Gravitymaster 0 #126 February 9, 2004 Quote>At this point, I really don't care whether SH had WMDs or not. The rest of the world does. When you thousands of innocent people, and it turns out you were wrong about the reasons you did so, people often care. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." - Bush "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Rumsfeld >SH is gone and the world is a better and safer place because of the > actions of GWB. ??? Terrorist attacks are up. US government buildings are being attacked with chemical and biological weapons. Al Qaeda is more active now than they were a year ago. A US soldier a day is dying in Iraq. If that's your definition of better and safer, I pray they don't get any better or any safer. We don't have the soldiers to spare.Quote Terrorists attacks on Govt buildings? You have some proof this is linked to Al Qaeda and the war? I guess the number of Iraqis' who aren't dying because SH is gone isn't important? I guess the number of women who aren't being raped by SH and his thugs aren't important? Oh, sorry I forgot again. They're JUST Iraqis and they don't matter, huh? The fact that Libya has decided to give up their weapons isn't important either, I guess. The world isn't safer because of that? That PRNK has decided to engage in talks to get rid of their WMDs isn't important either? Yeah right. >If there were intel problems, we need to fix them and move on. Agreed there. We find out where the problem originated (or who it originated from) fix the problem or replace the person and move on. The problem may lie at the CIA or at a higher level. Time will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #127 February 9, 2004 QuoteFunny, you have a different standard for President Bush. You seem to be quite happy with believing him without proof. Funny thing is, he sent thousands of people to their graves. I am just having a discussion with you. Well if your not going to believe him, why should I belive you???? Besides you claim it as proof, but will not show any... He had some, and showed it to Congress....Congress agreed as well. UN agreed that SH had some. They showed what they had, and evryone said they thought it was true...some wanted more."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #128 February 9, 2004 And the buck stops.... on the desk in the Oval Office. Just remember YOU said this OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #127 February 9, 2004 QuoteFunny, you have a different standard for President Bush. You seem to be quite happy with believing him without proof. Funny thing is, he sent thousands of people to their graves. I am just having a discussion with you. Well if your not going to believe him, why should I belive you???? Besides you claim it as proof, but will not show any... He had some, and showed it to Congress....Congress agreed as well. UN agreed that SH had some. They showed what they had, and evryone said they thought it was true...some wanted more."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #128 February 9, 2004 And the buck stops.... on the desk in the Oval Office. Just remember YOU said this OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #129 February 9, 2004 QuoteSo what you're saying is that all that talk about the benefit of the doubt was just BS? I mean, you'd rather assume he's lying even though you can't prove it huh Ron? Well, you guys don't wait, why should I"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #130 February 9, 2004 >Terrorists attacks on Govt buildings? You have some proof this is > linked to Al Qaeda and the war? No, and I didn't claim they were. Just showing that your statement "the world is a better place because of the actions of GWB" isn't supportable. >I guess the number of Iraqis' who aren't dying because SH is gone > isn't important? No, but most people understand that killing someone is worse than allowing someone else to kill someone. Try shooting a cop who you think just might beat someone to death and see what sort of a reaction you get. >I guess the number of women who aren't being raped by SH and his >thugs aren't important? What? No mention of the children abused by that horrible guy, who we liberated from that awful prison? (turns out it was an orphanage, but don't let facts get in the way of a righteous rant.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #131 February 9, 2004 QuoteWell if your not going to believe him, why should I belive you???? Ahh, so really your standards change depending on the person and their beliefs. Sort of like: If a republican says it....good, if a democrat says it....bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #132 February 9, 2004 If the intelligence was so strong (although maybe wrong) even during the Clinton years, and the people who ended up orchestrating Bush's foreign policy machine were all about this in the beginning, why didn't they make moves to do this immediately after Bush got into office? Even better still, why didn't he campaign on it? But he told us he'd conduct a "humble" foreign policy. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #133 February 9, 2004 No, if you are not willing to provide proof why should I listen? You are the ones trying to hang bush without a trial. Im done here.. you will not wait for proof before trying to get a firing squad."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #134 February 9, 2004 QuoteIf the intelligence was so strong (although maybe wrong) even during the Clinton years, and the people who ended up orchestrating Bush's foreign policy machine were all about this in the beginning, why didn't they make moves to do this immediately after Bush got into office? Even better still, why didn't he campaign on it? Maybe Clinton didn't have a spine, and Bush wanted to wait as long as he could to see if it was right? QuoteBut he told us he'd conduct a "humble" foreign policy. Things change. Im done here, have fun with your lynch squad"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #135 February 9, 2004 I'd be quite happy to have a trial, as long a Bush doesn't get to hand pick the judge(s) and jury and his prosecutor. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #136 February 9, 2004 > "the media" is controlled by the left wing. < You believe that too?------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #137 February 9, 2004 QuoteNo, if you are not willing to provide proof why should I listen? You are the ones trying to hang bush without a trial. Im done here.. you will not wait for proof before trying to get a firing squad. How about an inquiry that is TRULY independent. One that Bush is not willing to allow.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #138 February 9, 2004 Quote>Terrorists attacks on Govt buildings? You have some proof this is > linked to Al Qaeda and the war? No, and I didn't claim they were. Just showing that your statement "the world is a better place because of the actions of GWB" isn't supportable.Quote Uh.. huh, yeah right. No actually you are backpeddling from your initial statement. I think anyone who reads it would come to the same conclusion of what you were trying to say as I did. >I guess the number of Iraqis' who aren't dying because SH is gone > isn't important? No, but most people understand that killing someone is worse than allowing someone else to kill someone. Try shooting a cop who you think just might beat someone to death and see what sort of a reaction you get.Quote Do you see the irony in this statement? >I guess the number of women who aren't being raped by SH and his >thugs aren't important? QuoteWhat? No mention of the children abused by that horrible guy, who we liberated from that awful prison? (turns out it was an orphanage, but don't let facts get in the way of a righteous rant.) How is not mentioning something I wasn't aware of hiding the facts? Kinda like GWB having bad intel and then being accused of lying? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #139 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteFunny, you have a different standard for President Bush. You seem to be quite happy with believing him without proof. Funny thing is, he sent thousands of people to their graves. I am just having a discussion with you. Well if your not going to believe him, why should I belive you???? Besides you claim it as proof, but will not show any... He had some, and showed it to Congress....Congress agreed as well. UN agreed that SH had some. They showed what they had, and evryone said they thought it was true...some wanted more. Ever hear about "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? How do you know they showed what they had? Congress agreed to the war based on what the administration chose to show. We have no idea if there was conflicting intel. The CIA, NSA, XYZ and others all report to the President. Hans Blix, who you guys castigated back a year ago for incompetence, turns out to have been right all along, yet Powell did his best to discredit him at the UN with what turned out to be totally bogus stuff. And we KNOW for a FACT that the CIA opposed putting the sentence about uranium from Africa in the State of the Union speech, and was overruled by the White House.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #140 February 9, 2004 QuoteAgain lefty..PROVE that he sent them for adventurism and greed. You can't. You just like saying it. Hmmm You love throwing that lefty label around.. thats good.. anyone to the left of the CCC and KKK to you Ultra Rightie guys are Lefty liberals Seems I am in good company with MOST of the country. Quotewhy don't you take this same tone with Bush then...It was that way back then???? Its called a double standard, and lady..you are full of them Because all of the anal retentive types are queing up in droves to say he served this country when all he did was serve himself.... and didnt bother to show up most of the time. http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam 7. Just didn't show up for a year -- with no punishment. National Guard records and Bush's own supervisor's and friends show no sign of him attending any drills or performing any service for nearly a year, from May 1972 until May 1973. This period began with Bush moving to Alabama for a political campaign. He later applied to transfer to a base that had no work; the transfer was first approved, then cancelled. Bush did nothing for several months; then in September he applied to transfer to Alabama's 187th Tactical Recon group for 3 months. This was approved, but the unit's commander, General William Turnipseed, and his then admnistrative officer, Kenneth Lott, have both said that Bush never showed up. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," said Turnipseed. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." Bush claims that he did some work in Alabama, but can't remember any details. “I can’t remember what I did,” he said. “I just—I fulfilled my obligation." Despite 2 years of searching through hundreds of records, his campaign has been unable to find any record of Bush's service there, nor could they find a single fellow serviceman who remembers his presence. The best they could produce was an ex-girlfriend from Alabama -- Emily Marks --who said George told her he would have to do some Guard duty later that year (1972) in Montgomery. But all that confirms is that he knew of his obligation. In December 1972, Bush returned to Houston and was scheduled to resume duty there. But in May 1973, Bush's supervising pilots wrote in his annual efficiency report: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report" (i.e. through April 30, 1972). Bush described one of the supervisors, the late Col. Jerry Killian, as a personal friend, so it's likely he would have noticed Bush and given him the benefit of the doubt. Later that month, two special orders commanded Bush to appear for active duty. He served 36 days of active duty during May, June and July before leaving the Guard early. Amazingly, Bush was not disciplined in any way for his absence, and received an honorable discharge. Under Air National Guard rules at that time, guardsmen who missed duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted into the Army as draftees. QuoteFor your info, I got a BJ Saturday. But I didn't lie about it under oath Hmm ok MR PROOF.. wheres the VIDEO.. otherwise it didn't happen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #141 February 9, 2004 QuoteYou still don't have his intel...you might be smarter...But if you have bad info...you will make bad choices. GIGO. You only know what the administration tells you. We already know that they had intel contradicting the uranium story, but chose not to disclose that. Instead, they put the uranium lie into the SOTU address 2003. And then there's this record deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gjhdiver 0 #142 February 9, 2004 The words "Bush" and "intelligence" should not appear in the same sentence. Like "teeth" and "penis". The man is too dumb to eat a pretzel, and that really tells me all I need to know about him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #143 February 9, 2004 You want to know about hiding the facts? Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 6 Yet Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was sent to Niger in February 2002 to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there, concluded that "intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." 7 A CIA report in February 2003 said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [1998] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs." 8 The respected Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently found that the administration "systematically misrepresented the threat" from Iraq. 9 The basis for President Bush's African uranium claim was known at the time to be forged and not credible.10 "Top White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation," according to the Washington Post.11 Secretary of State Colin Powell became alarmed at the level of intelligence distortion. When he read the first draft of his speech to the UN -- prepared for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- he was so upset that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullsh--."12 References: 6. Official White House transcript, January 28, 2003 7. Joseph Wilson Op-Ed, New York Times, July 6, 2003 Note: Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had her CIA cover blown, possibly by the White House, in apparent retaliation for Wilson's contradicting the White House's line on WMDs. 8. MSNBC News, Oct. 24, 2003 9. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", January, 2004 10. New York Times, July 8, 2003 11. Washington Post News Service, July 23, 2003 12. US News & World Report, June 9, 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #144 February 9, 2004 > No actually you are backpeddling from your initial statement. I stand by what I said, not your interpretation of what I said. >Do you see the irony in this statement? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #145 February 9, 2004 As the thread has started to drift, I wanted to get back to the original post and mention that I think it's a good thing that our administration is beginning to admit its mistakes. That's the only way we can avoid making them in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #146 February 9, 2004 QuoteAs the thread has started to drift, I wanted to get back to the original post and mention that I think it's a good thing that our administration is beginning to admit its mistakes. That's the only way we can avoid making them in the future. Ahh, but I think the reason the thread drifted so much is that the administration is admitting that there may have been mistakes, but not that they were in any way responsible for them. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #147 February 9, 2004 You could have stopped after the first sentence. Quote"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #148 February 9, 2004 >Ahh, but I think the reason the thread drifted so much is that the > administration is admitting that there may have been mistakes, but > not that they were in any way responsible for them. Well, it's a start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #149 February 9, 2004 Quotebut not that they were in any way responsible for them. How many countries and US administrations believed that Saddam had WMDs? (Hint: Bush's wasn't the only administration and the US wasn't the only country.) You just want Bush to take responsibility for the mistake right? You're not interested in finding the truth and fixing it, just pointing the finger at Bush. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #150 February 9, 2004 QuoteHow many countries and US administrations believed that Saddam had WMDs? How many countries and US administrations took their nations to war while relying on said beliefs while insinuating that it was part of a war on terror and that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger"? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,150 #139 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteFunny, you have a different standard for President Bush. You seem to be quite happy with believing him without proof. Funny thing is, he sent thousands of people to their graves. I am just having a discussion with you. Well if your not going to believe him, why should I belive you???? Besides you claim it as proof, but will not show any... He had some, and showed it to Congress....Congress agreed as well. UN agreed that SH had some. They showed what they had, and evryone said they thought it was true...some wanted more. Ever hear about "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? How do you know they showed what they had? Congress agreed to the war based on what the administration chose to show. We have no idea if there was conflicting intel. The CIA, NSA, XYZ and others all report to the President. Hans Blix, who you guys castigated back a year ago for incompetence, turns out to have been right all along, yet Powell did his best to discredit him at the UN with what turned out to be totally bogus stuff. And we KNOW for a FACT that the CIA opposed putting the sentence about uranium from Africa in the State of the Union speech, and was overruled by the White House.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #140 February 9, 2004 QuoteAgain lefty..PROVE that he sent them for adventurism and greed. You can't. You just like saying it. Hmmm You love throwing that lefty label around.. thats good.. anyone to the left of the CCC and KKK to you Ultra Rightie guys are Lefty liberals Seems I am in good company with MOST of the country. Quotewhy don't you take this same tone with Bush then...It was that way back then???? Its called a double standard, and lady..you are full of them Because all of the anal retentive types are queing up in droves to say he served this country when all he did was serve himself.... and didnt bother to show up most of the time. http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam 7. Just didn't show up for a year -- with no punishment. National Guard records and Bush's own supervisor's and friends show no sign of him attending any drills or performing any service for nearly a year, from May 1972 until May 1973. This period began with Bush moving to Alabama for a political campaign. He later applied to transfer to a base that had no work; the transfer was first approved, then cancelled. Bush did nothing for several months; then in September he applied to transfer to Alabama's 187th Tactical Recon group for 3 months. This was approved, but the unit's commander, General William Turnipseed, and his then admnistrative officer, Kenneth Lott, have both said that Bush never showed up. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," said Turnipseed. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." Bush claims that he did some work in Alabama, but can't remember any details. “I can’t remember what I did,” he said. “I just—I fulfilled my obligation." Despite 2 years of searching through hundreds of records, his campaign has been unable to find any record of Bush's service there, nor could they find a single fellow serviceman who remembers his presence. The best they could produce was an ex-girlfriend from Alabama -- Emily Marks --who said George told her he would have to do some Guard duty later that year (1972) in Montgomery. But all that confirms is that he knew of his obligation. In December 1972, Bush returned to Houston and was scheduled to resume duty there. But in May 1973, Bush's supervising pilots wrote in his annual efficiency report: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report" (i.e. through April 30, 1972). Bush described one of the supervisors, the late Col. Jerry Killian, as a personal friend, so it's likely he would have noticed Bush and given him the benefit of the doubt. Later that month, two special orders commanded Bush to appear for active duty. He served 36 days of active duty during May, June and July before leaving the Guard early. Amazingly, Bush was not disciplined in any way for his absence, and received an honorable discharge. Under Air National Guard rules at that time, guardsmen who missed duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted into the Army as draftees. QuoteFor your info, I got a BJ Saturday. But I didn't lie about it under oath Hmm ok MR PROOF.. wheres the VIDEO.. otherwise it didn't happen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #141 February 9, 2004 QuoteYou still don't have his intel...you might be smarter...But if you have bad info...you will make bad choices. GIGO. You only know what the administration tells you. We already know that they had intel contradicting the uranium story, but chose not to disclose that. Instead, they put the uranium lie into the SOTU address 2003. And then there's this record deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #142 February 9, 2004 The words "Bush" and "intelligence" should not appear in the same sentence. Like "teeth" and "penis". The man is too dumb to eat a pretzel, and that really tells me all I need to know about him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #143 February 9, 2004 You want to know about hiding the facts? Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 6 Yet Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was sent to Niger in February 2002 to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there, concluded that "intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." 7 A CIA report in February 2003 said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [1998] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs." 8 The respected Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently found that the administration "systematically misrepresented the threat" from Iraq. 9 The basis for President Bush's African uranium claim was known at the time to be forged and not credible.10 "Top White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation," according to the Washington Post.11 Secretary of State Colin Powell became alarmed at the level of intelligence distortion. When he read the first draft of his speech to the UN -- prepared for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- he was so upset that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullsh--."12 References: 6. Official White House transcript, January 28, 2003 7. Joseph Wilson Op-Ed, New York Times, July 6, 2003 Note: Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had her CIA cover blown, possibly by the White House, in apparent retaliation for Wilson's contradicting the White House's line on WMDs. 8. MSNBC News, Oct. 24, 2003 9. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", January, 2004 10. New York Times, July 8, 2003 11. Washington Post News Service, July 23, 2003 12. US News & World Report, June 9, 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #144 February 9, 2004 > No actually you are backpeddling from your initial statement. I stand by what I said, not your interpretation of what I said. >Do you see the irony in this statement? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #145 February 9, 2004 As the thread has started to drift, I wanted to get back to the original post and mention that I think it's a good thing that our administration is beginning to admit its mistakes. That's the only way we can avoid making them in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #146 February 9, 2004 QuoteAs the thread has started to drift, I wanted to get back to the original post and mention that I think it's a good thing that our administration is beginning to admit its mistakes. That's the only way we can avoid making them in the future. Ahh, but I think the reason the thread drifted so much is that the administration is admitting that there may have been mistakes, but not that they were in any way responsible for them. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #147 February 9, 2004 You could have stopped after the first sentence. Quote"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #148 February 9, 2004 >Ahh, but I think the reason the thread drifted so much is that the > administration is admitting that there may have been mistakes, but > not that they were in any way responsible for them. Well, it's a start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #149 February 9, 2004 Quotebut not that they were in any way responsible for them. How many countries and US administrations believed that Saddam had WMDs? (Hint: Bush's wasn't the only administration and the US wasn't the only country.) You just want Bush to take responsibility for the mistake right? You're not interested in finding the truth and fixing it, just pointing the finger at Bush. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #150 February 9, 2004 QuoteHow many countries and US administrations believed that Saddam had WMDs? How many countries and US administrations took their nations to war while relying on said beliefs while insinuating that it was part of a war on terror and that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger"? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
