Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge > Politics & Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2008, 05:56 PM   #136
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

No need to "redo" that point. I see drug addiction as a disease and crime as a product of poor education and poverty. We see these problems in a fundamentally different way. From what I gather, you see drug users and criminals as all "dishonest," people who simply make bad choices. I view it as a societal problem, and I see most drug addicts as victims. I see most criminals as victims of poor education and poor parenting. No need to continue this discussion because we see this through completely different lenses.

I would like to move on to another point.

Many years ago during the early stages of the Iraq War, George W. Bush was asked about Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq. His response: "I thought they were all Muslims..."

John McCain repeatedly said on the capaign trail that Iranians are training Shi'ites to attack American soldiers. He said it at least 5 times before Joe Lieberman corrected him.

Doesn't this bother you? This is a major difference between liberals and conservatives, in my opinion. John McCain and George W. Bush exemplify the idea of the ethnocentric conservative. They don't understand other cultures, especially our enemies. It is the reason we are still in Iraq. An enlightened and cultured person would know the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis BEFORE he invaded Iraq. An enlightened and cultured senator would understand the difference between Iran and Shi'ites 5 years after the Iraq war began.

This goes back to a larger point. In my view, conservative voters don't VALUE a trait such as understanding other cultures, because they don't understand other culutres. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans. John Kerry was often criticized for speaking "too intelligently" and coming off as "pretentious." George W. Bush is often applauded and embraced by conservatives for "being a man of the people," (in other words an idiot).

Phil, you strike me as a different type of conservative. I would think that you would VALUE the idea of an enlightened and cultured candidate. Don't these statements by McCain and Bush worry you? Can you have any faith in a candidate who doesn't understand the enemy?

Sun Tzu clearly stated in The Art of War that to win in war you must know your enemy.

It is clear that the republican party does not value this idea.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 05:18 PM   #137
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Phil, you strike me as a different type of conservative. I would think that you would VALUE the idea of an enlightened and cultured candidate. Don't these statements by McCain and Bush worry you? Can you have any faith in a candidate who doesn't understand the enemy?
Hey, CK.

On the tax/crime/societal issues, we do see things differently.
My ultimate point is that I understand that abject poverty, and
growing up in a situation of crime and drug use around you is an
unimaginably horrible situation, and I feel bad for the children that
are stuck there. Some become involved because they grow up in
it, and they know no other life. Still, in many cases, I cannot
accept "I grew up poor" as an excuse for committing crimes,
shootings, robberies, assaults and rape, etc., especially when
most poor people do NOT commit such crimes, and that quite a
large number of people who are definitely not poor end up as
some of the worst drug dealers and criminals.

But, on to your other issue. Guess you want my take on the whole
Iraq War issue. I usually avoid it with people face-to-face, mostly
because people end up bitterly arguing too much (which ultimately
doesn't solve anything). I have many mixed opinions, mainly because
I can see valid reasons both for, and against the War. Moreover, I'm
not an expert, which WAY too many people claim to be.

My general thoughts on the "War in Iraq", then I'll relate it to your comment:

-The "War" in Iraq has been over since 2003. In fact, it lasted 8 days.
Saddam's army fled, and the US literally walked into Baghdad. What has
been going on for the past 4+ years is the "nation building" stage as it
were. Unfortunately, it is a freakin' mess, since now there are factions
fighting over control of the country...the most prominent being the Sunnis,
the Shiites, and the Kurds. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists organizations
have a huge stake in which factions ultimately rule, and the poor Iraqi
"people", the regular folk (95% of them...people trying to live their
daily lives) are caught up in the mess.

-Question is then...is Iraq, and their people, better off for the US being
there? Probably not right now, while the "war" is on...i.e. the US and
other forces trying to restore order, and to corral the tidal wave of
terrorists organizations who have converged on the country. Will they
be in the future, if the US is successful in bringing order? Were they
better off under Saddam? Actually, my belief to the last question is
an emphatic "oh HELL no" based on what kind of brutal dictator he was.

-So how about what the US is trying to accomplish. My belief is that
if, eventually (5, maybe 10 years from now), Iraq changes, and becomes
a truly democratic, free nation, where people of all religions are accepted,
where women have equal rights, and people are not blown up by terrorists,
but people of all types generally get along with eachother...this could
become a new pattern for this brutal part of the world, and ultimately
become one of the greatest changes for the course of human history.
GW Bush could be hailed as a true visionary, although hated in his own
time.

-Then again...maybe we, the US, badly miscalculated this whole thing,
overestimated the ability of the people living here to truly take on
democracy, and maybe we merely messed things up worse than before.
I accept that possibility also.

-NOW, back to your question...I understand the difference between
the Sunnis and the Shiites. Firstly, it is a theological difference: the
Sunnis are very traditional, and believe that only Muhammad himself
could represent Muhammad. The Shiites, on the other hand, believe
that Muhammad could have another human successor (sort of like the
Catholics electing a "Pope" to be "Christ on Earth" as opposed to a
theology that may say "only Christ could represent Christ".) Thus,
they disagree vehemently. Furthermore, the Sunnis are big proponents
of the Sharia Law, the strict Muslim practice (women being covered,
stricter dietary regulations, strict punishment for not praying at prayer
time). Shiites are much more modernized, not so big on the restrictions.
(BTW this is my best guess...anything I say wrong, it's no offense to
Muslims). Politically, Sunnis are far more militant, but Shiites far outnumber
them. Thus, a big cause of the major conflict. People forget that most
of the killing in Iraq is Muslim on Muslim killing (much like our "black on black"
crime). The Kurds are just trying not to get genocided.

It's a mess. As for the comments of President Bush, and John McCain,
I'd have to hear what they said. Maybe a part of the disagreement is
this. Many conservatives, like myself, do understand, and make the
effort to understand, that other nations and other cultures will have
radically different value systems. However, I for my part, cannot use
that as an excuse for some of the brutal terrorism we see. Maybe some
of the people's of the Middle East do not desire the type of Democracy
we enjoy in the west, but it seems like a racist position to have that
"these people cannot handle Democracy" or "they are just not ready for
it" and ideas like that.

Boy, CK, you sure got a lot out of me today.
This is actually a busy week for me, so I have to get to some other
work here at my college I gotta do...so chew on it. Probably won't
get back to it until later.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 09:01 AM   #138
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Phil, my larger point was that the current republican president and the republican candidate for president have limited understanding of the enemy we are fighting. That is a formula for disaster.

I am not expecting anyone to "accept" any value system. I don't expect McCain and Bush to love and accept the Iraqis, but I want them to know everything about the Iraqi people possible.

I just don't think that your party values knowledge. They'd rather elect a man who "looks and acts tough" over a person who understands the enemy and what it takes to win. If John McCain was of the opinion that the Iranians are training Shi'it Iraqis, how much can he really know about the most volatile region of the world????
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 01:46 PM   #139
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Phil, my larger point was that the current republican president and the republican candidate for president have limited understanding of the enemy we are fighting. That is a formula for disaster.

I am not expecting anyone to "accept" any value system. I don't expect McCain and Bush to love and accept the Iraqis, but I want them to know everything about the Iraqi people possible.

I just don't think that your party values knowledge. They'd rather elect a man who "looks and acts tough" over a person who understands the enemy and what it takes to win. If John McCain was of the opinion that the Iranians are training Shi'it Iraqis, how much can he really know about the most volatile region of the world????
And the Democrats have any idea what is going on at all? Neither has served in uniform, neither has much experience in foreign policy.
Your continued adoration of the Democrats is beyond me. They have done a poor job of selecting a candidate this election cycle, as have the Republicans.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 02:03 PM   #140
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
And the Democrats have any idea what is going on at all? Neither has served in uniform, neither has much experience in foreign policy.
Your continued adoration of the Democrats is beyond me. They have done a poor job of selecting a candidate this election cycle, as have the Republicans.
Both democratic candidates could tell you the difference between a Sunni and Shi'it, they could have told you that in 1992. They could tell you that Iran would never train Iraqi Shi'its.

They could tell you all of this because they read books, and understand other cultures. They do not harbor the same ethnocentric approach to world politics that the republican party does.

Serving in uniform doesn't make you an expert on foreign affairs.

Both democratic candidates could give a 2 hour lecture on the politics of the middle east dating back to the early 1900s... John McCain couldn't tell you when Iraq was created.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 04:13 PM   #141
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
I just don't think that your party values knowledge.
CK, again I have a busy, busy week so I don't have a lot of time
right now.

But, wanted to clarify something here that's somewhat unrelated,
but to clarify where I'm coming from, concerning all my opinions on
this thread.

The Republicans are not "my party". I am not a member of any political
party, as I believe political parties exist for one purpose and one purpose
only...to get people elected. Moreover, in accomplishing this goal, they
often act unethically, not just in campaigning practices, but in selling
out their values.

Therefore, I am not a member of any party. I use the term "moderate
conservative" to describe my values, because I usually wind up on the "conservative" side of most issues, but am open to the arguments
of the other side, and temper my views as such.

The reason I bring that up, is because I wasn't born with an R tatooed
on my forehead (meaning that I am not a blind partisan). My views on
many issues have changed over the years. In fact, when I was a college
student, I was a lot like you, CK. I was a big Reagan hater, and walked
around the Marquette campus wearing my Mondale/Ferraro buttons.
I began to move "to the right" in the early '90's, as I began to rethink
my views on taxes and the economy, and recogized that the Democratic
party has NEVER shared my views on the abortion issue and other similar
social issues.

Maybe the upshot is this...if you continue to think through issues, remain
passionate about them, and be open to change, you, CK, may someday
vote for a decent Republican. (and before you yell "NEVER", I never
thought I ever would, circa 1985 )

Lastly, to echo Cat's comment, I think all three of the final candidates
are lousy. Hillary is basically an egomaniac. Obama is woefully inexperienced
and has ideas about taxation that could destroy our economy. McCain is
solid (for me) on defense, the economy, and the life issue, but sucks on
the border and the energy issue. Personally, I think we skipped a
generation. Where's the energetic 55-year old who has fresh ideas, but
also the experience to be a truly effective president?

As far as "doesn't value knowledge", I don't agree with a blanket
statement like that. I wouldn't say that about either side, the way I
would never call any candidate "stupid". Say "disagree" or "I don't
think they look at the right things..." or something like that, that will
help us discuss, as opposed to just shutting out the other side.

I'll get back to more later, when I have more time...

Thanks for the discussion, so far, CK.

Last edited by philabramoff; 04-08-2008 at 04:20 PM. Reason: spelling correction
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 04:18 PM   #142
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Good post Phil. I apologize for labeling you.

I could easily vote for a republican. John McCain 8 years ago would have received my vote. John McCain now doesn't even deserve consideration from me.

Quote:
Obama is woefully inexperienced and has ideas about taxation that could destroy our economy.
The economy? I'm sorry, but we have seen what "tax cuts," and corporate welfare have done for the economy.

Things need to be paid for. We MUST increase taxes before we go any further in debt. George W. Bush didn't cut any taxes, he just passed the bill on to our grandchildren.

Bill Clinton raised taxes. How did the economy do under him?
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 04:38 PM   #143
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Bill Clinton raised taxes. How did the economy do under him?
Dang it, CK, you keep sucking me in...I'm not going to get ANY work
done today am I??? :tsk:

The economy was good under Clinton because Clinton's economic
policies were actually very conservative...in the way he ran the fed,
lowering interest rates, supporting long-needed welfare reform
and cooperating with the Republican congress in setting some balanced
budgets. Moreover, he benefitted from the end of the Cold War (i.e.
did not need to have an overblown military budget like we did under
Reagan), and from the dot-com boom of the mid-to-late '90's. Clinton
raised some taxes, but not the types of corporate taxes that would
have put millions of people out of work. He was a VERY smart politician,
in that he kept the liberal base on the big sexy issues that the social
liberals like, but knew enough to take the measures I listed above, so
that he could preside over a booming economy. The strong economy
eventually cycled out toward the close of the '90's, and GWB inherited
the start of a recession. Then, when 9/11 occurred, that wasn't a
very big help to our economy.

For my part, I remember Carter. He really WAS a tax-and-spend liberal.
Promise people the moon, and have to scramble to raise every tax he
could to try to pay for it. The result was that our economy tanked,
interest rates were in the 17-20 % range (i.e. "good luck trying to buy
a home"), we had double-digit inflation, the unemployment rate was
around 15 %, and gas prices (adjusted for inflation) were about as
bad as they are now. Remember the term "stagflation" that I mentioned
before? That's what it was under Carter. No growth in the economy,
but really bad inflation. No wonder Reagan smoked Carter in the 1980
election, and then did the same to Mondale in 1984.

When I see Obama making wholesale promises, and saying he will raise
taxes to pay for all of them, my panic flags go up. Promise SOME things,
especially necessary things, but not to make everyone's life PERFECT.

For me, Obama's a decent, good-hearted guy, that I believe is sincere
in what he wants to accomplish. But, as you can see, I don't want any
more Carter reruns.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 04:44 PM   #144
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Other question, CK...

If BO is the nominee, as it appears he will be, who do you see
him taking as a running mate ?

NOW...I'm going to shut my computer, so I can get some freakin'
WORK done...:redhot:
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 05:06 PM   #145
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philabramoff View Post
Other question, CK...

If BO is the nominee, as it appears he will be, who do you see
him taking as a running mate ?

NOW...I'm going to shut my computer, so I can get some freakin'
WORK done...:redhot:
Hahaha, get that work done phil :thumbup:

It depends on the circumstances. They may works some kind of deal where Hillary becomes the running mate and the Dems can stop fighting each other. But if Barack has his choice, I think he will take either John Edwards or Bill Richardson from New Mexico. Richardson would bring in the latino vote and Edwards the populist vote. Either one would be a good choice in my opinion. :thumbup:
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 08:33 PM   #146
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Both democratic candidates could tell you the difference between a Sunni and Shi'it, they could have told you that in 1992. They could tell you that Iran would never train Iraqi Shi'its.

They could tell you all of this because they read books, and understand other cultures. They do not harbor the same ethnocentric approach to world politics that the republican party does.

Serving in uniform doesn't make you an expert on foreign affairs.

Both democratic candidates could give a 2 hour lecture on the politics of the middle east dating back to the early 1900s... John McCain couldn't tell you when Iraq was created.
Fresh, did I say I was voting for McCain? I said I don't trust either of the Democratic front-runners to do what has to be done in Iraq. As Phil said, the military action was very swift and decisive. The peace (nation-building) as Phil also said has not gone as planned, if any plan was there to begin with.
I do not have any faith that the Democrats will continue the war on international terrorism. Neither seems capable of making the tough decisions that must be made. I would not want either of them answering the phone at 3AM in a time of crisis.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 10:27 AM   #147
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
It depends on the circumstances. They may works some kind of deal where Hillary becomes the running mate and the Dems can stop fighting each other. But if Barack has his choice, I think he will take either John Edwards or Bill Richardson from New Mexico. Richardson would bring in the latino vote and Edwards the populist vote. Either one would be a good choice in my opinion. :thumbup:
Bill Richardson would probably be the wisest choice, as he is a more
moderate Liberal than BO is, and would bring some experience to the
ticket.

John Edwards would probably not be much of a wise choice, as he does
come across too much as that slick, smooth-talking lawyer-type.

Regarding Hillary, I doubt she's even accept the VP spot, as I think
she's too dang proud, the same way you see these Olympians all
pissed off because they "only won the silver medal", or as a more
appropriate comparison, the way Satan refused to take up the
second spot in the order of grace to Mary the Mother of Jesus.

More to the point, though, I don't think Hillary wants BO to win.
In the Clinton's desire for power, I do believe they secretly want
BO to lose, because they want that second shot at it in 2012
(and waiting until 2016 just may be too late for them...or if not
too late, too long a time for them to sit around picking their rumps
waiting for their next chance at it).

Do you see anyone else in the party, off the board as it were,
that BO may select?

OOPS...gotta go, late for class!!.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 10:36 AM   #148
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philabramoff View Post

Regarding Hillary, I doubt she's even accept the VP spot, as I think
she's too dang proud, the same way you see these Olympians all
pissed off because they "only won the silver medal", or as a more
appropriate comparison, the way Satan refused to take up the
second spot in the order of grace to Mary the Mother of Jesus.
:lol:

Hillary and Satan - a match made in heaven

:lol:

Sorry, back to the point.

I think you are probably right about her pride. I think she is self-serving.

I would like to see Gore on the ticket, but for some reason he is nearly as polarizing a figure as Hillary... Some people just hate him - so he won't get the VP spot.

The other good thing about Richardson is he is another minority. So if any extremist racists want to try to kill Obama, their alternative is a Hispanic
(that was supposed to be funny)

I really don't know who the VP for the Dems will be. Perhaps someone like Joe Bidden or Chris Dodd??? I don't know.

What about McCain. Who will he choose?
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 05:13 PM   #149
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
I would like to see Gore on the ticket, but for some reason he is nearly as polarizing a figure as Hillary... Some people just hate him - so he won't get the VP spot.
I don't think Al Gore would take it anyway. Firstly, in HIS pride I doubt
he wants to be bridesmaid all over again, in addition to the idea of the
ticket just looking weird. Furthermore, he's having too much
fun in his role as National Global Warming Guru, and probably doesn't want
to spend the time and energy campaigning, and then doing the VP role
without it meaning HE would be President. Gore's time has come and gone.
He's more of an elder statesman to the Dems, now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
The other good thing about Richardson is he is another minority. So if any extremist racists want to try to kill Obama, their alternative is a Hispanic.
As far as Richardson being a "minority" in terms of being a draw, I don't
see it as having the kind of effect that Obama's "being a minority" does.
Richardson is more just "Hispanic in descent", and not really a "Hispanic"
in terms of the American experience as one (for that matter, neither is
Obama, having been raised by white parents, and pretty much all the
advantages of "being white" in America, as best as it can be described).
If his name was "Ricardo" and not "Richardson", sorry to say, it may have
a bigger effect.

As far as the issue of assassination (aside the hint of humor you injected
into it), some of the worst racism in America is between the black
community and Hispanics. It's certainly manifested in the gang wars
we have here in Los Angeles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Perhaps someone like Joe Bidden or Chris Dodd???
I don't know.
Couldn't see Joe Biden taken. He just seems a bit too clumsy.
Chris Dodd may be reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
What about McCain. Who will he choose?
Was wondering if you'd ask. There are some names I'd LIKE to see,
like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, South Dakota Senator John Thune,
or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (who'd be the first ASIAN on a
national ticket...a GREAT choice for VP). I think he'd need to take
someone younger and more energetic to offset his age and apparent
tiredness and outdatedness.

I personally like Condi, but would NOT want her to be picked, as she'd
be too polarizing.

Unfortunately, I imagine him taking someone old and dull, like Bob Dole
selecting Jack Kemp back in '96. Sort of the way the Packers always
blow their First Round Pick every year. :thumbdown:

Final thought...ever notice that the big logo for "Hannity and Colmes"
is that Blue and Red "HC" ? Same as "Hillary Clinton". Is this maybe
the reason Alan Colmes agreed to be listed second in the naming of
the show ?
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 06:34 PM   #150
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

I think you may be looking to far in the th "HC" thing...

Why can't Colin Powell be more interested in politics? He's the one man who could truly unite this country. A true moderate, sensible, thoughtful man that appeals to both liberals and conservatives...
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hell in St. Louis bama4256 The Lounge 0 12-19-2007 10:11 AM
Conversation with myself Panthers-Rule The Lounge 3 10-14-2004 11:47 PM
Who should start in St. Louis? Marc National Football League 15 02-25-2003 11:16 AM
St. Louis Scores 28 Points in Fourth Quarter bama4256 National Football League 9 01-03-2003 04:17 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 AM.