Bush Signs Law
""It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."
link too large, see Yahoo news
Is THIS my country?
Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
Last edited by Yaya on Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
For those who'ere interested, here's the full article:
WASHINGTON - Some of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after
President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
Imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and awaiting trial are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between
Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
Note from Smooth: What about the people responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 people in Iraq? Since Iraq's army has had nothing to do with the conflict, that's in excess of 600,000 civillians. Where's the justice for them?
The
Pentagon expects to begin pre-trial motions early next year and to begin the actual trials in the summer.
The Supreme Court ruled in June that trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law, so Bush urged Congress to change the law during a speech on Sept. 6 in the White House East Room attended by families of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims. He also insisted that the law authorize
CIA agents to use tough — yet unspecified — methods to interrogate suspected terrorists.
Six weeks later, after a highly publicized dispute with key Republicans over the terms of the bill, Bush signed the new law "in memory of the victims of September the 11th."
"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The
American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in
Iraq. It does apply to 14 suspects who were secretly questioned by the CIA overseas and recently moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy, and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican chances of hanging onto control of Congress.
Bush has been criticizing Democrats who voted against the law, called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, during campaign appearances around the country. He has suggested that votes against the law show that Democrats would not protect the country from another terrorist attack.
Republican House leaders, in a tough battle to maintain their majority, echoed those criticisms Tuesday in an attempt to get some political points out of the legislation they supported. "The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives," House Speaker
Dennis Hastert said.
Note from Smooth: Dennis Hastert was recently discovered to have known, for at least a year, about a fellow Republican lawmaker, Mark Foley, sending sexually explicit e-mails to 15 year-olds working under him. He kept quiet about this and allowed it to continue for, what may have been several years. When this came out he refused to resign. He was supported in this decision by President Bush.
Bush noted that the law came amid dispute.
"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"
A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.
The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. Bush said such measures have helped the CIA gain vital information from terror suspects and have saved American lives.
After Bush signed the law, CIA Director Mike Hayden sent a note to employees saying it gives them "the legal clarity and legislative support necessary to continue a program that has been one of our country's most effective tools in the fight against terrorism."
"We can be confident that our program remains — as it always has been — fully compliant with U.S. law, the Constitution and our international treaty obligations," Hayden wrote.
Note from Smooth: Do they think we're retarded? Obvious answer: YES! President Bush just, very publically, CHANGING the law so that these kinds of things (torture, etc) would be completely legal. It's already come out that this kind of thing has ALREADY been happening. So no, Director Hayden, your program HAS NOT BEEN "fully compliant with US law."
The White House has said that disclosing the techniques that are used would give the enemy information to resist those techniques. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation of the standards, but those documents are not usually made public.
Snow rejected the idea that Americans should be able to see and judge the standards for themselves, particularly in the aftermath of illegal abuses at the
Abu Ghraib prison.
Note from Smooth: This is really more of a translation. Ahem: Remember how pissed off you were when you found out we were treating these prisoners, who had not had a trial, been convicted or charged with anything, or even been told why they're there like animals? You know, making them lie in naked piles? The torture and abuse stuff? Remember that? Yeah, we don't think you should see any of that again. Oh, I mean, it's still going to happen, but you're not going to be allowed to see it.
"The only way accountability doesn't exist is if you believe that the military is not committed to it," Snow said.
Any doubts I had about leaving the US have been COMPLETELY erased by this sentence. Goodbye, America. Goodbye and **** you!
WASHINGTON - Some of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after
President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
Imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and awaiting trial are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between
Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
Note from Smooth: What about the people responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 people in Iraq? Since Iraq's army has had nothing to do with the conflict, that's in excess of 600,000 civillians. Where's the justice for them?
The
Pentagon expects to begin pre-trial motions early next year and to begin the actual trials in the summer.
The Supreme Court ruled in June that trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law, so Bush urged Congress to change the law during a speech on Sept. 6 in the White House East Room attended by families of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims. He also insisted that the law authorize
CIA agents to use tough — yet unspecified — methods to interrogate suspected terrorists.
Six weeks later, after a highly publicized dispute with key Republicans over the terms of the bill, Bush signed the new law "in memory of the victims of September the 11th."
"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The
American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in
Iraq. It does apply to 14 suspects who were secretly questioned by the CIA overseas and recently moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy, and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican chances of hanging onto control of Congress.
Bush has been criticizing Democrats who voted against the law, called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, during campaign appearances around the country. He has suggested that votes against the law show that Democrats would not protect the country from another terrorist attack.
Republican House leaders, in a tough battle to maintain their majority, echoed those criticisms Tuesday in an attempt to get some political points out of the legislation they supported. "The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives," House Speaker
Dennis Hastert said.
Note from Smooth: Dennis Hastert was recently discovered to have known, for at least a year, about a fellow Republican lawmaker, Mark Foley, sending sexually explicit e-mails to 15 year-olds working under him. He kept quiet about this and allowed it to continue for, what may have been several years. When this came out he refused to resign. He was supported in this decision by President Bush.
Bush noted that the law came amid dispute.
"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"
A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.
The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. Bush said such measures have helped the CIA gain vital information from terror suspects and have saved American lives.
After Bush signed the law, CIA Director Mike Hayden sent a note to employees saying it gives them "the legal clarity and legislative support necessary to continue a program that has been one of our country's most effective tools in the fight against terrorism."
"We can be confident that our program remains — as it always has been — fully compliant with U.S. law, the Constitution and our international treaty obligations," Hayden wrote.
Note from Smooth: Do they think we're retarded? Obvious answer: YES! President Bush just, very publically, CHANGING the law so that these kinds of things (torture, etc) would be completely legal. It's already come out that this kind of thing has ALREADY been happening. So no, Director Hayden, your program HAS NOT BEEN "fully compliant with US law."
The White House has said that disclosing the techniques that are used would give the enemy information to resist those techniques. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation of the standards, but those documents are not usually made public.
Snow rejected the idea that Americans should be able to see and judge the standards for themselves, particularly in the aftermath of illegal abuses at the
Abu Ghraib prison.
Note from Smooth: This is really more of a translation. Ahem: Remember how pissed off you were when you found out we were treating these prisoners, who had not had a trial, been convicted or charged with anything, or even been told why they're there like animals? You know, making them lie in naked piles? The torture and abuse stuff? Remember that? Yeah, we don't think you should see any of that again. Oh, I mean, it's still going to happen, but you're not going to be allowed to see it.
"The only way accountability doesn't exist is if you believe that the military is not committed to it," Snow said.
Any doubts I had about leaving the US have been COMPLETELY erased by this sentence. Goodbye, America. Goodbye and **** you!
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
You know what makes this kind of thing so scary to ordinary people? It's not that we're all conspiring with terrorists. It's not that we hope to someday be involved with a terrorist organization and this could prevent us. No. It's the fact that the US government is so mind-numbingly incompetant that we believe that we just might find ourselves in a situation where we're snatched off the street and tortured for months without ever knowing why. This is what the justice system is for. You stand accused of something. If it turns out that you didn't do it, there's a pretty good chance you won't be punished for it. Without due process, though, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you are in a world a **** for a very long time.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
You hit it right on the head. It is a very scary thought. I can't believe this is happening to our United States.Professor Smooth wrote: It's the fact that the US government is so mind-numbingly incompetant that we believe that we just might find ourselves in a situation where we're snatched off the street and tortured for months without ever knowing why. .
Think about the many ways those corrupt politicians in power could use such an act. Just label someone a terrorist, or worse yet, frame them. Then wipe your hands clean as your enemies are sent to Guantanemo for years for torture and eventual death without the chance to clear their name.
Just look at the things set in motion. The Patriot Act came first. Any citizen has the right to accuse any other citizen of anything. And by extension now with this act, would the accused even have a right to defend themselves in a court of law?
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
The "set-up" thing is terrible, but I'm not all that worried about it. What I AM concerned about is the scenario where I'm walking back from the pub at 2 am and getting snatched off the street because I fit the description some intelligence agency had about a potential threat. Seems someone around 6 foot 3, with long hair and wearing a dark jacket was seen talking to some people being watched. Guess what? I fit that description. Now, in a court of law, I would probably walk. But since there IS no court of law, I'm screwed. Corruption is scary, but I'm worried about good ol' fashion stupidity.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
True. Guess I'd be first on the chopping block though, given I'm Muslim.Professor Smooth wrote:The "set-up" thing is terrible, but I'm not all that worried about it. What I AM concerned about is the scenario where I'm walking back from the pub at 2 am and getting snatched off the street because I fit the description some intelligence agency had about a potential threat. Seems someone around 6 foot 3, with long hair and wearing a dark jacket was seen talking to some people being watched. Guess what? I fit that description. Now, in a court of law, I would probably walk. But since there IS no court of law, I'm screwed. Corruption is scary, but I'm worried about good ol' fashion stupidity.
Yaya: "Allahu Akbar!"
FBI: "Hey! Terrorists say that! Lock em up boys."
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Best First
- King of the, er, Kingdom.
- Posts:9750
- Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location:Manchester, UK
- Contact:
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
what I always find strange is that these laws dont come about because Bush says so, they take lots off ppl to invent them, move them to the lobby, pass them through etc before Bush gets to sign them off.
I find it strange thier are so many ***** in power. what do they gain by these laws? essentially they effect themselves by passing the laws.
I find it strange thier are so many ***** in power. what do they gain by these laws? essentially they effect themselves by passing the laws.
-
Best First
- King of the, er, Kingdom.
- Posts:9750
- Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location:Manchester, UK
- Contact:
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
It's gotten through our legislative bodies, but it'll be challenged by civil liberty lawyers in the courts on constitutional grounds.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
Those lawyers obviously hate freedom because they're against this law that takes it away! Don't you see that only by the elimination of freedoms do you show the world how strongly you value it?Shanti418 wrote:It's gotten through our legislative bodies, but it'll be challenged by civil liberty lawyers in the courts on constitutional grounds.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
To me, one of two things is most likely to happen.
One, things get better. Not just talking about stopping the reduction of civil liberties in the name of security. Talking about our whole foriegn/economic/social policies in general. And if things ARE going to get better, it's going to require people like myself to fight for that change. You've read Zinn's History of the US, right? If not, excellent book, and mucho informative. Anyway, virtually all rights citizens and workers have here (like in many other countries) outside of the Bill of Rights has been fought for and bled for. The power elite didn't just say, "Hey, here you go. Here's women's suffrage. Here's a weekend and a 40 hour work week." Even these small pittances had to be wrested from the hands who protect the status quo and the interests of the moneyed. So, no matter how bleak it is, I'd like to be here to help things get better.
Because, no matter where you go Smooth, you're still an American. You can renounce your citizenship, but no one can take away your formative childhood here. No one can take away your belief that everyone SHOULD have rights, and that power shouldn't be concentrated in a few. No on can take away your experinces of living in a fancy dancy society that allowed you to blow money on things like Transformers. Like they said on South Park, "America may suck, but it's your home team."
Two, things get a whole lot worse, which is saying a lot, because outside of some sort of SERIOUS war, things have gotten pretty bad. If we DO collapse into some dystopian weird xenophobic nationalistic state a la 1984 (or more likley Brave New World), then I too would like to stick around for that, if for nothing else to go, "Wow, that's sooo ****** up!"
That's not saying that I'm not serious when I hump on BF's leg asking for political asylum. That's just saying I would plan to return someday regardless.
One, things get better. Not just talking about stopping the reduction of civil liberties in the name of security. Talking about our whole foriegn/economic/social policies in general. And if things ARE going to get better, it's going to require people like myself to fight for that change. You've read Zinn's History of the US, right? If not, excellent book, and mucho informative. Anyway, virtually all rights citizens and workers have here (like in many other countries) outside of the Bill of Rights has been fought for and bled for. The power elite didn't just say, "Hey, here you go. Here's women's suffrage. Here's a weekend and a 40 hour work week." Even these small pittances had to be wrested from the hands who protect the status quo and the interests of the moneyed. So, no matter how bleak it is, I'd like to be here to help things get better.
Because, no matter where you go Smooth, you're still an American. You can renounce your citizenship, but no one can take away your formative childhood here. No one can take away your belief that everyone SHOULD have rights, and that power shouldn't be concentrated in a few. No on can take away your experinces of living in a fancy dancy society that allowed you to blow money on things like Transformers. Like they said on South Park, "America may suck, but it's your home team."
Two, things get a whole lot worse, which is saying a lot, because outside of some sort of SERIOUS war, things have gotten pretty bad. If we DO collapse into some dystopian weird xenophobic nationalistic state a la 1984 (or more likley Brave New World), then I too would like to stick around for that, if for nothing else to go, "Wow, that's sooo ****** up!"
That's not saying that I'm not serious when I hump on BF's leg asking for political asylum. That's just saying I would plan to return someday regardless.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
Here is the link for that study from Lancet Oct 2006:Professor Smooth wrote: Note from Smooth: What about the people responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 people in Iraq? Since Iraq's army has had nothing to do with the conflict, that's in excess of 600,000 civillians.
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/image ... 694919.pdf
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Guest
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
This is the terrifying new world we live in.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:I dont know whats scarier:Smooth and Yaya getting along, or the fact that I am inclined to agree with both of them.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
Now's probably the wrong time to reveal that my girlfriend is Muslim...sprunkner wrote:You know what they saw about politics and bedfellows... which brings to mind all sorts of very disconcerting images of Smooth and Yaya.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:I dont know whats scarier:Smooth and Yaya getting along, or the fact that I am inclined to agree with both of them.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
Professor Smooth wrote:Now's probably the wrong time to reveal that my girlfriend is Yaya...sprunkner wrote:You know what they saw about politics and bedfellows... which brings to mind all sorts of very disconcerting images of Smooth and Yaya.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:I dont know whats scarier:Smooth and Yaya getting along, or the fact that I am inclined to agree with both of them.
Shanti418 wrote:
Whoa. You know they're going to make Panthro play bass.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Well then, it's certainly the wrong time to reveal that my boyfriend is Jesus.Professor Smooth wrote:Now's probably the wrong time to reveal that my girlfriend is Muslim...sprunkner wrote:You know what they saw about politics and bedfellows... which brings to mind all sorts of very disconcerting images of Smooth and Yaya.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:I dont know whats scarier:Smooth and Yaya getting along, or the fact that I am inclined to agree with both of them.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
Really? That was her last boyfriend's name.Shanti418 wrote:Well then, it's certainly the wrong time to reveal that my boyfriend is Jesus.Professor Smooth wrote:Now's probably the wrong time to reveal that my girlfriend is Muslim...sprunkner wrote: You know what they saw about politics and bedfellows... which brings to mind all sorts of very disconcerting images of Smooth and Yaya.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Aaron Hong
- Me king!
- Posts:1269
- Joined:Fri Jan 11, 2002 12:00 am
- ::No pity for fools
- Location:...No let ME fold the map GAAH
Apparently you can flee America, but you can't flee Transfans...Optimus Prime Rib wrote:Professor Smooth wrote:Now's probably the wrong time to reveal that my girlfriend is Yaya...sprunkner wrote:You know what they saw about politics and bedfellows... which brings to mind all sorts of very disconcerting images of Smooth and Yaya.
Last edited by Aaron Hong on Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
