]
reply posted on 29-8-2007 @ 02:25 PM by donwhite
reply to post by xpert11 and Justin Oldham
We tried to do that in 1787. Keep in mind the Federal government’s revenue in that era was limited to excise taxes - whiskey, tobacco for the most part - to import tariffs or duties and the sale or lease of Federal land. It was not until 1913 when the income tax amendment (the 16th) was adopted and the complimentary Federal Reserve Act (a national bank) was made law that the US Treasury became the largest in the Universe. Despite all the new money available, the Federal government remained small and mostly in the background. Until 1933.
Note: Lincoln was the second sea change in American presidential politics. 1800 being the first. The next one came in 1933 with the Democrats electing Roosevelt. Followed by #4 with Reagan in 1980. IMO. I’ve got my fingers crossed we are about to witness a #5 sea change in 2008! End of Note.
The governing of the US was mostly done in Congress, the so-called Article 1 branch. Remember Abraham Lincoln could not fire his own cabinet. Him aside, it fell to Theodore Roosevelt to be the first ACTIVIST president. And that was due to his natural born personality and not due to some newfound political philosophy. After TR, for example, it was Congress that refused to endorse Woodrow Wilson’s plans for a League of Nations in 1918. Democrat Wilson was a political anomaly. Elected in 1912 only because the Republicans were split between TR and Pres. Taft seeking re-election.
America’s modern government dates for 1933. It was necessary to fight first the Great Depression then the Second World War. No pipsqueak government could have done either. Only under Eisenhower did any tendency to relapse appear. Although Ford and Carter were the two most pleasant men to occupy the office after 1933, even in their terms the size of the government remained constant. I said “size” because we Americans tend to equate effectiveness with size. There is no direct correlation but we are stuck with the analogy. A mistake but look at how strenuously J/O and I disagree over size and effectiveness. Or over the mission of government, especially the Federal government which I like versus state governments which I hold in nearly total disdain. NY and CA excepted. And 2 or 3 others.
As you knew last November J/O, Congress could not carry out the voter’s avowed mandate to end America's role in the Iraq Civil War. It just does not work that way. Which is one more reason why it is so important to know what you are doing, what you expect to accomplish and how to extract yourself before you engage in war. In America, where the blame game is played 24/7, 365, the one thing, the worst thing, is to be blamed for losing a war. It is sad so many young men and women have to die uselessly while our politicians work out a way to end the war but without sharing blame. I’ve already asserted that our leaders KILLED 22,000 GIs in Vietnam for that reason alone. Who get’s the blame?
Congress can stop the war ONLY by de-funding it. Bush43 would claim that was the reason he LOST the war and he'd snipe that our soldiers had died in vain. Better that 1000s more should die than that Bush43 would be accused of losing a war on his watch! Just reflect how much crapola gets heaped on Bill Clinton for Mogadishu. 18 dead Rangers. Or the USS Cole, 38 dead sailors.
But, Mr Xpert11, that's our system, adopted in 1787.
[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]
posted by xpert11 -I understand that different people bring different levels of influence and leadership to the White House. I think that the president should be the main player off there branch of government (forgive me I can’t come up with a better description then that). Any political system designed around representing the people requires an inbuilt mechanism that ensure fair representation or check sum and balances.
We tried to do that in 1787. Keep in mind the Federal government’s revenue in that era was limited to excise taxes - whiskey, tobacco for the most part - to import tariffs or duties and the sale or lease of Federal land. It was not until 1913 when the income tax amendment (the 16th) was adopted and the complimentary Federal Reserve Act (a national bank) was made law that the US Treasury became the largest in the Universe. Despite all the new money available, the Federal government remained small and mostly in the background. Until 1933.
Note: Lincoln was the second sea change in American presidential politics. 1800 being the first. The next one came in 1933 with the Democrats electing Roosevelt. Followed by #4 with Reagan in 1980. IMO. I’ve got my fingers crossed we are about to witness a #5 sea change in 2008! End of Note.
The governing of the US was mostly done in Congress, the so-called Article 1 branch. Remember Abraham Lincoln could not fire his own cabinet. Him aside, it fell to Theodore Roosevelt to be the first ACTIVIST president. And that was due to his natural born personality and not due to some newfound political philosophy. After TR, for example, it was Congress that refused to endorse Woodrow Wilson’s plans for a League of Nations in 1918. Democrat Wilson was a political anomaly. Elected in 1912 only because the Republicans were split between TR and Pres. Taft seeking re-election.
America’s modern government dates for 1933. It was necessary to fight first the Great Depression then the Second World War. No pipsqueak government could have done either. Only under Eisenhower did any tendency to relapse appear. Although Ford and Carter were the two most pleasant men to occupy the office after 1933, even in their terms the size of the government remained constant. I said “size” because we Americans tend to equate effectiveness with size. There is no direct correlation but we are stuck with the analogy. A mistake but look at how strenuously J/O and I disagree over size and effectiveness. Or over the mission of government, especially the Federal government which I like versus state governments which I hold in nearly total disdain. NY and CA excepted. And 2 or 3 others.
posted by Julian Oldham -The resignation of Alberto Gonzales would seem to be the news item of the day. There can be no doubt that this will be another 'stain' for the Republican candidates to wipe off. I find myself thinking this is one more chance for the GOP field to change its tune and push for the reforms they know the voters want. Update: it's being reported that Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff could be the Bush pick to replace Gonzales.
As you knew last November J/O, Congress could not carry out the voter’s avowed mandate to end America's role in the Iraq Civil War. It just does not work that way. Which is one more reason why it is so important to know what you are doing, what you expect to accomplish and how to extract yourself before you engage in war. In America, where the blame game is played 24/7, 365, the one thing, the worst thing, is to be blamed for losing a war. It is sad so many young men and women have to die uselessly while our politicians work out a way to end the war but without sharing blame. I’ve already asserted that our leaders KILLED 22,000 GIs in Vietnam for that reason alone. Who get’s the blame?
Congress can stop the war ONLY by de-funding it. Bush43 would claim that was the reason he LOST the war and he'd snipe that our soldiers had died in vain. Better that 1000s more should die than that Bush43 would be accused of losing a war on his watch! Just reflect how much crapola gets heaped on Bill Clinton for Mogadishu. 18 dead Rangers. Or the USS Cole, 38 dead sailors.
But, Mr Xpert11, that's our system, adopted in 1787.
[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]
reply posted on 29-8-2007 @ 11:10 PM by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The resignation of Alberto Gonzales would seem to be the news item of the day. There can be no doubt that this will be another 'stain' for the Republican canddiates to try and wipe off.
Hey I was wondering do you see the actions of Gonzales as just normal actions like other Attorney Generals in other administrations both Rep and Dem? Or do you think the uproar from the Dems was not just a good political ploy?
reply posted on 12-9-2007 @ 09:32 AM by donwhite
reply to post by Justin Oldham
May I expand on what you have already correctly implied Mr J/O? The only issue is the integrity of the US Attorney’s Office. Its integrity has been gratuitously compromised by the recent firing of 6 or 8 or 9 US Attorneys around the country without proper explanation.
We know the San Diego US Attorney was fired because she was pursuing the persons who had bribed US Congressman Butch Cunningham. Bribery is a two person crime. The Bribe-or and Bribe-ee. Both violate the law. Both need to be sharing a jail cell. In Cunningham’s case, he is still the only person convicted. Why is that?
The White House sent the menage to ALL US Attorney’s NOT to prosecute people without prior WH approval. That was unprecedented.
The WH has obfuscated the real issue by repeating the argument the president has the RIGHT to fire any US Attorney anytime without cause. Strictly speaking that is correct. US Attorneys serve at the PLEASURE of the president. But there are tempering customs and traditions, too.
Over the years since the 1920s, the office of US Attorney has grown into the most powerful prosecutorial post in the US. There are so many more Federal laws today which have so much broader reach and implications into our lives that we need to have a qualified, dependable, fair and impartial person in the office of US Attorney. And nothing less.
Albeit true that person gets his or her initial appointment because of either their work for the president’s election or the amount of money they gave to his campaign, or their family or other network connections. But, after they take the oath of office, we have a legitimate right to expect they will rise far above the crass day-to-day of politics. This is essential to any good government.
After their appointment, which requires Senate approval, the US Attorney should be dismissed summarily ONLY for incurable ineptness, innate incompetence or benign neglect of his or her office. The correct performance of their official obligations must be seen as based purely on the laws of our country being correctly and uniformly enforced without regard to partisan politics. That is the de minimus!
AG Gonzales, Bushr43's alter ego, comprised that tradition to our great disadvantage.
I don’t believe Geo W has ever read this: "I will faithfully execute the office of President . . and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution . . “
From US Con. Article 2, Section 1. “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
[edit on 9/12/2007 by donwhite]
posted by Justin Oldham
The 'average' Attorney General doesn't find himself in the hotseat like this. It's true that the Democrats are playing hard ball politics just now . . That's why you're not going to see anything more that lip service from the Dems as regards contempt charges. All of the naughty new precedents that Bush has established will be there for the using in 2009. Not even THEY will be able to resist that temptation.
May I expand on what you have already correctly implied Mr J/O? The only issue is the integrity of the US Attorney’s Office. Its integrity has been gratuitously compromised by the recent firing of 6 or 8 or 9 US Attorneys around the country without proper explanation.
We know the San Diego US Attorney was fired because she was pursuing the persons who had bribed US Congressman Butch Cunningham. Bribery is a two person crime. The Bribe-or and Bribe-ee. Both violate the law. Both need to be sharing a jail cell. In Cunningham’s case, he is still the only person convicted. Why is that?
The White House sent the menage to ALL US Attorney’s NOT to prosecute people without prior WH approval. That was unprecedented.
The WH has obfuscated the real issue by repeating the argument the president has the RIGHT to fire any US Attorney anytime without cause. Strictly speaking that is correct. US Attorneys serve at the PLEASURE of the president. But there are tempering customs and traditions, too.
Over the years since the 1920s, the office of US Attorney has grown into the most powerful prosecutorial post in the US. There are so many more Federal laws today which have so much broader reach and implications into our lives that we need to have a qualified, dependable, fair and impartial person in the office of US Attorney. And nothing less.
Albeit true that person gets his or her initial appointment because of either their work for the president’s election or the amount of money they gave to his campaign, or their family or other network connections. But, after they take the oath of office, we have a legitimate right to expect they will rise far above the crass day-to-day of politics. This is essential to any good government.
After their appointment, which requires Senate approval, the US Attorney should be dismissed summarily ONLY for incurable ineptness, innate incompetence or benign neglect of his or her office. The correct performance of their official obligations must be seen as based purely on the laws of our country being correctly and uniformly enforced without regard to partisan politics. That is the de minimus!
AG Gonzales, Bushr43's alter ego, comprised that tradition to our great disadvantage.
I don’t believe Geo W has ever read this: "I will faithfully execute the office of President . . and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution . . “
From US Con. Article 2, Section 1. “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
[edit on 9/12/2007 by donwhite]
reply posted on 16-9-2007 @ 12:37 PM by donwhite
reply to post by tyranny22
Army General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It’s their war now.
Pres. Bush will begin loading up the papers he wants to keep away from the public and Congress. He'll put them on a 50 year hold. Secret, you know. “Scooter” Liddy is “fixed” for now and a full pardon is due January 19, 2009. Silence is golden. George says, “We’ve got to keep the water boy quiet, Dick!” Like his daddy in front of him, who pardoned Casper Weinberg to avoid jail time for his role in Iran Contra, junior Bush is saving himself from a similar fate.
The SURGE was a giant publicity stunt. Troop strength in late 2006, 130,000. Troop strength today, 165,000. Troop strength in June, ‘08, 130,000. Mission? Another phoney one, like the WMDs. It was sold to the American public to give sufficient security or space in Baghdad so the disparate groups in Iraq could reconcile and as in the Holy Bible, “the lambs could lie down with the lions.” But neither the lambs nor the lions seem interested. Hmm?
Withdrawal late this year and into next year? Not really. That is a ‘Petraeus’ term for what everyone else is calling ROTATION. Disingenuous? Sure, but what do you expect from a man who looked you straight in the camera's eye and said “I wrote this report last night!” All the while his aides were making a great flourish over distributing the report as if they were the first to see it.
Get a life. Generals don’t write reports. Lieutenants, captains and majors write reports, reviewed by colonels, typed by sergeants and signed as their own by generals. In response to the MoveOn.org ad, General Petraeus put his foot into his own mouth! I expect that was the unstated purpose behind the ad; to nail down responsibility for the report that will be the subject of much future debate.
Wow! Petraeus' performance was worth the Chairman’s seat at the Joint Chiefs table! Gen. Peter Pace, time for you to say goodbye and move on!
Bush43 has survived the only time period when his Iraq adventure was in real jeopardy. January to September, 2007. By conjuring the SURGE, he has managed to put off all serious debate over the war. More importaltly to him, was to HOLD potential Republican defectors until September. Now, bolstered with the Oscar winning performances of P & C, “Stay the Course” from Petraeus and “12 to 18 months” longer from Crocker, Bush is home free.
The 8-10 GOP senators who were “shaky” are now solid. It matters not a whit what Speaker Pelosi does in the House. Until the Dems get 10 GOPs to go along, the Good Ole U S of A, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, is in another unwinable War we can't get out of! And Bush43 has outmaneuvered the Dems and the American people! ThisWar won't crash on his watch! It's called L E G A C Y.
How many more GIs will go KIA between now and when we do leave Iraq?
3,780 KIA as of today. 9/16/07
[edit on 9/16/2007 by donwhite]
Army General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It’s their war now.
Pres. Bush will begin loading up the papers he wants to keep away from the public and Congress. He'll put them on a 50 year hold. Secret, you know. “Scooter” Liddy is “fixed” for now and a full pardon is due January 19, 2009. Silence is golden. George says, “We’ve got to keep the water boy quiet, Dick!” Like his daddy in front of him, who pardoned Casper Weinberg to avoid jail time for his role in Iran Contra, junior Bush is saving himself from a similar fate.
The SURGE was a giant publicity stunt. Troop strength in late 2006, 130,000. Troop strength today, 165,000. Troop strength in June, ‘08, 130,000. Mission? Another phoney one, like the WMDs. It was sold to the American public to give sufficient security or space in Baghdad so the disparate groups in Iraq could reconcile and as in the Holy Bible, “the lambs could lie down with the lions.” But neither the lambs nor the lions seem interested. Hmm?
Withdrawal late this year and into next year? Not really. That is a ‘Petraeus’ term for what everyone else is calling ROTATION. Disingenuous? Sure, but what do you expect from a man who looked you straight in the camera's eye and said “I wrote this report last night!” All the while his aides were making a great flourish over distributing the report as if they were the first to see it.
Get a life. Generals don’t write reports. Lieutenants, captains and majors write reports, reviewed by colonels, typed by sergeants and signed as their own by generals. In response to the MoveOn.org ad, General Petraeus put his foot into his own mouth! I expect that was the unstated purpose behind the ad; to nail down responsibility for the report that will be the subject of much future debate.
Wow! Petraeus' performance was worth the Chairman’s seat at the Joint Chiefs table! Gen. Peter Pace, time for you to say goodbye and move on!
Bush43 has survived the only time period when his Iraq adventure was in real jeopardy. January to September, 2007. By conjuring the SURGE, he has managed to put off all serious debate over the war. More importaltly to him, was to HOLD potential Republican defectors until September. Now, bolstered with the Oscar winning performances of P & C, “Stay the Course” from Petraeus and “12 to 18 months” longer from Crocker, Bush is home free.
The 8-10 GOP senators who were “shaky” are now solid. It matters not a whit what Speaker Pelosi does in the House. Until the Dems get 10 GOPs to go along, the Good Ole U S of A, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, is in another unwinable War we can't get out of! And Bush43 has outmaneuvered the Dems and the American people! ThisWar won't crash on his watch! It's called L E G A C Y.
How many more GIs will go KIA between now and when we do leave Iraq?
3,780 KIA as of today. 9/16/07
[edit on 9/16/2007 by donwhite]
reply posted on 17-9-2007 @ 05:14 AM by xpert11
reply to post by donwhite
Defeat at all costs ?
I don't think that the dems need to worry about significant political progress being made in Iraq. The Iraqi government is frozen along ethnic lines. But in the near impossible event that remarkable political progress was made in Iraq including bringing the Kurds in on the deal continued opposition to the war would be pure defeatism. I don't say such a thing lightly either.
Congress wont cut funding off for the war in Iraq because the dems need the war to continue so they can claim the prize in 08. I think that it is pretty sick that anyone would want Democracy in Iraq to fail just because of there political beliefs.
[edit on 17-9-2007 by xpert11]
Defeat at all costs ?
I don't think that the dems need to worry about significant political progress being made in Iraq. The Iraqi government is frozen along ethnic lines. But in the near impossible event that remarkable political progress was made in Iraq including bringing the Kurds in on the deal continued opposition to the war would be pure defeatism. I don't say such a thing lightly either.
Congress wont cut funding off for the war in Iraq because the dems need the war to continue so they can claim the prize in 08. I think that it is pretty sick that anyone would want Democracy in Iraq to fail just because of there political beliefs.
[edit on 17-9-2007 by xpert11]
reply posted on 17-9-2007 @ 05:27 AM by donwhite
reply to post by Justin Oldham
Justin Oldham I am in agreement with those who say we need a long term presence in Iraq. I think we can do that with a reduced force that's in a more limited roll. Having a long-term presence in Iraq is an insurance policy. It's not a guarantee.
I assume you want our presence in Iraq for 2 reasons. 1) to block Iran, and 2) to prevent turning Iraq into a second Afghan before Tora Bora.
During the hearings someone quoted a reliable poll in Iraq that said 62% of Iraqi wanted us OUT of the country ASAP and 75% said they thought it was WORSE under the US OCCUPATION than before the fall of Saddam. Note the Iraqi are referring to the current US ‘footprint” as an occupation and not as a liberation. The Brits will be gone by the end of the year, and that leaves us alone in Iraq (with fighting forces). The Coalition never coalesced.
Far better it would be and much more realistic to engage the regions neighbors to resolve the MESS we created when we destroyed the delicate balance of power in the Middle East that existed prior to 1990. Which balance of power by the way survived the Cold War. But with the breakup of Yugoslavia we had more on our plate than we could handle and we still cannot bring ourselves to FACE the Israeli question. We go on pretending it does not exist. We act as if the Arabs in Gaza, the Arabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are HAPPY CAMPERS just pee'd off over some real estate deal gone sour.
Implicit in your position J/O is we do not TRUST any Iraqi government to adhere to policies which are favored by the United States of America. Which is another way to say we are putting Iraq under our hegemony.
And we know or ought to know the only way to export hegemony from a Christian nation into a Muslim nation is by force of arms. Hmm? I thought we’d tried that already?
Come on home, J/O, and let the Middle East work out the Middle East problem. We cannot speak the language. We don't like the religion and we don't know anything about their culture. How can a blind man lead you safely out of a quicksand pit?
[edit on 9/17/2007 by donwhite]
Justin Oldham I am in agreement with those who say we need a long term presence in Iraq. I think we can do that with a reduced force that's in a more limited roll. Having a long-term presence in Iraq is an insurance policy. It's not a guarantee.
I assume you want our presence in Iraq for 2 reasons. 1) to block Iran, and 2) to prevent turning Iraq into a second Afghan before Tora Bora.
During the hearings someone quoted a reliable poll in Iraq that said 62% of Iraqi wanted us OUT of the country ASAP and 75% said they thought it was WORSE under the US OCCUPATION than before the fall of Saddam. Note the Iraqi are referring to the current US ‘footprint” as an occupation and not as a liberation. The Brits will be gone by the end of the year, and that leaves us alone in Iraq (with fighting forces). The Coalition never coalesced.
Far better it would be and much more realistic to engage the regions neighbors to resolve the MESS we created when we destroyed the delicate balance of power in the Middle East that existed prior to 1990. Which balance of power by the way survived the Cold War. But with the breakup of Yugoslavia we had more on our plate than we could handle and we still cannot bring ourselves to FACE the Israeli question. We go on pretending it does not exist. We act as if the Arabs in Gaza, the Arabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are HAPPY CAMPERS just pee'd off over some real estate deal gone sour.
Implicit in your position J/O is we do not TRUST any Iraqi government to adhere to policies which are favored by the United States of America. Which is another way to say we are putting Iraq under our hegemony.
And we know or ought to know the only way to export hegemony from a Christian nation into a Muslim nation is by force of arms. Hmm? I thought we’d tried that already?
Come on home, J/O, and let the Middle East work out the Middle East problem. We cannot speak the language. We don't like the religion and we don't know anything about their culture. How can a blind man lead you safely out of a quicksand pit?
[edit on 9/17/2007 by donwhite]
The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
Posted 3 days ago with 154 member flags
Posted 3 days ago with 154 member flags
The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
Posted 14 days ago with 139 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 139 member flags
Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
Posted 7 days ago with 85 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 85 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
2011 earthquakes WORLDWIDE plotted and animated (with sound intensity)
Fragile Earth, Posted 9 minutes ago
Fragile Earth, Posted 9 minutes ago
Former DEA Chief: 3 Other Federal Agencies Knew About Operation 'Fast and Furious
US Political Madness, Posted 16 minutes ago
US Political Madness, Posted 16 minutes ago
NASA Glenn-designed space hardware will test new communication technologies
Space Exploration, Posted 22 minutes ago
Space Exploration, Posted 22 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
The Scale of the Universe- Amazing, Controllable Flash Animation!
Fragile Earth, Posted 16 hours ago, 26 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 16 hours ago, 26 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 6 hours ago, 22 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 6 hours ago, 22 flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 20 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 20 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 10 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 10 hours ago, 19 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 13 hours ago, 15 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 13 hours ago, 15 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 9 hours ago, 13 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 9 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 13 hours ago, 118 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 13 hours ago, 118 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 9 hours ago, 74 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 9 hours ago, 74 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 12 hours ago, 68 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 12 hours ago, 68 replies
Second most devastating oil spill? Massive oil spill in Venezuela
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 52 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 52 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.892 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.892 seconds
