Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Clinton used only private email while Secretary of State (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  10  11  12   
Author Topic: Clinton used only private email while Secretary of State
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The law specifically forbids federal employees from doing this.
Do you know what "this" is? They were using unsecured Hotmail and Yahoo webmail accounts and did not submit any of their mail for retention.

There are two important distinctions here that make what Clinton did -- as far as we know -- lawful. That's not to say that she didn't submit all of her emails for retention, though; that there's no way for us to verify that is one of the reasons the law was subsequently tightened.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the RNC mail system all of a sudden was really unencrypted Hotmail or yahoo...

I think someone is confusing Romney, Palin and Bush...

Hilarious. Keep digging. This is very entertaining.

[ March 04, 2015, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The law in question is the Fedeal Records Act. She broke that law and it's indisputable she knowingly did that.
*sigh* Like with Seneca, I've found that when you use words like "indisputable" and "certain" and "obvious," you're least likely to be right. It is indeed disputable that she broke the law at all.

That said, her desire to avoid transparency is hardly to her credit.

As I have found those that start their posts with condescension are least likely to be right.

She had a server stood up. She intentionally avoided using official government email accounts. This is obviously true. So maybe you're thinking she didn't know she was supposed to use official email?
quote:
A top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign-in-waiting accused the George W. Bush administration of using private emails to skirt transparency rules in 2007.

John Podesta, who left the White House in February for an unofficial role with Clinton, criticized Bush administration officials for using Republican National Committee email accounts for official business.

Seems her "top adviser" was very well aware of it and tried to use it to gain political points on her behalf.

I think the only real question at this point is, do you care she broke the law? Given your attempts to defend it, I suspect you don't, not really. I think that so many defenders not caring is a very interesting part of this story.

More interesting, now that it's been hacked how many secrets have been blown? How many confidential pieces of information have been compromised? The impact to national security could be severe. We'll likely never know the extent of the damage done because those emails will get, illegally, scrubbed.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, cite? Google only shows her advisor's email was hacked.

The legal question, resting as it does on the minutia of a pretty crappy law, is where I agree with JoshuaD. Whether or not she actually broke the law is a matter for experts. It's the attitude and priorities implied by the separate email that I think are of greater concern.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So the RNC mail system all of a sudden was really unencrypted Hotmail or yahoo...
No. Don't be stupid.
The specific complaint at the time was that Bush staffers were having policy discussions over unsecured webmail. Podesta mentioned the RNC, but the actual complaint detailed public email. Which was illegal. If the RNC servers were properly encrypted, no contemporary laws would have been broken if emails were eventually provided to Archives (although, to the best of my knowledge, none were.)

quote:
She had a server stood up. She intentionally avoided using official government email accounts. This is obviously true. So maybe you're thinking she didn't know she was supposed to use official email?
If you examine the law at the time, it was not actually illegal to use your own mailserver. The legal requirements, as far as any of us can tell, were met: policy-related emails had to be turned over to Archives, and all sensitive email had to be encrypted. Unfortunately, we don't have any way to validate the first, which is why rules were changed before Kerry came on.

quote:
I think that so many defenders not caring is a very interesting part of this story.
Dude, you are trying to dramatically reshape reality to fit your narrow, stupid little narrative. Who would you say "does not care?" Do you see a distinction between believing one behavior being illegal and wrong and another, different behavior being just wrong, or do you only perceive hypocrisy?

quote:
More interesting, now that it's been hacked how many secrets have been blown? How many confidential pieces of information have been compromised? The impact to national security could be severe.
Possibly. Although one hopes that actual Top Secret information is not being communicated over email of this sort at all, since that is illegal.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if she had been using the correct email address, any nefarious activity that she may have been up to could have been taken to other channels on a case-by-case basis still. I agree that she *should* have used a government system but it's absolutely no guarantee of transparency if she were to do so. If she was going to be behaving badly, having her mundane communication on the right email server wouldn't have prevented that.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
It is also quite common for people to use non-employer email systems to set up planning and action groups in private without employer oversight-even if such actions ultimately are intended for implementation at the employer.
The law specifically forbids federal employees from doing this.
As you can see, greater context makes this switch even more damning.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This drama laced quoting-but-not-sharing-the-link is stupid.

link to the thread.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are some speculations that this hubbub is really the work of democrats trying to kill Hillary's run in favor of Sacajawarren. One can dream, right?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's such a small way to think.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm absolutely flabbergasted by "Sacajawarren." Is it really so hard for conservatives to use someone's actual name when talking about them?

----------

quote:
As you can see, greater context makes this switch even more damning.
No, it doesn't.
*sigh*
Look, I understand that you understand that law in practice requires nuance. Do you know what made the Bush staffer thing illegal, and what would make this whole Clinton thing illegal? Before people go around saying that something is "inarguably" criminal, or "obviously" illegal, they should actually understand the law and how it applies.

Look, I'm not defending Clinton. Anyone on this site knows that I am not exactly a fan. I would love -- love -- to see her knocked out of the race for sending some dubiously "secret" email over webmail or something, to be replaced by a better candidate who isn't a member of some anointed dynasty. [Smile] But when idiots post to preemptively accuse people of hypocrisy, they should at least have some intellectual integrity to those accusations. Right now, they're just being idiots.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This gets a little further off the rails:
quote:
To summarize: according to DomainTools.com, the domain clintonemail.com has been hosted by Confluence Networks since 12/22/2011, more than three years. Confluence Networks, based out of the British Virgin Islands, has only existed as a domain (confluence-networks.com) since April 2011, appears to be closely related to a Dubai-based media advertising firm, and has always had its domain name managed by PrivacyProtect.org, a registration privacy firm that lists addresses out of Luxembourg and Australia, but gives a phone number apparently out of Denmark, and that shows up repeatedly in connection with fraud, scam, and spam-related domains.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Speculation about what happened revolves around a seeming partnership Network Solutions has with a company in the U.S. Virgin Islands called Confluence Networks Inc. to transfer expired domains to them.
That's from a quoted article discussing exactly what Confluence Networks is: essentially, it's a domain-name bottom feeder.

*sigh* So, yeah, this is more Sturm und Drang; we're not seeing some kind of weird international scandal, here. We're seeing a small personal email host use a DNS address provided by a common mass-mailer. I wouldn't go with a cheap provider, myself, if I were the ex-President and his wife, the Secretary of State (although I should note that my own personal domain is hosted by a firm that at first glance would appear pretty shady to someone not familiar with it), but I strongly suspect that the individual tapped to manage the Clinton family's personal mailserver is probably not much more competent than the individual running the Card family's bunch of websites. It would be more surprising if the site were somehow hosted by its own dedicated company, IMO.

That said, again, I sincerely hope that no actual classified information was discussed over these email addresses; I don't have faith that anyone involved understands stuff like PGP. [Smile]

[ March 05, 2015, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just so we can be clear about what we are talking about:

Presidential Records Act (Wikipedia article).

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clinton only used this email address while SoS, no other. We can be sure confidential information was sent on it.

Unless of course one thinks that someone can be SoS for several years without needing to transmit any confidential information at all, which is absurd.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We can be sure confidential information was sent on it.
No, we can't. Clinton is previously on record as having said that when she needed to transmit truly confidential official data, she had someone else do that for her through the system at State. Which is pretty much the way John McCain operates, apparently, as well. When they're typing for posterity, they want someone else to do the typing.

Or so they claim. The inability of anyone to verify this is the reason the rule was changed.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless of course one thinks that someone can be SoS for several years without needing to transmit any confidential information at all, which is absurd.
Did you deliberately use "transmit" instead of "email," here? As Tom points, just because she might need to transmit confidential information doesn't necessarily mean she emailed it. Which doesn't do good things for the argument.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry guys, I'm sure the NSA and CIA were monitoring all of Hillary's communications anyhow, so she was in good hands. [Exploding]

If she had actually sent sensitive information at some point in an unsecured fashion I have a feeling she would have been 'informed' shortly thereafter. If it ever did happen, it probably didn't happen twice.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it happened even once we need to know and she should be held accountable.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By whom?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So let's ignore all records laws and transparency related statues and let officials hide everything from the public with no recourse.

So much for the "most transparent administration in history."

[ March 05, 2015, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So much for the "most transparent administration in history."

Can you point to another administration that has made publicly available as much data about program budgets and spending as this one has? Unless you're actually going to address what the statement was made in regards to, it's not really useful to try to randomly brandish it as a snide non-sequitur.

[ March 05, 2015, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So let's ignore all records laws and transparency related statues and let officials hide everything from the public with no recourse.
This doesn't actually answer my question, which was asked in all sincerity: to whom should we hold politicians accountable if they flout transparency statutes and/or compromise confidential data? Should the public be told if a given politician does the latter, or does that actually create its own risk?

I ask this as someone who is firmly -- firmly -- opposed to government secrecy, even on issues of national security. I've had some pretty lengthy arguments about how unnecessary and corrosive I think it is. But when we talk about "recourse" for this sort of thing, we should actually consider what form that could possibly take.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In this particular case, a solid bit of recourse would be not to elect her. Of course, that may be a cure worse than the disease.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's only really a viable solution if we think the alternatives are better. Otherwise it's like hanging the town's only doctor for horse theft.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But even that argument is invalidated by the existence of the primaries, unless the democrats believe there is no candidate less corrupt than her. I wonder how many think that...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, the not-electing part could happen in the primaries; that just means a different set of alternatives. Did you really mean to suggest we'd be better off with President Warren or Biden? Is there anyone else even on the map for the Democratic primaries?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
But even that argument is invalidated by the existence of the primaries, unless the democrats believe there is no candidate less corrupt than her. I wonder how many think that...

And since the primaries haven't even started yet, this issue is best left to the systems in place to investigate and deal with it if there was an actionable violation for the moment, and otherwise not take up news cycle time from more currently relevant things. (Especially considering that if it burns time now, it will be water under the bridge and almost irrelevant by the time the primaries come around, even if there was an actionable fault.)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Politico is reporting that not only was Clinton possibly in violation of several laws, but also she is in definite violation of a 2005 Department of State rule.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

The government loves to have its agencies craft rules which have the force of law to be used on citizens so the same should apply here as well.

Also, even though the Guccifer hack was not Hillary's account, it was still an account on her private email system and it clearly shows hackers gaining access to confidential/sensitive information, and she was included in that email chain.

[ March 06, 2015, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 2009 National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect when Clinton took office say;

"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Hillary broke the rule, as she did not have her private email account, set-up just prior to her confirmation, "preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system". Instead it was stored on her home-hosted server for editing discretion.

Hillary was very suspicious of political operatives who employed this tactic prior to implementation of the law restricting its use;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/flashback-hillary-attacks-bush-officials-for-secret-email-accounts-video/

As far as whether this may benefit Mrs. Wannabee Cherokee, who knows how "small a way of thinking" the scandal may actually be. We have seen smaller used before by the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, on precisely this topic, as early as June 30, 2007.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
In this particular case, a solid bit of recourse would be not to elect her. Of course, that may be a cure worse than the disease.

That's an adequate remedy for some ills, but not for COVER UPS because elections to work are based on accurate performance and position information. democracy is a farce if the people are buying a pig in a poke.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slate has a good article: here

[ March 08, 2015, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sacajawarren?

Wannabes Cherokee?

I'm one of the least PC folks you're going to see on these boards, and god knows we're all used to people here referring to members of the other party in juvenile ways, but this seems a little overtly racist to me.

Perhaps we can start calling Obama "Monkey man" next? The Kenyan Coon, maybe?

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DJQuag,

"... this seems a little overtly racist to me. "...

Absolutely, as an American citizen with a small portion of genetic heritage running back to the Cherokee nation, I am offended on numerous levels that Elizabeth Warren would game the system by dipping into the public trough under a false pretense of Native American entitlement.

... What a lying, opportunistic, hypocrite.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As an aside, how can an epithet "seem a little" "overtly racist"?

Something that is "overtly" anything cannot simultaneously "seem" anything.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
DJQuag,

"... this seems a little overtly racist to me. "...

Absolutely, as an American citizen with a small portion of genetic heritage running back to the Cherokee nation, I am offended on numerous levels that Elizabeth Warren would game the system by dipping into the public trough under a false pretense of Native American entitlement.

... What a lying, opportunistic, hypocrite.

Maybe. Otoh, i was told by my family that i have Cherokee on both sides, and have passed that tradition to my sons, but have no idea how to document it it.

DjQuag is being silly, though; if it was a Republican who had done this, the blowhards now crying racism would be making hay of it.

White Americans have used Redface for their convenience; it's part of the American way. Boston tea party. Mountain Meadows.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The grammar police done caught me, me culpa.

But I noticed that you were perfectly happy to use her name then. And you may even have a point, it's something I'll need to look into.

But are the nicknames highlighting her race or lack thereof really necessary? Just say "Elizabeth Warren. Not really native american. What a bitch, amirite?"

I'd like to think we're above the level of 4chan or Something Awful around here.

Anyway, I'm really not the PC police and have no intention of trying to fill that role, so this is the only time you'll hear about it from me. I just found it to be really jarring when I read it and thought I'd mention it.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
As an aside, how can an epithet "seem a little" "overtly racist"?

Something that is "overtly" anything cannot simultaneously "seem" anything.

DjQuag is a Brit raised in America recently moved to the kingdom. Consequently he doesnt quite grasp how to do the British understatement thing [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are there people crying racism? I'm honestly not sure what the controversy even is here.

I will say that when people have claimed to be 1/64 or 1/128 of a certain race, the left side of the aisle is not the one I expect to laugh and make light of it.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the point is to mock Little Big Warr'n for supposedly lying. Not a race thing.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  10  11  12   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1