[Lerkfish]

this CNN story
has some interesting tidbits:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House released payroll records Tuesday it said demonstrate that President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s, hoping to defuse lingering election-year questions about the president's service.

I'm glad this is a priority.

But under questioning from reporters, McClellan said the records do not specifically show that Bush reported for Guard duty in Alabama, where he spent much of 1972 working on a Senate campaign. And he said the White House has been unable to locate anyone who remembers serving with Bush during that period.

LOL! so these papers actually only prove he got paid. Way to defuse!

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this CNN story
has some interesting tidbits:

I'm glad this is a priority.



LOL! so these papers actually only prove he got paid. Way to defuse!

Sorry there's no conspiracy theory here. Move along.

[spacefreak]

Linky here

The Photo Dems Fear Most: Kerry with 'Hanoi Jane'

Democratic Party officials are hoping that no photographs exist of a well-covered Vietnam War protest where soldier-hating actress Jane Fonda and Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, then an up-and-coming member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, railed against U.S. war policy from the back of the same pickup truck.

You're welcome....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Sorry there's no conspiracy theory here. Move along.

get someone to explain it to you.

you see, no one remembers serving with him, and the commander mentions not seeing him for a year in his evaluation. It wasn't even a combat gig, his well-connected pappy got him out of actually carrying a rifle. All he had to do was just show up, and he couldn't even scramble up the cahonies to do that. Then, when he needed to run for office, suddenly all records vanish. Then, just as magically they reappear, but in a nonconclusive manner.

Do you need me to connect the dots for you? I know these concepts are a little difficult.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Linky here

You're welcome....

LOL! so this IS bizarro world. The slander machine is in full force. Rove is quite the handy guy.

So, let me get this straight: you're accusing the decorated war hero as a draft dodger and claiming the combat dodging child of privelege is a war hero?

What happened, did they surgically remove your ability to critically reason?

[Evan_11]

First you question why this was a priority. Then you start with the conspiracy theories.

Lerk I'll put you out of your misery real quick here: Military record didn't help Bush Sr. beat Clinton in 92'. It will not help Kerry beat Bush Jr. in 04'.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! so this IS bizarro world. The slander machine is in full force. Rove is quite the handy guy.

Rove? I read the story, went to Corbis, searched for Fonda Vietnam, and found this gem.

Give some kudos where kudos are due.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
First you question why this was a priority. Then you start with the conspiracy theories.

Lerk I'll put you out of your misery real quick here: Military record didn't help Bush Sr. beat Clinton in 92'. It will not help Kerry beat Bush Jr. in 04'.

but continuing to lie and being caught at it won't help Bush Jr., either. He's getting to be known as quite untrustworthy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Rove? I read the story, went to Corbis, searched for Fonda Vietnam, and found this gem.

Give some kudos where kudos are due.

ok, kudos.

still bizarro world.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
still bizarro world.

And I don't see how "slander" can be used when simply displaying a photograph. I'd say stupidity is a much more appropriate term.

I mean, how can some mac message board poster (like me) find a photo in 30 seconds that Democratic Party officials "hope" doesn't exist?

[kvm_mkdb]

From the mentioned link:

The report stated Bush had been performing "equivalent training" at a Guard unit in Montgomery, Alabama. But the man who was that unit's commander at the time has said he does not recall Bush reporting for duty.

Heh.

[kvm_mkdb]

Another one:

"I think there are some that we are now seeing are not interested in the facts," McClellan said. "What they are interested in is trying to twist the facts for partisan political advantage in an election year, and that's unfortunate."

As we can plainly see in this thread...

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok, kudos.

still bizarro world.

Bizarro=Lerk doesn't agree.

I swear debating with you is like translating womanese.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
From the mentioned link:
Heh.

truly.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Bizarro=Lerk doesn't agree.

I swear debating with you is like translating womanese.

bizarro= does not logically follow.

[boots]

This is probably the biggest smoke-screen non-issue on the table. (Yes, it screams "desperate" too me.) The number of people who will vote one way or the other because of this issue is, I think, small.

Not sure the Fonda artwork is going to be an issue either. At this point, it is pretty well acknowledged that Vietnam was a mistake. So people who protested it might get flamed as being anti-establishment, but that's about it. Kerry is a decorated vet, so that will carry more weight.

There are a lot better reasons to dislike both Bush Jr and Kerry. The issues raised here are diversionary.

Military service is important because it give a certain perspective to the vet. But I don't think the race will come down to this.

What I see being the issues for those who would be undecided (based on personal conversations with undecided voters I know).

Jobs...job creation is still lacking, and Bush is taking the heat for it. If it turns around by November, it will favor Bush.

Deficit....People are a little worried about deficit since it is coming with cuts in social programs and increases in military spending...and we know that the budget just submitted doesn't request further funding for Iraq. That will come later.

I think it will come down to the economy. People are already polarized by the Bush Doctrine and the war in Iraq, so this isn't going to sway undecided people.

It seems like we have a pretty good split in the electorate, and those few undecided voters will really be important. I think they will decide based on Jobs and Deficit.

*disclaimer for Roger: this is all my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Linky here

You're welcome....

A little context is appropriate here. "Hanoi" Jane would not actually go to Hanoi until two years after this rally took place.

Besides, haven't we been all over the "tarring war protestors with the same extremist brush" debate?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
bizarro= does not logically follow.

Right and arguing with you is like debating a woman. You are always right. Here you can have the remote honey.

[boots]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Right and arguing with you is like debating a woman. You are always right. Here you can have the remote honey.

That's a little uncalled for. If you don't like arguing with him, move on.

Your attitude towards women is kind of repugnant. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with them.

Lerk made a statement that the "evidence" doesn't say what the administration is using it to say. It says nothing about a conspiracy theory.

So in that context, your comment is a non-sequitur. If you want to an make an argument, go ahead. But you response made no sense in the context.

Neither did spacefreaks...although it was interesting...but his at least had substance.

[ThinkInsane]

You guys want to quit sniping at one another and actually talk about the topic at hand? I'm starting to get a little sick of it. Actually, I'm a lot sick of it.

On topic:
My point of view, as a vet, is that the military service records of the men running are of little importance. It doesn't rank anywhere near the top of the issues that effect my decision in the election booth.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
You guys want to quit sniping at one another and actually talk about the topic at hand? I'm starting to get a little sick of it. Actually, I'm a lot sick of it.

On topic:
My point of view, as a vet, is that the military service records of the men running are of little importance. It doesn't rank anywhere near the top of the issues that effect my decision in the election booth.

Thank you. On both counts.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I mean, how can some mac message board poster (like me) find a photo in 30 seconds that Democratic Party officials "hope" doesn't exist?

Where did you find this quote from a democratic party official saying there was 'hope' that did photo didn't exist?

Or is this a fabricated quote?

[adamk]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
My point of view, as a vet, is that the military service records of the men running are of little importance. It doesn't rank anywhere near the top of the issues that effect my decision in the election booth.

i agree that it doesn't matter whether a candidate chose to serve in the military or not, but i would feel a lot better about having a president that has seen combat experience firsthand in the oval office. considering that we are currently (though technically not) in a time of war, when that president is in a position of sending others into combat.

i personally would be reluctant to send anybody into a war zone (not having served in the US military myself) though, i think a president who has combat experience would be more able to judge whether or not military action is a viable and warranted action, than one who hasn't.

it makes me sad to think that bush expected commitment from US troops - the same service he did not fully commit to himself. though, it should be fairly easy to prove otherwise.

[itai195]

Originally posted by dialo:
Where did you find this quote from a democratic party official saying there was 'hope' that did photo didn't exist?

Or is this a fabricating quote?

He got it off a conservative news source. It's probably just their 'objective' journalistic spin.

Amongst other headlines on the page is "Dean Complains About Being a Draft-Dodging Ski Bum," clearly another fine work of journalistic integrity.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by adamk:

i personally would be reluctant to send anybody into a war zone (not having served in the US military myself) though, i think a president who has combat experience would be more able to judge whether or not military action is a viable and warranted action, than one who hasn't.

I agree with a lot of what you say, however, let's remember that the President (be it Bush or whomever) isn't really making the decision to go to war or not... Sure, he signs off on it and has the final say so.... But he has very abundant resources (such as the Joint Chiefs), and they probaly have more say-so than most people realize. The title "Commander in Chief" is more of a ceremonial attribute.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I agree with a lot of what you say, however, let's remember that the President (be it Bush or whomever) isn't really making the decision to go to war or not... Sure, he signs off on it and has the final say so.... But he has very abundant resources (such as the Joint Chiefs), and they probaly have more say-so than most people realize. The title "Commander in Chief" is more of a ceremonial attribute.

For me it comes down to the issue of trusting the president to differentiate between "war of choice" and "war of necessity".

Perhaps the most interesting portion of Bush's appearance on "Meet the Press" was when Russert asked him if he thought Iraq was a "war of choice" or a "war of necessity" in light of the revelations about WMD.

Bush was clearly unprepared for the question. He called it "interesting" and asked Russert to elaborate what he meant by it--before rehashing the usual stuff about Saddam being a dangerous man.

I got the unmistakable impression that Bush really didn't see what the difference was. I'm not saying that Bush takes the decision to send in the troops lightly, but I do think he has a much different idea of what constitutes "necessity" and "last resort" than a combat veteran does.

In fact, it would seem that the man with the most combat experience in his administration does have considerably different views on the subject, even concerning Iraq.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Where did you find this quote from a democratic party official saying there was 'hope' that did photo didn't exist?

Or is this a fabricated quote?

I saw the article on NewsMax. I also provided the link as "linky" in the original post.

Oh damn, I just revisted the site and saw that they have the photo on their site (minus the Corbis watermark). Looks like I could have saved that 30 seconds if I had just clicked around the site a bit more.

Another article:

MSNBC "Hardball" host and longtime Democrat Chris Matthews said Tuesday that a photo showing Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry protesting the Vietnam war with "Hanoi" Jane Fonda is a real problem for his party's top candidate.

While offering sharp criticism of President Bush for not serving in Vietnam, Matthews told radio host Don Imus Tuesday morning: "You've got the Jane Fonda problem on the other side. The thing with her is, she was on the other side - she was on Hanoi's side during that war."

"And I'll tell you," Matthews continued, "everybody I knew, including me, who was against the war - I wouldn't have anything to do with a person who supported Hanoi."

Kerry, then head of the radical anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, worked closely with Fonda on two war protests: a September 1970 rally in Valley Forge, Pa., where Fonda and Kerry spoke from the back of the same pickup truck, and a January 1971 protest they called the "Winter Solider Investigation," where fabricated testimony of U.S. war atrocities was presented.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I saw the article on NewsMax. I also provided the link as "linky" in the original post.

I didn't ask you for the article. I asked you for the original statement where a democratic party official said there was 'hope' that such a photo didn't exist.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


I got the unmistakable impression that Bush really didn't see what the difference was. I'm not saying that Bush takes the decision to send in the troops lightly, but I do think he has a much different idea of what constitutes "necessity" and "last resort" than a combat veteran does.

This isn't necessarily correct. A lot of vets look at military solutions first, because they have the "go with what you know" mentality. Being a combat veteran doesn't necessarily mean that you've seen the horrors of war and spend the rest of your life making sure that it never happens again. A lot of vets I know just except that war is a fact of life, and that's that.

[vmarks]

Senator John Kerry proudly stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed, “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

For those of you who are Vietnam veterans please take a moment and allow your blood pressure to come down. These words from Senator Kerry are nothing short of repulsive and are an insult to every family that had a loved one serve in Vietnam or lost a family member in the war. By stating these words twelve years ago and based upon his current attacks on President Bush’s military record, it is clear that Senator Kerry is a man of politics not of principle and that military sacrifice is only valued when there is a potential for political advantage. It’s clear that John Kerry is not a man of principle.

[itai195]

Um, how are those words repulsive? Or is the difference between supporting a war and supporting troops still lost on you?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by itai195:
Um, how are those words repulsive? Or is the difference between supporting a war and supporting troops still lost on you?

The difference never has been lost on me. What part of it is lost on you, that you can equate protesting, fleeing the country in order to willfully violate law, with honorably serving?

The two are inequal. While dissent is valuable, and the ability to exercise it paramount to a free society, military force is what protects that ability.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The difference never has been lost on me. What part of it is lost on you, that you can equate protesting, fleeing the country in order to willfully violate law, with honorably serving?

The two are inequal. While dissent is valuable, and the ability to exercise it paramount to a free society, military force is what protects that ability.

And exactly what aspect of our freedom was being threatened in Vietnam?

I read Kerry's remarks as saying that ending the war was a service to our nation and anyone who worked towards that end deserves our respect.

[FeLiZeCaT]

You have no idea how you need to watch:

"The Fog Of War"

That Viet Nam was such a sorry mess....

from the mouth of the Secretary of defense of that time.


GO!! DON'T WAIT!!!

[Mithras]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Senator John Kerry proudly stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed, “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

For those of you who are Vietnam veterans please take a moment and allow your blood pressure to come down. These words from Senator Kerry are nothing short of repulsive and are an insult to every family that had a loved one serve in Vietnam or lost a family member in the war. By stating these words twelve years ago and based upon his current attacks on President Bush’s military record, it is clear that Senator Kerry is a man of politics not of principle and that military sacrifice is only valued when there is a potential for political advantage. It’s clear that John Kerry is not a man of principle.

Seems to me he was saying that it's possible to have opposed the war honorably, and it's possible to have served in the war honorably. Perhaps (though he didn't say it), it's possible to have honorably done some third thing, like served in the National Guard.

By implication, perhaps, it is also possible to have opposed the war dishonorably, and to have served in the war dishonorably. And again, perhaps, it is possible to have dishonorably done a third thing, like (not) served in the Guard, or skied in Aspen.

Oh, and all the allegations have been made by other Democrats, not by Kerry. This is what Kerry said (sly dog):

"I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard," Mr. Kerry said. "Those are choices people make."

(ref)

[dialo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
For those of you who are Vietnam veterans please take a moment and allow your blood pressure to come down. These words from Senator Kerry are nothing short of repulsive and are an insult to every family that had a loved one serve in Vietnam or lost a family member in the war. [/B]

You have quite a bit to learn. Don't for even half a second believe you think for everybody or even most people. Man, your comments here are arrogant.

[dialo]

You know, I have to add that I have met and know veterans, including one in my family, that would agree 100% with his statements. A couple of them so much that they head peace organizations, and another has been to Iraq and afghanistan doing humanitarian work *during* the wars and has been one of the most outspoken critics in the media of the Iraq war.

So, even if you are a veteran, which I don't think you are, don't you for a second think you speak for everyone.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Senator John Kerry proudly stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed, “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

For those of you who are Vietnam veterans please take a moment and allow your blood pressure to come down. These words from Senator Kerry are nothing short of repulsive and are an insult to every family that had a loved one serve in Vietnam or lost a family member in the war. By stating these words twelve years ago and based upon his current attacks on President BushÂ’s military record, it is clear that Senator Kerry is a man of politics not of principle and that military sacrifice is only valued when there is a potential for political advantage. ItÂ’s clear that John Kerry is not a man of principle.

word. up. vmarks.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you see, no one remembers serving with him, and the commander mentions not seeing him for a year in his evaluation.

Wow. Lot's of people don't remember things from 35 years ago. Big conspiracy. YAWN....

My question is why the big hullabaloo when most of the people making the big stink where Clinton supporters?

BTW: Clinton outright dodged the draft (got an iduction notice, but didn't serve - not even in the national guard for years in fighter pilot training - despite not being eligible for any deferments) and most democrats supported him.

If there's one thing you can count on, it's election year hypocracy!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Senator John Kerry proudly stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed, “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

For those of you who are Vietnam veterans please take a moment and allow your blood pressure to come down. These words from Senator Kerry are nothing short of repulsive and are an insult to every family that had a loved one serve in Vietnam or lost a family member in the war. By stating these words twelve years ago and based upon his current attacks on President Bush’s military record, it is clear that Senator Kerry is a man of politics not of principle and that military sacrifice is only valued when there is a potential for political advantage. It’s clear that John Kerry is not a man of principle.

Wow, pretty sanctimonious. Do Kerry and the vets who agree with him - guys who actually put their asses on the line and watched their friends die - not count as real vets?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Senator John Kerry proudly stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed, “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

For those of you who are Vietnam veterans please take a moment and allow your blood pressure to come down. These words from Senator Kerry are nothing short of repulsive and are an insult to every family that had a loved one serve in Vietnam or lost a family member in the war. By stating these words twelve years ago and based upon his current attacks on President Bush’s military record, it is clear that Senator Kerry is a man of politics not of principle and that military sacrifice is only valued when there is a potential for political advantage. It’s clear that John Kerry is not a man of principle.

Ummm well going by the quote you used, it seems that Kerry is the exact opposite of what you accuse him to be.

[Troll]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Wow. Lot's of people don't remember things from 35 years ago. Big conspiracy.

I'm pretty sure they'd remember the son of a big-whig politician serving in their unit. Bush Jnr. wasn't just anyone. I think the "I don't remember him pitching up," is a polite, military way of sying, "He wasn't there." It's also a good way of making sure you don't get labelled all kinds of nasty things by the Bush spin machine. Someone should ask this guy how many of the other people who served in that year he remembers!

Originally posted by boots:
This is probably the biggest smoke-screen non-issue on the table. (Yes, it screams "desperate" too me.) The number of people who will vote one way or the other because of this issue is, I think, small.

That's pretty scary to me if true. I don't think this the president needs military knowledge or qualification. It is however essential that he has integrity ... or is at least seen to have integrity. This issue does reflect on Bush's integrity and is particularly relevant in the context of the questions that are now being asked of his credibility generally. If Bush lied about something as big as his military record, surely that reflects on his ability to lead. I would consider it wholly relevant as a voter if he were shown to have lied in the past to get his way particularly since there is a suspicion that his lies have already resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and hundreds of American lives.

Getting payrolls seems a very contrived way of rebutting the allegations. Surely it would have been easier to get 10 guys to stand up and say they served with Bush. Unless of course those people don't exist ...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm pretty sure they'd remember the son of a big-whig politician serving in their unit. Bush Jnr. wasn't just anyone.

He wasn't the son of a big-wig politician at the time. Bush Sr. was pretty obscure until much later than this. I served with the son of a congressman, it was months before I found out. I also just found out a classmate friend is the son of a Senator. The fact that the names are the same never clicked. It's perfectly possible that a Lt Col wouldn't know that one of his junior lieutenants on TDY from another unit was the son of an obscure Texas Congressman. He probably only knew Bush as a name on his personnel status board. No dount he forgot it immediately.

Secondly, the fact that Bush is relying on payroll records is perfectly understandable to anyone who knows how the military actually works. Most of the records that would directly prove what he did on any particular day would not have been kept in the routine course of business. Bush himself probably only has his DD-214 -- his discharge papers. You aren't required to keep anything more, and the military itself doesn't keep the entire file. If it didn't purge all the operational files, the military would burst. Literally millions serve in uniform.

The bottom line is that Bush got his honorable discharge. That's the military's way of signalling to the world that he completed his obligations. No other proof is needed with this veteran, or any other.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The bottom line is that Bush got his honorable discharge. That's the military's way of signalling to the world that he completed his obligations. No other proof is needed with this veteran, or any other.

...and whatever service he did give, it was longer than either Clinton (who dodged the draft completely by lying) or Gore who had a short term of service complete with a bodyguard (though I have no problem with that, because Gore did take the time to serve his country and regardless of what that entails, it's worthy of respect). I for the life of me can't remember anyone who supported either of the two democrats I mentioned making a big stink about their service during the war.

Terry McCaulife (sp?) is the guy who recently started this non-issue, and he's really good buddies (and supported) a known draft dodger. That guy sure has some balls.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He wasn't the son of a big-wig politician at the time. Bush Sr. was pretty obscure until much later than this.

in September [Bush] applied to transfer to Alabama's 187th Tactical Recon group for 3 months. This was approved, but the unit's commander, General William Turnipseed, and his then admnistrative officer, Kenneth Lott, have both said that Bush never showed up. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," said Turnipseed. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

In his official autobiography, ''A Charge to Keep,'' Bush said he flew with his unit for ''several years'' after finishing flight training in June 1970. His campaign biography states that he flew with the unit until he won release from the service in September 1973, nine months early, for graduate school. Both statements are lies. Bush only flew with the 111th for one year and 10 months, until April 1972 when he was suspended for failing to take his medical exam (and drug test), and never flew again.

These come from a variety of sources including realchange.org. I'm not saying they're gospel, but there are certainly holes in this story that a payroll slip doesn't fill.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
These come from a variety of sources including realchange.org. I'm not saying they're gospel, but there are certainly holes in this story that a payroll slip doesn't fill.

There are people I served with 10 years ago whose names are a complete mystery to me. These are peers, people I worked with on a daily basis, not people who worked many, many levels below me. With respect to the general you quote: crap. There is no way he knew the names and biography's of more than a handful of the lieutenants under his command. I have worked with generals. They know the names of their senior commanders, and a handful of their junior ones, plus their staff. Beyond that, it is "the masses." That goes double for transient people, and probably triple for a National Guard unit where people only show up for a few days a month.

This is a complete non-story. If Bush had been AWOL, it would say so in black and white on his DD-214. There is a box specifically for that purpose. His honorable dischage tells the story.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
These come from a variety of sources including realchange.org. I'm not saying they're gospel, but there are certainly holes in this story that a payroll slip doesn't fill.

That's gotta be fake - who the hell would take orders from a General Turnipseed?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by eklipse:
That's gotta be fake - who the hell would take orders from a General Turnipseed?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Right and arguing with you is like debating a woman. You are always right. Here you can have the remote honey.

Ah.

Hello, matt.






...







Goodbye, matt.


-s*

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
That's gotta be fake - who the hell would take orders from a General Turnipseed?

http://genforum.genealogy.com/turnipseed/

It's a real name. If a person with that name was his superior, he'd darn well better take orders.