If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Russia, on Georgia withdrawl: "If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there"   (cnn.com) divider line 333
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

7441 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2008 at 5:04 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



333 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-08-18 01:44:45 AM
Some amazing photos of the conflict.

http://russia-georgia-war.homevidx.com/
 
2008-08-18 02:09:37 AM
The difference being that Russian troops are basically stealing everything they can get their hands on - at gunpoint - and Georgia is not full of insane terrorists. The comparison doesn't even come close to being accurate.
 
2008-08-18 02:27:47 AM
inebriated brain: Who else went in with Russia? Very unilateral huh? How many nations continue to prop Iraq to be its own soverign nation?

Yeah, they didn't have the amazing coalition of the Willing®, which consisted of:

* The UK
* Australia
* Micronesia
* Nanonesia
* Piconesia
* Femtonesia
* Wherethefarkisitland
* Tokennationland
 
2008-08-18 02:30:52 AM
inebriated brain: Funny how people forget that. Same people claim that WMD is the only reason why we went in the first place.

What was the other reason? Régime change? The very thing Gov. Bush said he was opposed to during the 2000 elections.

But anyway -- WMD was the only reason put forth by Powell at the UN.
 
2008-08-18 02:53:02 AM
I preffer The Coalition of The Illin':

upload.wikimedia.org
www.moviecritic.com.au

img127.exs.cx

images.clubzone.com
 
2008-08-18 03:37:30 AM
inebriated brain:

I must be some kind of idiot. >:/


i wont argue that.
 
2008-08-18 03:41:09 AM

The media has at least brought up (thanks to a DNC press release touting it, I'd wager) the relationship between John McCain and Randy Scheunemann.  The most thorough reporting I have found on the subject comes from the TPMMuckraker Blog (excerpted here):


(L)et's take a look at what Scheuneman was actually doing in that role -- which helped earn his firm nearly $900,000 since 2004. Lobbying for a foreign government is a vaguely defined task that involves cultivating contacts, trying to shape perception and influence key decisions. For Georgia, the goal was clear -- to get on track for NATO membership and secure western backing against Russian influence and aggression.

Schuenemann's dual role of paid foreign agent (as recently as March) and key adviser to a presidential candidate is unusual, especially since McCain has not indicated that Scheunemann will recuse himself from Georgia issues.


That conflict of interest is underscored by McCain's aggressive effort to influence the situation in Georgia over the past week. McCain appears to be conducting his own foriegn policy independent of the White House. The candidate is sending Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to travel to Georgia, though it is not clear how their visit will comport with the State Department's own efforts to manage the situation.


"John McCain is heavily politicizing this process. That is weird when one of the participants in the process is a guy who has taken $900,000 from the Georgia government," said Steve Clemons, director of the foreign policy program at the New America Foundation. "It stinks."


As a paid foreign agent, Scheunemann and his lobbying firm, Orion Strategies, filed disclosure reports with the Department of Justice, which offer some insight into the process of exercising influence in Washington.


[...]


In addition to peddling his access to Washington power brokers to Georgia officials, Scheunemann also appears to have peddled his access to Georgia officials to energy investors. Scheunemann worked with Stephen Payne, the Houston-based energy consultant who was caught on video offering access to top Bush Administration officials in exchange for big donations to the future George W. Bush library fund. One of Payne's groups touts Scheuneman's ties with Georgia as a way to forge deals with the Georgia state-run oil company.


Scheunemann has tried to distance himself from Georgia as McCain's campaign has geared up this year. He de-registered as a foreign agent in March. But he still owns his firm. And that firm signed a new $200,000 contract with Georgia on the same day McCain called Saakashvili and then issued a public statement in support of Georgia. A McCain aide denied there was any connection.


"For a country like Georgia, what they are trying to do essentially is get meetings, to get noticed, to further their goals. What Randy Scheunemann was essentially trying to do is build relationships between key decision makers in the White House and in Congress, to sell the notion that this is a vital democracy," said Clemons of the New America Foundation.


"What Randy Scheunemann achieved was an effort to kind of put Georgia and the ideological meaning of hugging this young democracy over the geostrategic reality of managing vital American interests," Clemons said.


TPMMuckraker


The way that McCain has reacted to this is at best that of a ruthless and desperate vulture circling a nearly-dead antelope and at worst as someone who possibly had a hand in orchestrating the whole affair.



At 9 a.m. on Aug. 11, McCain's campaign put out an urgent call for reporters to come to a hotel conference room for a statement.


"World history is often made in remote obscure countries," McCain said. "It is being made in Georgia today. It's the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people."


When a reporter yelled a question, the McCain of the past would have jumped in with an answer.


But this time, McCain simply said: "This is the total of my recommendations for right now."


And so it went throughout a tightly controlled week.


McCain, who used to be known for veering off into whatever topic crossed his mind, stayed disciplined instead. It seemed like all Georgia all of the time, even if the setting didn't appear quite right.


At a rally in York, Pa., his Straight Talk Express bus wowed the audience by pulling onto the arena floor to drop off the candidate.


McCain threw in some jokes: "You know, Harry Truman once said if you want a friend in Washington, go out and buy a dog." But then he quickly told the crowd it was time to get serious.


"As you know, over the past several days we've seen that international aggression is, tragically, not a thing of the past," McCain told the audience. "We thought we put a lot of that behind us at the end of the 20th century. But now it's rearing its ugly head in the 21st ... [in] the small of nation of Georgia."


Everywhere he went, McCain stressed his knowledge of Georgia. He's been there, he said - and he knows President Mikhail Saakashvili well. In fact, McCain told the crowd in Pennsylvania that he had just been on the phone with the Georgian leader.


"And he wanted me to say thank you to you," McCain said. "To give you his heartfelt thanks for the support of the American people for this tiny little democracy, far away from the United States of America."


As McCain pounded his message home, questions started to pop up. McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, it turns out, was a lobbyist working for the nation of Georgia until this year. He's one reason McCain has had that contact with the Georgians, including Saakashvili, over the past several years.


Scheunemann briefed reporters on the plight of Georgia on McCain's campaign plane. Reporters were even given maps showing red lines that represented Russian military operations.


[...]


McCain said he did not think that the politics of the presidential race should intrude on America's response to the Russian invasion. But he quickly added that he hopes voters will judge how he and Obama each responded to the situation in Georgia, when they choose the next commander in chief.


NPR's 'All Thing's Considered'


If that's not enough, read what Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said in a letter published in the Washington Post:



This war threatens not only Georgia but security and liberty around the world. If the international community fails to take a resolute stand, it will have sounded the death knell for the spread of freedom and democracy everywhere.


[...]


I have staked my country's fate on the West's rhetoric about democracy and liberty. As Georgians come under attack, we must ask: If the West is not with us, who is it with? If the line is not drawn now, when will it be drawn? We cannot allow Georgia to become the first victim of a new world order as imagined by Moscow.


Does this not read like the words of a scorned woman?  It's almost as if Saakashvili had a reason to expect a greater response from the West.  Given that much of our military is off in the Middle East what-EVER could have given him the idea that we had Georgia's back?


During all of this, doesn't it seem that McCain - merely a candidate for president - is acting like a president?  And no, I don't mean acting presidential, but I mean essentially dictating foreign policy when he does not as of yet hve the authority to do so?


He even uttered words designed to mimic that of President John Kennedy who was also dealing with the European Bloc and a real Cold War when he famously said, "Today We Are All Georgians" (YouTube link).


My favorite response that I found to this statement comes from OpEdNews, and it really addresses all of the points I wonder if the mainstream media and Democrats will ever really explore:



John McCain has attempted to make me, along with all Americans, party to human rights abuse.  His declaration of our Georgian citizenship involves us with a foreign government accused by human rights groups of abuse towards their citizens in recent years, one which has now involved our country in a most questionable war.  No, thank you Mr. McCain.  I am an American citizen.  I am the decider when it comes to which causes I embrace.  In order to accept your claim of my Georgian citizenship, I require explanation as to your recent actions.


Even before Russia had crossed the border into Georgia, you immediately declared there would be consequences and they would be grave.  Why did you attempt to inflame the situation before the President of the United States had even spoken with us?  When did you receive the authority to decide the course of action by the United States against any country and who granted this authority? If not given, why did you assume said authority?  Why have you remained the main spokesperson for the United States, a politician running for president, rather than our actual Commander in Chief?  You, sir, are simply entitled to an opinion, nothing more.

Before you volunteer my loyalty, I want a full discussion with you and the American media regarding Georgia's massacre of possibly 2000 South Ossetia civilians resulting in a full scale military reaction by Russia.  I want you both to help us understand these events so every American can decide for themselves if they even want to be citizens of  Georgia.  I want this information before you, or the adminstration you support, make any more far reaching decisions as to our country's course of action against one of the world's super powers. 


I need you to explain why the people of Ossetia do not deserve independence yet we have American troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan supposedly to support freedom there.  I want to know if it is true you presented a bill to the Senate to deny them this freedom.  I want you to tell me why oil is always the bottom line.


I would appreciate a full explanation as to what part, if any, your campaign's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, played in any of these events.  Why did Mr. Scheunemann accept a $200,000 from Georgia on April 17th for a grand total of $800,000 while in the employ of your campaign.  What did you discuss with Saakashvili during the approximately 50 meetings that Scheunemann arranged for you?


In recent years, the Bush administration and Israel, with your support, has been arming, training and providing financing for the Georgian military knowing full well Saakashvili stated he would order a strike on both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  Since this would cause a direct confrontation with Russia, why did you encourage this young and inexperienced government in their disastrous military adventure?  What efforts, if any, on Mr. Scheunemann's part contributed to this massive military build up which has been charged to the United States credit card to be paid by the American taxpayers? 


You have fought for years to exclude Russia from the G-8 rather than build bridges of cooperation.  You prefer threats rather than direct communication.  The current policy of isolation towards Russia completely hindered our intelligence services to the point we had no idea Russia was even moving into Georgia full force shortly after the attack on Ossetia.   Now, Mr. McCain, you desire an even more isolated Russia and the creation of a situation where our foreign policy decisions would be based on best guess and even less intelligence.  Why?


There are many questions that need to be answered, John.  Some by you and many more by the American media as to the events that led up to the invasion of Georgia, including full on the ground televised coverage in both Georgia and Ossetia to determine the facts in this situation before we Americans can accept your claim of our Georgian citizenship. 


What wide scale military action on the part of Ossetia prompted or justified the killing of civilians in the middle of the night by Georgia?  Were the U.S. military stationed in Georgia involved?  Has Blackwater been part of these training programs or involved in any way? 


Why did Saakashvili, the darling homegrown protege of the RNC and the George Bush administration, who helped to place him in power, feel so confident American would leap to their defense after the Ossetia attack.  Why did he assume the world was ready or willing to take on Russia?  Why did he even think the United States could help with our over stretched and depleted military?  Who gave Saakashvili these assurances?  Could it be that it was not only Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice but you and your campaign advisor, Randy Scheunemann, as well?  We need answers.


One further question about you and your Georgian lobbyist:  Why do you consider the American public foolish enough to believe that your long term, old style, cold war hatred and fear of Russia and Mr. Scheunemann's monetary ties to Georgia do not influence your foreign policy views in this matter?


Do you want us to believe President Saakashvili would kick the toe of King Kong without prior assurance of military support by a super power?  Or do you prefer we acknowledge he is simply stupid and naive?  Would Georgia endanger their acceptance on the world stage by triggering a possible world war without the full backing by the United States?


It's all just a bit too pat, John, a bit too convenient, a bit too timely, a bit too odd and a tad too much. 


This Ossetia massacre demands a complete look and full disclosure as to the role you and the Bush administration have played in these events.  We need more than a  plagiarized script from Wikipedia from you in order to believe you are on top of this situation.  Before you unilaterally declare the citizens of the United States to be Georgians, you need to answer to us first.


OpEdNews

 
2008-08-18 03:43:29 AM
The lesson here is that in order to get away with an invasion all you have to do is point and shout "HEY LOOK AT AMERICA".
 
2008-08-18 03:46:48 AM
thank you NYCNative and BooRabideau for your thread wasting copy/pastes.


ever heard of just posting a link?
 
2008-08-18 03:53:57 AM
I posted links and summaries at the links - there was about twice as much verbiage in the links and I condensed them.

Ever heard if blowing me?
 
2008-08-18 03:57:24 AM
Love that answer, but I love the people in here who think Russia did anything differently than Bush even more.

Okay so they invaded Georgia. Sounds similar so far, right? Ah invasion. Nothing like napalm in the morning.

They go for the capital. Hmm...surely that's different. Oh wait, nope.

They kill a lot of civilians...well...sadly, that's no different either. Except the death toll that is. Russia has about 90,000 more civilian kills to go to match.

One thing that is different is they didn't invade, take over the capital and kill civvies for oil for their buddies.

Next thing you know the US will want bases in Georgia, like the recent deal with Poland. Who in their right mind would allow the US to put bases next to their countries? At this point any country has to be very wary of such a thing. Russia is smart in thinking ahead. Hopefully they'll also get Poland before it's too late.

But anyway, enough with the hypocrisy. Deal with it like the rest of the world had to deal with your shiat.
 
2008-08-18 04:05:12 AM
NYCNative: I posted links and summaries at the links - there was about twice as much verbiage in the links and I condensed them.

Ever heard if blowing me?


i've heard of it, but didnt andrew dice clay already take care of you?
 
2008-08-18 04:09:56 AM
luciferos: Hopefully they'll also get Poland before it's too late.



it'll never happen.

the average pole is the most backwoods rednecky right wing pro-american lugnut you can think of.

poland's pro-americanism is surpassed only by the cargo cults of vanuatu.

not that there's anything wrong with hating russia.
 
2008-08-18 04:12:17 AM
if any of you feel like saying "lets stay out of russia's sphere of influence", go fark yourself. NATO (USA) is the only reason the baltic states are still independent and we're not in their sphere of influence anymore.
 
2008-08-18 04:21:32 AM
jonnypeh: if any of you feel like saying "lets stay out of russia's sphere of influence", go fark yourself. NATO (USA) is the only reason the baltic states are still independent and we're not in their sphere of influence anymore.

i feel like saying lets stay out of russia's sphere of influence just to spite you.
 
2008-08-18 04:25:20 AM
cock.


/:-)
 
2008-08-18 05:32:41 AM
www.vinylonthe.net

and

lolaaparicioalmendros.files.wordpress.com
 
2008-08-18 05:47:03 AM
Thats a completely bullshiat answer as it simultaneously draws a false comparison, side-steps the question and tries to change the topic.

But, those idiots who think Bush and Iraq war are the most Evil Things in History (tm) applaud such a thing, pumping their fists and congratulating Putin for "sticking it to the Neocons".
 
2008-08-18 08:08:09 AM
What goes around... comes around.
 
2008-08-18 09:06:56 AM
Finally some sense and logic ................. from the Russian government.

/America = dumb to the bone
 
2008-08-18 09:21:54 AM
To add to this, I was listening to Rush and he mentioned that Georgia is a country, where as when we started the war with Iraq in 2003, it was not a soverign country.

See now I just stopped reading after that. Waste of bandwidth. You know Rush is an entertainer and not a master of logic, right?
 
2008-08-18 09:43:19 AM
Lusiphur
Should the Russians ignore the cease-fire, will Sarkozy's estimate of their good faith (1) increase or (2) decrease?

rka
It is debatable whether, in the absence of NATO, Western Europe would become closer to Russia or whether it would re-militarize.

All else being equal, it makes America less safe to be virtually alone in a world dominated by blocs vaguely or overtly hostile to the United States. Should this be the case, we should probably begin to adopt the Swiss model of giving a gun/ammo to every male (and many females) between the ages of 18 and 45, and then distributing light anti-armor and anti-aircraft weaponry by the village. It would be cheaper than what we are doing now, but the casualties inflicted by an invading army would be horrendous.

America would continue to make for a good bogeyman even in the absence of American military presence beyond a 300-400 mile strech of the Atlantic and Pacific.

hubiestubert
We have attempted using trade to make PRC open up. PRC repression continues along most human rights fronts as no one serious rates the PRC as equal/better in human rights than the US. PRC also stymies us when we make interventions on 100% humanitarian grounds, such as in Darfur (IIRC, Darfur is away from the oil-producing parts of Sudan) or Burma.

I will grant that the de facto American foreign policy has been to goad Russia into a response like this (much like the de facto Russian foreign policy has been to goad Georgia into a response like they launched.) According to a Telegraph article, (supposedly) the Georgians launched their military action after the Ossetians and Russians failed to show up at some negotiations. They then were given a packet full of American-provided satellite photos showing the Russians massing their troops near the tunnel and starting to cross (I'm assuming they showed stuff that couldn't be interpreted as 'exercises.') Georgian attempts to destroy the tunnel only partially succeeded and the Russians decided they could also advance from Abkhazia.

IMO, the PRC experience shows that trade only works so far -- also in 1914, trade was a greater percentage of GDP than it is today (it could has passed but it would be a very recent thing.)

Bucky Katt
Would you care to elaborate on your assertion that 'Ukraine [isn't] particularly democratic right now'?

Baby Diego
both Russia and Georgia had signed an international agreement to have Russian soldiers enforce a cease-fire between the separatists and Georgia.

The separatists were firing on Georgian villages in South Ossetia (Protip: about 30% of South Ossetia was governed by Georgia and was populated by Georgians and anti-Russian Ossetians), and many of these separatists were issued Russian passports. A reasonable observer could believe that Russia had a conflict of interest.

I will agree with you that Iraq remained a sovereign country despite the violation of UN resolutions.

NYCNative
I will agree with you that McCain is beginning to act outside his authority. However, what's with the repeating of Russian propaganda at face value? No mention of Ossetian shelling, no mention of Georgian requests for multi-national peacekeepers being ignored, no mention of Russia committing human rights violations both at home and within occupied Georgia ...

Is co-operation with Russia worth it if it demands the right to set up client states in the Caucasus, the Baltics, and the former Warsaw Pact nations? What would make you believe that Russia is truly not a partner in peace?

Is a country that poisons dissidents at home and abroad a partner in peace? Is a country that attempts to poison a presidential candidate in a neighboring country a partner in peace? Is a country that periodically imitates Master-Blaster or 1973-era OPEC a partner in peace? Is a country that has vetoed UN resolutions regarding Zimbabwe, Darfur, and Burma a partner in peace? Is a country that threatens a full-scale nuclear attack over the installation on TEN ABM rockets a partner in peace?

If this were a lone incident, I could better appreciate the Russian POV. But it's not.

You may declare the evils America has committed/sponsored/encouraged throughout the world as a sufficient justification for what Russia is now doing. Or, you may subscribe to the view that neither America nor Russia are truly free.

America practices an imperfect democracy at home. Some of its client states are imperfect democracies and some are totalitarian regimes. Russia is a virtual one-party dictatorship. Its current client states, such as Belarus and the central Asian -stans, are also dictatorships. Its past client states in the Cold War were also dictatorships (Vietnam, Syria, Warsaw Pact nations, etc.)

luciferos
Hopefully they'll also get Poland before it's too late.

So you're hoping that Russia invades Poland because they're too pro-American?

Just ... wow.

Protip: A multi-polar world does not provide greater global peace and stability. In fact, it does quite the opposite.

re-elect_jimmy_carter
poland's pro-americanism is surpassed only by the cargo cults of vanuatu.

Didn't they do a survey a few years back and found Poland's pro-American attitudes exceeded those of America?

Given that we didn't get in the business of establishing pro-Western dictatorships in Warsaw Pactia and the Baltics and assisted in the removal of the anti-Western dictatorships thereof, the pro-American attitudes of that part of the world are easily understood.

Areas where the US has done some nasty stuff and some nicer stuff have a mixed opinion, depending on the ratio thereof. For example, we've done nice stuff in India, Israel, and some parts of Africa. So we're fairly well liked there (e.g. the Kenyan tribe that gave America 12 cows, the Sierra Leone folks who wanted to join America, etc.) In Greece, Indonesia, Latin America, etc., we installed nasty regimes and are thus not as liked.

Swampthing in Korea
Please avoid paiting all opponents of the Iraq War as idiots.

For example, I realize that handling a 'War on Terror' against a few thousands of radicals scattered across the Mideast requires a different strategy than handling Russian revanchism.
 
2008-08-18 10:10:07 AM
BooRabideau

first off, if it was "too long, didn't read," than you couldn't have pulled that part out to comment on

second off, being as you pulled that one out of all the rest of that, everything else must be to your liking


'first off', having been in many Ron Paul threads it's quite easy to gloss over long and generally useless numbered lists.

'second off', being as you didn't actually address a single point I made, everything else must be to your liking. Or would you rather I not put words in your mouth?

so now i bow out and look forward more actual facts and points of merit

You should probably contribute some to begin with then.

/snark for those that deserve it
//i can be a pigeonholing condescending prick too, thanks
 
2008-08-18 10:44:50 AM
verbal_jizm 2008-08-17 02:59:35 PM
bearsfolks: So you guys think the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Georgia equate with the U.S in Iraq.

Howdy troll. Here's something for you to munch on. Those things you're talking about happened quite a while ago. What were talking about now isn't the same thing.



And we all know that history ( that "old" stuff) never repeats itself, nor gives us wisdom on how to handle a current problem.
 
2008-08-18 11:36:54 AM
uatuba: Clearly, the only way one can be a threat to the world is to blow someone up.

Well, that makes sense. I mean, I've got a crazy neighbor, and I think he has a shotgun. So I think I'll go over and break into his house and steal his shotgun, because I'm afraid he might shoot me someday.
 
2008-08-18 12:18:02 PM
Umokay: Comparing the two is not only morally reprehensible, it is so far from the truth it is laughable. It may be a cute answer for those on this board filled with moral relativity, but everywhere outside of McDonald's playland it is an absolute joke.

The problem facing us as a nation (The United States) is that the collective consciousness is not especially smart. It is McDonald's play land. America eats junk, buys junk, consumes junk entertainment and collectively has the cognitive criticism of a teenager.

Russia's response will be seen as valid by a majority even if logically it doesn't correctly correlate to U.S/Iraq.

Something a lot of us forget is that perception truly is reality, the winners write the history, etcetera.
 
2008-08-18 01:15:45 PM
No, this is Russia, on Georgia withdrawl: "If ah would ask y'all in response...."

Which is weird, 'cos I can see Georgians talking like that, but not Russians.
 
2008-08-18 02:06:35 PM
i91.photobucket.comimages.jupiterimages.com
 
2008-08-18 04:48:57 PM
bearsfolks: So you guys think the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Georgia equate with the U.S in Iraq. I think your history teachers should be fired for malpractice.

No, actually, we don't think they equate... The invasion if Iraq was entirely unjustified, whereas the others had reasons for their invasions... We might not agree with their reasons, but we don't have to...
 
2008-08-18 04:59:40 PM
inebriated brain: kronicfeld: Why? It was working pretty well, what with him having been neutered for over a decade

you obviously forget when they kicked inspectors out in 1998. Yeah wingnuts will call it wagging the dog, but Clinton's response was not harsh enough. So from 1998 to 2002, Saddam had free reign to do whatever.

Should W have let the inspections play out longer under 1441. No. The end result would have been the same, war. We allowed way to much time to pass as it was since he kicked the inspectors out.

And under UN SC resolutions and the cease fire that Iraq signed, we had EVERY right and obligation to kick Saddams ass.


So true! Look at all the bad things he managed to accrue, and all the evil he managed to do during those four years of unsupervised, uh, leadership? It was due to all those WMDs he stockpiled during those four years that we went in and relieved him of his country... W00t!!! USA!USA!USA!
 
2008-08-18 08:20:37 PM
/The democratically elected government of Iraq has a big say on when we leave.
Goddamnit, I did a /.
 
2008-08-19 12:18:43 AM
"If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there," Kosachev said. "The same answer would be toward this situation."

PWNED!
 
2008-08-19 10:22:46 PM
Baby Diego: you didn't actually address a single poin

maybe you don't read the posts after all

since you contributed little, i'm just working with what you gave me. . . looking forward to more actual facts and points of merit--but don't be confused, i'm not looking for them from you (i've given up on you), like last time . . . i'm reading past your posts

thanks for going for the simple "zinger's" and ignoring everything else completely and debasing our exchange into the normal fark discourse
 
Displayed 33 of 333 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report