Will we win 911 info war? Reynolds--YES

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Will we win 911 info war? Reynolds--YES

Postby darkbeforedawn » Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:14 pm

<br>I'd like to believe this. I have noticed a "sea-change" lately. Folks know! So don't hide your light under a bushel everyone. People everywhere ARE listening...<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=risk_of_winning">www.nomoregames.net/index...of_winning</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>The Risk of Winning:<br>What Happens Once the 9/11 Sewer Opens Wide? <br>Morgan Reynolds - April 9th, 2006 <br>I have begun receiving a handful of emails and questions from callers to radio interview shows that worry about our forthcoming victory in the 9/11 information war! What will happen once the 9/11 traitors are exposed, goes the lament, and an outraged public demands a pound of flesh from each conspirator? Scary huh? <br>First, will we have this delicious problem to deal with? Yes, we are going to win and so we will face this “problem” for a variety of sturdy reasons. The most important is that the establishment’s preposterous conspiracy theory of 9/11—ONYA (Osama and Nineteen Young Arabs)—lies in total ruins, completely and thoroughly shredded by hundreds of websites on the Internet and a handful of books like David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor and Webster G. Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terror. The perpetrators, filled with hubris and contempt for the American people, seriously underestimated what a few hundred Internet researchers could do. The public flight from ONYA has been accelerated by exposure of the government’s lies on Iraq, its failed invasion and the consequent unpopularity of the Bush-Cheney regime. The public relations outfall has not been contained and has spilled over to eat away at the lies of 9/11. Charlie Sheen’s brave testimony has put us on a new level of public awareness. <br>Second, what really is the worry? Isn’t this what we are working for, the prospect of justice obtained by exposure of the truth, the prospect of stopping the killers in their tracks? Yes, it is. Anyone fretting over the triumph of truth should ask this question: what do you do with a family dog that kills a family member? The dog was acquired to protect the family and instead it kills someone it was supposed to protect. The services of such a dog would no longer be required, to put it as gently as possible. That’s the situation we have with the DoD, NSA, CIA, FBI and a murderous array of government agencies, including the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission members and staff director Philip D. Zelikow are accessories after the fact, a felony crime. Selected elements of many organizations lied and murdered thousands of innocent Americans. Every member of the military swears an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, against enemies “both foreign and domestic.” Pretending that nothing happened after the family pet murdered a family member would be madness, intolerable, a “head-in-the-sand” absurdity, not to mention a constant menace for everybody in the dog’s ambit. That’s our predicament today: the overt and covert types hired to protect us turned and killed family members and remain on the loose and in power. They must be taken down. Or this too hard to understand? <br>Third, insiders are on the verge of going public. 9/11 was so “over the top,” so murderous, and the next event will be even bigger, that patriotism and conscience are working overtime among insiders to restore a semblance of sanity to our nation. In a hub-and-spoke conspiracy this large, most participants did not know in advance the scope of the planned “terrorist” event. On hindsight, some of the participants are appalled at what they participated in. They are going to spill the beans. Furthermore, virtually everyone across the world inside intelligence services, the military, airline pilots and other technical experts know full well that the U.S. government and selected outsiders did 9/11, not nineteen incompetent Arabs at the behest of a couple of cave dwellers in Afghanistan. Upshot? The dam is going to break, and probably sooner rather than later. <br>There will be casualties on our side before the whole traitorous truth is broken wide open. Michael Zebuhr, a Clemson engineering graduate student and student member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth was murdered under highly suspicious circumstances in Minneapolis on March 18 and was almost certainly a 9/11 casualty. We are playing for the highest stakes imaginable. The sooner the truth breaks out in the open, the fewer innocent lives lost. <br>So will justice be done? I strongly believe it will. Sure, some of the perpetrators will get away with their crimes, but we are going to win. The American commitment to an impersonal legal process is deep and wide, so I am not concerned about any kind of vigilantism or mob “justice.” Yes, we will have a “constitutional crisis” of sorts, but it is going to be orderly and peaceful. We need to think through what we are going to do with that victory. My initial thought is that we must safeguard the 9/11 convictions by removing one privilege from the presidency, namely, the presidential pardon of convicted criminals like those in the Iran-Contra scandal. The fact that presidents traditionally issue pardons on Christmas eve when almost no one is watching says all we need to know about their social value. <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: Will we win 911 info war? Reynolds--YES

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:46 pm

who is Morgan Reynolds <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby darkbeforedawn » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:05 pm

Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Morgan Reynolds<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br>Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. <br>Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Anlaysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets. <br>Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel. <br>Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates. <br>Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. <br>In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free- <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:24 pm

Google away, pilgrims.<br><br>Okay, okay, I'll do a sample one for you- <br><br>National Center for Policy Analysis _ Board of Directors (click on names)<br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.ncpa.org/abo/board/">www.ncpa.org/abo/board/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Yeas...I want it to be a surprise. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 6:39 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:31 pm

All right...here's another one for you couch potatoes...<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/resources/profiles.html#reynolds">www.publiceye.org/defendi...l#reynolds</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Morgan Reynolds<br><br>Morgan Reynolds is the former director of the Criminal Justice Center for the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis. The Center's stated goal is "to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector." He is considered an "expert" in the area of juvenile crime, using the "blame parents first" model which traces the modern prevalence of juvenile crime to a weakening sense of morality and parents' lack of moral confidence in setting boundaries and disciplining their kids. He has written, "terms like 'social justice' or 'restorative justice' smack of European socialism and gooey government programs lead by woolly headed do-gooders."<br><br>He promotes "get tough" measures and "increased security" at all costs in schools and advocates for the importance of securing justice "for the victims", concentrating on a "privatized and victim-oriented criminal justice system". At the very root of his ideology is the belief that criminals "choose" a life of crime as a result of a lack of principles. He continues to assert that the "get tough" measures and increased incarceration are responsible for the drop in crime rates, deterring crimes through inspiring fear of punishment."<br><br>Plenty more where that came from... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 6:37 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:50 pm

The National Correctional Industries Association <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nationalcia.org/">www.nationalcia.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Okay, those of you who think Morgan Reynolds has "strayed off the reservation", "gone renegade", and joined the movement for "911 Truth"...let's hear some applause. Or just throw posts. <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby NewKid » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:26 pm

We've discussed Morgan Reynolds' 'awakening' in other threads before. He does have some sort of story for what he was doing in the Bush administration and how he saw the light etc. It's possible he could be sincere, even if some of his arguments miss the mark. There are after all a number of former conservative Bush supporters who've figured out what's going on and now detest the administration. But I sure would like to know a lot more about this guy. <br><br>The other question you have to ask is why use someone like this guy if you want to spread disinformation or contaminate the 9-11 movement? He's very obviously suspicious to 911 people (who are already paranoid about disinfo agents in their midsts) because of his background; he's not qualified at all to opine on the technical aspects of 9-11 and thus doesn't lend any serious credibility to CD arguments. And official story theorists can dismiss him as someone having a mid life crisis or nervous breakdown. He's not a great coup for 9-11 activists, but he's not doing anything that really humiliates them either. So he's sort of an odd guy to pick to insert into 9-11 if your goal is to disrupt, discredit, or gain information about the 911 activists. <br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:57 pm

NewKid, consider it an experiment in social psychology. <br><br>If it is one's opinion that the portion of youth of the United States of America who are opposed to George W. Bush and his policies are overwhelmingly mal-educated, drug-besotted, and corrupted by the "liberals" who teach them in school, then it isn't much of a stretch to attempt to design an experiment that demonstrates just how gullible they are, and how little experience they have in detecting logical flaws in a line of persuasive rhetoric. Just be sure to lard in a lot of talk about the Bush betrayal of liberty and democratic values- such verbiage typically takes up a large fraction of the given "9-11 Truth" argument being put forth by the fairy-tale sites- and proceed to feed them an account of events carefully crafted to walk the edge between "just barely plausible on the surface, as long as you want to believe it and you don't think too hard" and "patently absurd fantasy."<br><br>What with their being "blinded by Bush-hatred" and all, you think you can sell them anything, because of their willingess to believe- including welcoming new allies with a long right-wing track record, claiming to be defectors. <br><br>Karl Schwartz is another one. Although I think there are authentic conservative defectors from the ranks of the Bush people...the real ones aren't found spinning stem-winding sagas that push the envelope of the plausible beyond the ripping point, though. <br><br>Bottom line: the pro-Bush disinfoists think the "counterculture" is stupid. They think pot smoking renders people unable to reason, for instance. <br><br>And since so many countercultural folks- hippies, ravers, punks, stoners, hip-hoppers- have already assumed a posture of defiance and dissent against Bush, they think that if they can neutralize them with the nonsense they peddle, they can knock them out of the game, and split and marginalize the anti-Bush movement.<br><br>Important point: the disinfo artists may not be secret adherents to the idea that the Bush people were involved in LIHOP, or MIHOP. They may very well be sold on the Bush party line's official version. <br><br>As such, they would be primarily in it to discredit the wider movement of Bush opposition per se. And any time they can manage to corral the Bush opposition into the "moonbat" corner, that's a win, to them. What better way than spinning a line of jive based on the absence of evidence concerning 9-11? The more patently absurd, the better, for their purposes.<br><br>Keep Googling, folks... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncpa.org">web.archive.org/web/*/htt...w.ncpa.org</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>To the extent that the Bush disinfoists have underestimated their opposition, they've granted us a huge potential advantage. <br><br>Keep your ducks in a row...<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 10:18 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby NewKid » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:03 pm

Certainly possible, Robertdreed, certainly possible. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby NewKid » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:06 pm

Are there any historical examples from the 60s or 70s let's say where we have mainstream or rightwing business men who have established lives, businesses, and track records all of sudden throwing all that off and appearing in dissident movements (and who've later been shown to be agents of disinformation)? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 4/10/06 8:12 pm<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:15 pm

Also important to remember a principal maxim of disinfo: its effectiveness depends on "who gets there fustest with the mostest." But that's also one of the vulnerabilities, because disinfoists tend to act so pushy that they get shown up as hucksters....if exposed, their usual response is to lie low for a bit, until a new page comes up. It's about grabbing/exploiting the facing page and it's headlines, and catching the eye of any newbies.<br><br>That perhaps goes a long way to explain why the koo-koos reliably spam Jeff's comment response areas for every thread with their deadpan, overwrought silliness, no matter that it almost never bears any relevance to the topic of discussion at hand. Often using anonymity as a shield.<br><br>No need to directly accuse an RI poster of wittingly spreading disinformation...there's no way to really know that, and such direct accusations typically divert the discourse into accusation and counter-accusation. <br><br>For instance, I have no way of knowing whether RI poster darkbeforedawn is a witting disinformationist, or merely self-convinced and stubborn. <br><br>But the actual traced original source of a wild and extravagant claim that trends toward discrediting the Bush opposition at large deserves intense skepticism and scrutiny. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 9:11 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby robertdreed » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:42 pm

"Are there any historical examples from the 60s or 70s let's say where we have mainstream or rightwing business men who have established lives, businesses, and track records all of sudden throwing all that off and appearing in dissident movements (and who've later been shown to be agents of disinformation)"<br><br>That's difficult to know for sure. Lyndon LaRouche, perhaps- although I don't recall much about his track record before his initial emergence as a "left-radical" political leader in the early 1970s. <br><br>I have suspicions about Fletcher Prouty- who, in his day, in turn evinced such suspicions about the still-living Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine officer and Vietnam vet, formerly of the National Security Council.<br><br>( I'd like to read Ellsberg's autobiography, if he has one... )<br><br>Pat Robertson has played both sides of the "NWO/antiNWO" fence for quite some time.<br><br>Then there's Richard Grasso of the NYSE, meeting with Commander Marulanda of the FARC in Colombia, supposedly about getting the FARC's account to help launder their taxes on the coca fincas that are planted in their areas of control...what a photo op that was. Although that's just a scrap of evidence, a one-off.<br><br>Joyce Riley and the Power Hour people...I no longer trust their credibility. The Power Hour has been "out in front" on the depleted uranium issue, but if you check far enough into their website, it's full of all sorts of cockamamie stuff. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.thepowerhour.com/">www.thepowerhour.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Point- anyone can hang their credibility on a "good cause."<br><br>The Power Hour has also been pushing some of the weirder and more absurd 9-11 theories, and "NWO" theories. Beyond her military service as a nurse, Riley's primary civilian background is as a surgical and staff nurse in the Texas prison system, incidentally. <br><br>I think the case of Morgan Reynolds is much more clear-cut than the one against Joyce Riley- whose doings I admittedly haven't followed as much post-911 as I did before. I was more interested in her site in the late 1990s. But some of the nonsense I've heard coming out of the Power Hour...they should know better. Sometimes, in the case of sincerely deceived conservatives, it's a function of too much trust in the people feeding them. <br><br>Others are skeptical of Nurse Riley. I'll leave it to others to analyze the validity of the claims put forth in this document <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.agwva.org/jr_notice_stop-using-agwva-name.htm">www.agwva.org/jr_notice_s...a-name.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Sometimes, allegations like that are simply a "food-fight" between people in cahoots, as part of a misdirection. Sometimes not. <br><br>A different take on Joyce Riley, RN <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.whale.to/b/w2.html">www.whale.to/b/w2.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And I think this is yet another set of allegations, not directly related to the previous websites I posted- it's a lengthy read, haven't gotten too far into it <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://hometown.aol.com/wbflegal/DaveJoycewebsitepage14.html">hometown.aol.com/wbflegal...age14.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I can't think of any other possible examples that come to mind, right off. I'll have to think some more. But this isn't a country where that tactic has been useful, historically. <br><br>In the USA, it's much easier to point out ostensibly "left, liberal" people with "established track records" who have later been found to be wolves in sheep's clothing, so to speak. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 11:08 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

re historical examples

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:27 pm

Ramsey Clark is still going strong. And I'm <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-that-your-final-answer.html">inclined</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> to think he's dirty as hell.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Why don't I trust Clark? If LBJ's former Attorney General was ever going to win my trust, he would have repudiated his handpicked Clark Panel, its medical professionals linked to the intelligence community, and its findings a whitewash of John F Kennedy's incomplete and adulterated autopsy records. He would have apologized to history and America's thwarted justice for stating just days after the murder of Dr King, and even before a suspect was in custody, that "all of our evidence at this time indicates that it was a single person who committed this criminal act." Years later in The Nation, after his radical makeover, Clark said James Earl Ray should not be given a new trial, but rather his case ought to be studied by a government panel. As Lisa Pease asks in The Assassinations, "Did Clark really think the government, which produced the Warren Commission and the HSCA and failed to reveal the truth about either the Martin Luther King case or the Kennedy assassination, should have been given a chance to bamboozle us yet again?"<br><br>The American Left of Chomsky and Cockburn and The Nation will never touch these matters of conspiracy. So Clark is largely untouched by his legacy of abetting three of the most egregious miscarriages of modern justice - John, Martin and Bobby - which, uncorrected, have brought America to this point of low comedy and great horror.<br></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 4/10/06 9:29 pm<br></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby NewKid » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:30 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But the actual traced original source of a wild and extravagant claim that trends toward discrediting the Bush opposition at large deserves intense skepticism and scrutiny<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah, and Reynolds needs both I'm afraid. The one thing we shouldn't forget though is that even though we may cringe at stuff Reynolds says, the vast majority of people encountering his name will not be up on the inside baseball of the different 9-11 theories. Most will simply hear "former chief labor economist for Bush says 9-11 an inside job" or "former respected businessman and Bush-Cheney supporter now says 9-11 was an inside job and wants to send Bush on a oneway ticket back to Crawford, Texas . . ."<br><br>They hear that and think, gee wiz, maybe it is true if respected rightwingers are pointing the finger at Bush. Only after wading into the 9-11 morass will people start to see exactly what they argue and hear about some of their history. So stuff like that would have to be taken into account when deciding to have these guys start talking about 911. <br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For instance, I have no way of knowing whether RI poster darkbeforedawn is a witting disinformationist, or merely self-convinced and stubborn. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Doh! <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Postby slimmouse » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:32 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the USA, it's much easier to point out ostensibly "left, liberal" people with "established track records" who have later been found to be wolves in sheep's clothing, so to speak.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Im really confused by certain peoples position on this board.<br><br> Why do I get the strange feeling that Antiaristo is right all along ?<br><br> Or, "is it not that simple" RDR ? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> Gotta supplement the cabbie driving income somehow I guess.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Next

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests