Terrible move by Bush

[PSUColonel]

White House Opens Doors to Iraq Refugees

By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration agreed Wednesday to greatly expand the number of Iraqi refugees allowed into the country and to pay more to help Iraq's Arab neighbors cope with the human tide fleeing increasing violence and economic hardship in their country.

The decision to allow about 7,000 Iraqis to come to the United States answers mounting political and diplomatic pressure on the administration to do more to remedy the consequences of a war it largely started. Only 202 Iraqis were allowed in last year.

The administration also said it will immediately contribute $18 million for a worldwide resettlement and relief program. The United Nations has asked for $60 million from nations around the world.

Although the United Nations estimates that 3.8 million Iraqis have fled their homes since the war began nearly four years ago, the United States has allowed only about 600 to settle in the United States.

The U.S. proposal also includes plans to offer special treatment for Iraqis still in their country whose cooperation with the U.S. puts them at risk. Expanding visa programs for those Iraqis would require legislation in Congress, State Department Undersecretary Paula J. Dobriansky said Wednesday.

Some 2 million Iraqis have left their country, and an additional 1.8 million are believed to have relocated inside Iraq. The refugee flow has increased sharply as sectarian violence has increased over the past year. The numbers have overwhelmed the hospitality of Arab neighbors such as Syria and Jordan.

The United Nations says most of those who have been uprooted have no desire to come to the United States, and want to return to their homes in Iraq when fighting stops.

But allies, U.N. diplomats and lawmakers of both parties have recently told the administration that the small number of Iraqis the U.S. has allowed in looks miserly.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a hearing last week that the United States could bring in 7,000 Iraqis this year - exactly the number announced Wednesday.

The move is a step in the right direction, considering the United States is a "chief cause" of the refugee problem, said Carolyn Saour, an Iraqi-American Christian living in Houston. Still, 7,000 "is severely low for the amount of damage that's been done over the years," she said.

The United Nations wants to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees this year. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres called the U.S. pledge "a relevant contribution."

Guterres has implicitly criticized the United States in the past for allowing other nations to shoulder so much of the burden. He met with Rice on Wednesday, and afterward described a "very frank and very positive discussion on how to work better."

Asked if the U.S. contribution was, in essence, too little too late, Guterres was diplomatic.

"The problem is so huge that nothing is, any time, enough," Guterres told reporters. "But I think it's very good stuff -- a very good step in the right direction."

The U.N. estimates that 40,000 to 50,000 people flee Iraq each month with dwindling options of where to go. Most have fled to Syria and Jordan, both of which have recently tried to restrict the influx.

Other Iraqis relocate inside their country, with some leaving neighborhoods that were once mixed among Sunnis and Shiites and resettling where their sect is more concentrated. Unlike most of the movement to other countries, some of the internal relocations will probably be permanent.

The U.N. says some 500,000 fled their homes to other parts of Iraq in 2006 alone and the number could reach 2.3 million - nearly one in 10 Iraqis - by the end of 2007.

This month, Guterres' Geneva-based agency made an emergency appeal for $60 million to help fleeing Iraqis.

"Unremitting violence in Iraq will likely mean continued mass internal and external displacement affecting much of the surrounding region," it said.

U.S. diplomats have discussed the refugee problem directly with the Jordanian and Syrian governments in recent days, Dobriansky said. That is notable because of the administration's reluctance to engage Syria in high-level discussions about security in Iraq.

Syria has taken in an estimated 1 million Iraqis. It was the last Arab country to take in large numbers.

Although Jordan is a key U.S. ally, the chief government spokesman in Amman did not sound impressed with the U.S. pledges Wednesday.

Nasser Judeh said 7,000 is still a small number compared with the 700,000 Jordan has had to accommodate.

"Seven thousand Iraqi refugees is just 1 percent of the number we have," Judeh said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

[PSUColonel]

another story on a similar note:


Bill Would Make Grasp of English a Citizenship Requirement
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 14, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this week would designate English as the country's official language and require immigrants to learn English before becoming naturalized citizens.

"English is the language of opportunity in America," the bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), said in a statement. "The best way for our newcomers to work toward their own success is through our common bond of language."

King introduced the same legislation in 2005, but the bill never moved out of committee to a vote on the House floor.

"Our long tradition of encouraging English fluency and avoiding a multilingual government has allowed us to forge a common identity in a land of diversity," Mauro Mujica, chairman of U.S. English, said in a statement. "Americans want this tradition to continue."

Mujica said he "look[s] forward to working with these members to grow our sponsorship ranks and educate the public on the need for a common language for government."

The bill currently has 26 co-sponsors, although the number could increase over time. The last version garnered 164 co-sponsors before it died in committee.

Opponents of official English legislation argue that the laws do little to promote the language.

Raul Gonzalez, legislative director for the National Council of La Raza - a non-profit advocacy group for Hispanics - called the legislation "a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist." He said many immigrants either know or want to learn English so encouraging them to learn the language through legislation will accomplish little.

"Immigrants support English," Gonzalez told Cybercast News Service. "If they support it and they're on these long waiting lists [to take English classes], why do we need a coercive measure to do that?"

Calling the bill the "epitome of bad policy" and "pointless," Gonzalez said pro-English legislation would increase federal funding for English classes.

"People are learning English, and it's despite the fact that the government has been under-funding English programs," he said. "If Mr. King is interested in helping people learn English then he would support increased funding for these programs and he would get rid of his bill, which is pointless."

A June 2006 Rasmussen poll found that 85 percent of Americans support making English the official language of the United States, but it remains a controversial issue.

Earlier this week Nashville, Tenn., Mayor Bill Purcell vetoed local legislation that would have made English the city's official language, saying it would make Nashville "a less safe, less friendly and less successful city."

[Flasch186]

in before the lock

[cartman]

Your second article was quite humorous, considering the title of the thread.

Trrible move by Bush

[st.cronin]

Seems like a good place to post this:

hxxp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/2007_swimsuit/models/marisa_miller/07_marisa_miller_7.html

[cartman]

And, in regards to your first article, in what way is it a terrible move? The article didn't seem to have any quotes from people thinking it was a bad move. Comparing to a similar situation, there are much fewer Iraqis coming into the US than Vietnamese after the Vietnam War. There are already several locations in the US that have established Iraqi populations, whereas when the Southeast Asians came over, there was almost nothing here that was familiar to them culture-wise.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by cartman

And, in regards to your first article, in what way is it a terrible move? The article didn't seem to have any quotes from people thinking it was a bad move. Comparing to a similar situation, there are much fewer Iraqis coming into the US than Vietnamese after the Vietnam War. There are already several locations in the US that have established Iraqi populations, whereas when the Southeast Asians came over, there was almost nothing here that was familiar to them culture-wise.

The reason why I feel it's a bad move, is because you are bringing 7,000 immigrants, many of which could very possibly be the enemy.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by cartman

Your second article was quite humorous, considering the title of the thread.

Trrible move by Bush

they are not related directly...just two immigration stories.

[ISiddiqui]

Tribble move by Bush!

[Pumpy Tudors]

in before the boxing

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

they are not related directly...just two immigration stories.

So, are you going to renounce your citizenship? You can't pass the test you want them to take.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

The reason why I feel it's a bad move, is because you are bringing 7,000 immigrants, many of which could very possibly be the enemy.

ummm PSU...i'm pretty sure most/all of the 7000 are going to be "collaborators." the interperters the army used and people like that

[Marathoner]

I thought you were going to mention his taunting of Urlacher after his 85 yd TD reception. Now that was a trrible move

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, are you going to renounce your citizenship? You can't pass the test you want them to take.

sorry for my horrid typing

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

ummm PSU...i'm pretty sure most/all of the 7000 are going to be "collaborators." the interperters the army used and people like that

I am not saying that, but I am saying we could be allowing enemies into the nation legally. that's all. I don't feel it's all that far fetched.

[ISiddiqui]

Hell, the enemy is in the White House, so what does a few collaborator refugees matter anyway?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Tribble move by Bush!

KHAN!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, everytime I read a Star Trek reference, I hear that in my head.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I am not saying that, but I am saying we could be allowing enemies into the nation legally. that's all. I don't feel it's all that far fetched.

i'd worry more about this if our borders were ya know...secure. but since they're already proven not to be...big frikkin deal

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'd worry more about this if our borders were ya know...secure. but since they're already proven not to be...big frikkin deal

Agreed. If we're gonna let people in the country (I'm in favor of sealing the border entirely), I'd rather they come in legally, regardless of where they're coming from.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'd worry more about this if our borders were ya know...secure. but since they're already proven not to be...big frikkin deal

I agree as well, but it just shows that for whatever reason that I can't figure out, Bush continues to defy the American public by having zero clue about the immigration problems our nation faces.

Not only is illegal immigration a drain on our economic system, it is also a huge security issue...I realize I'm stating the obvious, but oh well.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I am not saying that, but I am saying we could be allowing enemies into the nation legally. that's all. I don't feel it's all that far fetched.

Enemies of our country? Are we certain they are going to be liberals?.....

[King of New York]

Thinking of the move from a purely political and pragmatic point of view, yes, it's probably terrible:

1) Allowing several thousand Iraqi refugees into the US is hardly going to make a dent in the humanitarian crisis, but it will be enough to draw attention (unwanted attention, from the administration's point of view) to the massive movement of refugees within Iraq and into neighboring countries, and it will cause Lou Dobbs and others like him to go ballistic. So the move fails to solve much of anything, makes everyone aware of a much bigger problem (thereby highlighting a political failure), and enrages some people.

2) If Neocons come out against this move, it's going to leave them in a tough spot. We value the Iraqis enough to lose thousands of soldiers in a war to liberate them, but we wouldn't want them living in our own country? I don't know that that line of reasoning is going to play very well.

The fact that the kid who shot up the mall in Utah was a war refugee from the former Yugoslavia is not going to help the Bush administration here, either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Thinking of the move from a purely political and pragmatic point of view, yes, it's probably terrible

Not a bad summary of the situation IMO. Only one part of your reasoning that I think you've given too much weight to.

We value the Iraqis enough to lose thousands of soldiers in a war to liberate them, but we wouldn't want them living in our own country? I don't know that that line of reasoning is going to play very well.

Said it before, I'll say it again -- I don't think I've ever met a single person who genuinely had the whole "free the Iraqi people" thing as a significant motivation for supporting our actions in Iraq. Anecdotal to be sure, but consider the percentage of people in my circles that would probably qualify under your definition of the phrase "neo-con" ...

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by King of New York

2) If Neocons come out against this move, it's going to leave them in a tough spot. We value the Iraqis enough to lose thousands of soldiers in a war to liberate them, but we wouldn't want them living in our own country? I don't know that that line of reasoning is going to play very well.

Um, I don't think it is the Iraqi people that the administration values.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Said it before, I'll say it again -- I don't think I've ever met a single person who genuinely had the whole "free the Iraqi people" thing as a significant motivation for supporting our actions in Iraq. Anecdotal to be sure, but consider the percentage of people in my circles that would probably qualify under your definition of the phrase "neo-con" ...

Maybe not now, but the "Free the people, bring Democracy to Iraq" tagline was slung about by a lot of people shortly after the WMD argument fell through. People believed it as much then as they did the WMD argument originally. In hindsight it's easy to say that no one ever seriouslybelieved it, but we were all around when it happened and I doubt I'm the only one that remembers that wasn't the case. It wasn't just political rhetoric that the Western public saw through immediately.

Hell, even now I read Time magazine or any other of the countless media articles and most of them are written under the assumed knowledge that the USA is still operating under the "Liberate Iraq, protect the people" mission objectives. The true objectives that you consider well known are very rarely mentioned, except by those labelled "conspiracy theorists".

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Said it before, I'll say it again -- I don't think I've ever met a single person who genuinely had the whole "free the Iraqi people" thing as a significant motivation for supporting our actions in Iraq. Anecdotal to be sure, but consider the percentage of people in my circles that would probably qualify under your definition of the phrase "neo-con" ...

They would probably not qualify as neocon. The neoconservative movement is defined by its belief that it is a) possible and b) necessary to spread democracy through the application of American military force. For the true neocons (Wolfowitz, Feith, and to a lesser degree Cheney and Rumsfeld), freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy through the Middle East was likely the primary goal of the invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda, WMD's, and Saddam were at best secondary objectives and at worst mere cover for the democratization mission. It's probably true that a great many Iraq war supporters were not on board with this agenda, but it's also true that there aren't all that many real neocons. The term is terribly overused these days...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

They would probably not qualify as neocon. The neoconservative movement is defined by its belief that it is a) possible and b) necessary to spread democracy through the application of American military force. For the true neocons (Wolfowitz, Feith, and to a lesser degree Cheney and Rumsfeld), freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy through the Middle East was likely the primary goal of the invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda, WMD's, and Saddam were at best secondary objectives and at worst mere cover for the democratization mission.

I don't think that's true.

[Eaglesfan27]

Did anyone else think of Reggie Bush upon seeing the title? I guess I should have known better.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

They would probably not qualify as neocon. The neoconservative movement is defined by its belief that it is a) possible and b) necessary to spread democracy through the application of American military force. For the true neocons (Wolfowitz, Feith, and to a lesser degree Cheney and Rumsfeld), freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy through the Middle East was likely the primary goal of the invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda, WMD's, and Saddam were at best secondary objectives and at worst mere cover for the democratization mission. It's probably true that a great many Iraq war supporters were not on board with this agenda, but it's also true that there aren't all that many real neocons. The term is terribly overused these days...

I really don't see how you could feel that is true, especially re: Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't think a true democracy was ever the goal in Iraq. One of the few polls actually conducted in Iraq shows that 82% of Iraqi's are strongly oppossed to the presence of US and coalition troops, and less than 1% believe that coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security. The USA certainly doesn't want a democratically elected government that holds these views of its citizens.

The idea of spreading democracy around the globe sounds very heroic, but it has been shown time and time again that the only democratically elected government that will be tolerated is a democratically elected government that the US agrees with. Palestine and Haiti are two examples, but by no means the only ones.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

They would probably not qualify as neocon. The neoconservative movement is defined by ...

Clearly we aren't working from the same general definition.

Although there appears to be plenty of question about who is or isn't, the general distinction I was drawing matches this synopsis from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

Neoconservative: Definition and views
According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.


Notice the absence of any mention of "spreading democracy"?

I can't really say whether that's an accurate attribution since I haven't really studied Kristol at all, it still fortunately coincides pretty well with what I had in mind.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I agree as well, but it just shows that for whatever reason that I can't figure out, Bush continues to defy the American public by having zero clue about the immigration problems our nation faces.

Not only is illegal immigration a drain on our economic system, it is also a huge security issue...I realize I'm stating the obvious, but oh well.

Couple of things. The immigration situation is one of the few areas the President seems to have a grasp of. It isn't the American public that he is defying, it is the far right conservatives in the Republican party.

I think it is safe to say that a good portion of the public understands that many segments of our economy work because Illegal immigrants are doing the work. That is a reality. A reality that the President's proposals seem to acknowledge.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I really don't see how you could feel that is true, especially re: Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't think a true democracy was ever the goal in Iraq.

Wikipedia on neoconservatives:

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is founded on a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, most notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China, North Korea and Iran.

Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict - comparisons with denazification in Germany and installing a democratic government in Japan starting in 1945 are often made - and they have a principled belief in defending democracies against aggression. This belief has guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, where the U.S. insisted on organizing elections as soon as practical.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Notice the absence of any mention of "spreading democracy"?

See previous post. Taken from the exact same article you used... It's right there in black and white.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Notice the absence of any mention of "spreading democracy"?

Actually, the concept is mentioned throughout the wiki article you cited.

Mojo Jojo's description is a solid characterization of what is traditionally thought to be "neoconservatism".

The founding founders of the movement were former leftists, whose policy prescriptions were rooted in ideological concerns. While they rejected the policies of the left, they never did abandon the notion that policy can and should be deployed to "make the world a better place". This concept is still at the heart of neo-conservative policy prescription and is not really all that different from the motivations of the social liberal policy movement, the main difference, obviously, is the base ideology driving policy prescription.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Mojo Jojo's description is a solid characterization of what is traditionally thought to be "neoconservatism".

As I mentioned, it isn't a topic that I've studied to death. All I was getting at is that what he apparently meant by the word (illustrated by the longer descriptions cited) had little to do with what I meant by the word (illustrated fairly well by the shorter synopsis I cited).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by cartman

And, in regards to your first article, in what way is it a terrible move?

Seen through the eyes of a racist, it is a terrible move.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Seen through the eyes of a racist, it is a terrible move.

And who can honestly say that it is a good thing that we are taking in 7000 Iraqi "refugees." Is 7000 the cap, or the start?

Having grown up in Detroit I have known a lot of Iraqi people. I have known many good Iraqis and many bad ones... That can be said about anybody, but their ways of thinking completely contrast with most Americans. Just about every Iraqi man/boy I ever knew had a thing about putting down American women, but if you even so much as said you found one of their women attractive they were ready to beat your ass (leave our women alone!)

There is way too much to write here... But I thought the best thing I ever heard was from the guy who we all saw the video of, beating the Sadaam statue with his shoe. He was formally invited to visit the city of Dearborn, MI. He declined, saying that he has a home in Iraq and feels that Iraqis living in America should come home now that Sadaam was gone. (All I could do was laugh at that... I couldn't see a single person jumping at the chance to leave the sweet deal they get here!)

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

And who can honestly say that it is a good thing that we are taking in 7000 Iraqi "refugees." Is 7000 the cap, or the start?

It's probably the 1st step in our withdrawal.

1. Offer citizenship to the .2% of the country that actually helped us in the last 4 years. This eases our "conscience" when we....

2. Withdraw from the country

3. Watch Middle East begin a regional war.

[MrBigglesworth]

Bush's immigration policy is non-terrible, which might make it his best area. It's a tough situation, because these are the people that tried to help us, and if we abandon them they could be killed for it. I think we have some moral responsibility to help them if we can.

As for the English thing, I don't see why we need an official language. My ancestors spoke German and Swedish when the first arrived. The market took care of it though, just as the children of all of today's immigrants will eventually learn English. In the meantime, I don't mind learning a little Spanish if I have to go into the Puerto Rican neighborhood to grab a sandwich.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

And who can honestly say that it is a good thing that we are taking in 7000 Iraqi "refugees." Is 7000 the cap, or the start?

Having grown up in Detroit I have known a lot of Iraqi people. I have known many good Iraqis and many bad ones... That can be said about anybody, but their ways of thinking completely contrast with most Americans. Just about every Iraqi man/boy I ever knew had a thing about putting down American women, but if you even so much as said you found one of their women attractive they were ready to beat your ass (leave our women alone!)

There is way too much to write here... But I thought the best thing I ever heard was from the guy who we all saw the video of, beating the Sadaam statue with his shoe. He was formally invited to visit the city of Dearborn, MI. He declined, saying that he has a home in Iraq and feels that Iraqis living in America should come home now that Sadaam was gone. (All I could do was laugh at that... I couldn't see a single person jumping at the chance to leave the sweet deal they get here!)

My comment of course more directed towards the threadstarter than others with intelligent discussion of the subject. That was immediately confirmed when he stated his opinion was based on the fact we were letting the enemy in. There is no need to go into more detail of why painting a broadbrush stroke that if they're Iraqi then they are all suspects (regardless of screening or whether these people helped the U.S. in the war) is a racist comment. It is about as terribly thought out and knee jerk reaction one can have. Not to mention is completely gives no credence to the fact that the U.S. put those refugees in the exact position they are in. To put it frankly, for many of these refugees, under Sadaam, life may not have been great whereas currently they are dying in the streets hundreds by the day.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Did anyone else think of Reggie Bush upon seeing the title? I guess I should have known better.

I did and it's why I entered in the thread (it should have been labeled as [POL] ), I usually have low interest on this kind of political threads.

[RedKingGold]

Tribble = Feeding the Trolls.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

in before the delete

Fixed that for you.

Seriously, I don't know why some of you are holding an intelligent conversation in here, when PSU's just going to delete the thread at some point anyway. The guy's got a track record to maintain, after all.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As I mentioned, it isn't a topic that I've studied to death. All I was getting at is that what he apparently meant by the word (illustrated by the longer descriptions cited) had little to do with what I meant by the word (illustrated fairly well by the shorter synopsis I cited).

Fair enough. As you are correct to point out, there are multiple characterizations (and mis-characterizations from both the left and the right) of what constitutes neo-conservatism. I just wanted to point out that Mojo's is closer to the classical definition.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Did anyone else think of Reggie Bush upon seeing the title? I guess I should have known better.

Considering the thread starter, yes you should have known better.

[rkmsuf]

EA sucks!

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

EA sucks!

M-B-B-F is that you?!

[JPhillips]

Terrible moves by Bush?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by wade moore

M-B-B-F is that you?!

It would be funny if they both got confused and starting railing on the wrong issues.

Like a freaky friday type of thing.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It would be funny if they both got confused and starting railing on the wrong issues.

Like a freaky friday type of thing.

...but it's Thursday.