How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 John McCain - The Keating Five   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

John McCain - The Keating Five

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


25 posted 10-04-2008 03:21 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Balladeer --  I was jesting about Barney Frank being out of the closet about his sexuality, the jest being more about closets than Barney Frank.  

Robert Ludlum is a lightweight.  Not even Michael Moore could make this stuff up, and he's really good at it.  

Thought I'd throw that in just because mentioning Michael Moore is bound to aggravate somebody.  

I don't think Denise is wasting her time here.  She states her point of view and defends it from a source which is meaningful to her.  If people only speak to people who already agree with them. what would be the point of "discussion" forums at PiP?

You (generically speaking) can't say that there's only one side to every coin, and you can't say there are two sides to every coin.  It doesn't hurt to talk about coins, though.

Best, Jimbeaux  

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-04-2008 04:23 PM).]

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


26 posted 10-04-2008 03:40 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"Thought I'd throw that in just because mentioning Michael Moore is bound to aggravate somebody."

Dang, I wish I'd thought of that!

Did you ever see Sicko, Jim? If not, get those headphoes/earbuds and watch it online. Really makes the point that our healthcare system is putting the screws to us. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. Obama's plan is a start in the right direction, more compromise than anything, but definitely a start.



  
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


27 posted 10-04-2008 03:55 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Karilea
quote:
Jenn, don't "think", but please, be sure.

Was that a joke?

.......

Denise

So let's see if I get you, ummm, some entity who may or may not exist may decree that "life" (which that entity, which may or may not exist, apparently decrees is inviolate) "begins" when a sperm enters an egg (lest we get confused here the entity excludes animal life from said definition so as to allow extermination of other species).  From that point on said "life" is "entitled" to live even if this causes distress, illness and agony even unto death to another life.  Yep I think I understand. I'm real glad that the maybe god and his devotees are so certain and clear on this point.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


28 posted 10-04-2008 04:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You’re probably right Michael. And I do know what you mean, but sometimes I just can’t keep quiet.

I wouldn’t characterize Obama as simply someone who admits to not knowing the answer to the question of when life begins, Jen, and that isn’t my problem with him. My problem with him, among so many other issues, is that he is someone who has admitted that uncertainty while simultaneously supporting the practice of abortion. If someone holds out the possibility that an actual life might exist but still practices or condones abortion, isn’t that person guilty of violating the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?  Do you consider killing less objectionable than fornication? At least McCain has admitted to and repented of his failings.

As to the death penalty, I believe that God invests legitimate governments with that fearsome responsibility in some instances for the safety of a society.

The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue is small potatoes?  How did you arrive at that conclusion. Their greed and irresponsibility are a major factor in this current financial crisis, from all that I've read.

As to Barney Frank, maybe if members of Congress weren’t so afraid of being falsely charged with homophobia, they would have dealt with his obvious mismanagement and conflict of interest in the Fannie Mae issue long ago before it could have done so much damage to our economy.  Or maybe not. At any rate, all involved should be held accountable for their actions, or inaction, whatever the case may be.  Bush sounded the alarm a few years back, as did McCain. What was Obama’s position on this, the guy who received the second largest contribution from Fannie Mae, second only to Chris Dodd?

Moonbeam, I don’t for a minute believe that you are trying to “get me”.  And your and Jen’s sarcasm is wasted on me. Not that you care, but just so that you know. You might actually have people take you seriously if you presented yourselves more respectfully to others when expressing your views.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


29 posted 10-04-2008 05:35 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

You are quite right Denise I wasn't trying to "get you" I was simply trying to show the illogicality of accusing Obama of being illogical when the position you hold is imo so much more so. (Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I disrepect you.)

As for the manner in which I did it and my so called lack of respect (which wasn't anything of the sort) I was merely taking my cue from your very first post to Jenn in this thread.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


30 posted 10-04-2008 06:05 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Actually, Moonbeam, I don’t think that entity who may or may not exist, had much to say about abortion. I wonder why that is. The only thing I can find that’s even remotely connected is in the Old Testament where it mentions something about a fine for causing a woman to miscarry. So, see what my thinking is - according to that entity, adultery gets you the ultimate penalty of being stoned to death at the city gate, but causing an abortion only gets you a fine. Seems rather obvious to me which is the greater sin in that entity’s eyes. Even knowing that, there are still those who want to make the fornicator, John McCain, President. Doesn’t that seem like they’re disrespecting the entity?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


31 posted 10-04-2008 06:11 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You've grossly misunderstood Balladeer, Jen. He wasn't being demeaning or belittling of me or my right to voice my opinion. He never has and he never would.

My first reply in this thread was an honest question, moonbeam, which still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. Stating that you haven't found anything doesn't really speak to one's efforts in trying to uncover any. But so be it. Sometimes a non-answer is the answer.

Have a nice evening ladies.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


32 posted 10-04-2008 06:19 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

You have a lovely evening, too, Denise!
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


33 posted 10-04-2008 07:12 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Prior to Roe v Wade, individual states had the right to set standards under which an abortion might legally take place.  Quite early in our history, when state and Federal laws were based on English Common Law, abortion was illegal everywhere with significant to drastic penalties for everyone involved.  Over time, some states began to allow for health exceptions while some did not.  Later in the evolution of abortion law some states began to decriminalize abortion if certain conditions conditions, including the age of the woman and the length of gestation were met.  And other states did not.

Roe v Wade codified abortion law on a Federal level.  It still does not condone all abortions under all conditions, but in effect, secures a woman's right to choose.  It is still challenged by state lawmakers who seek to impose stricter conditions, but, to date, the basics of Roe v. Wade remain intact.

For many people, abortion remains a moral, not a legal issue.  That's fine.  When confronted with a personal situation where abortion is a possibility, they are free to choose not to have an abortion, to counsel others not to have an abortion, and to lobby for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade.  It's their legal right, and for many, a moral obligation.  What they are not free to do, however, is prevent someone who meets the qualifications in Roe v. Wade from excercising a diffent choice.

For many people, abortion is a legal issue, not a moral one.  Legally, it doesn't matter why they make that choice, it is their legal right, and it doesn't matter under the law what anybody else thinks about an indidual decision.  Pro-choice advocates have a right to espouse their position, counsel others from their point of view, and lobby to keep Roe v Wade intact.  What they don't have a right to do is force someone eligible under Roe v. Wade, to have an abortion for any reason at all.

My question is, why is a a woman's choice to conceive or abort anybody elses business?  If all one has to fall back on is a need to force a religious stance on others who don't share it, that seems run counter to the ideal of the seperation of church and state.

Which, of course, is a whole other mare's nest of incongruities.

Best, Jimbeaux

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


34 posted 10-04-2008 07:41 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Jim, you wrote:
"why is a woman's choice to conceive or abort anybody elses business?"

Why?  In it's simpliest of terms,
it is a form of genocide.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


35 posted 10-04-2008 08:12 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

I read a thought provoking blurb the other day, Jim. Said something like if women lost the right to choose, a rapist could then choose the mother of his children.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


36 posted 10-04-2008 08:36 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jimbeaux:
quote:
My question is, why is a a woman's choice to conceive or abort anybody elses business?  If all one has to fall back on is a need to force a religious stance on others who don't share it, that seems run counter to the ideal of the seperation of church and state.

Jim ... howdy.

Hope you don't mind my interjection here.    

I think it is because abortion is a public service offered by medical professionals, that its concerns are more than private.  And the question of whether it is ending human life pertains to more than just the mothers.  If some consider the unborn to be human beings, then it should be obvious why they would consider it a human rights crises and seek to defend the defenseless.  


Admittedly most pro-lifers are of religious persuasion, though not all.  Still, what does separation of church and state have to do with asserting that the unborn are human?  The moral principle of not killing innocent human life is already held firmly by both sides of the debate.  And though I believe that such moral principles are unsupportable as obligatory in a non-religious paradigm (other than as preferences), they are still held by most whether consistently or not.

The issue of abortion is about whether the unborn are human beings.  The weight of science (particularly embryology) strongly supports that they are indeed human.  

The only other religious aspect hidden inside this debate might be that the insistence on individual autonomy is stronger on the side of the unreligious, where any divine signposts or boundaries in nature are more easily disregarded as inconclusive or even nonexistent.


And still, I think with these commonly held moral principle taken for granted (saving the question of why for later), the argument for fetal humanity is strong quite apart from Theology.


Stephen      
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


37 posted 10-04-2008 08:50 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jennifer:
quote:
I read a thought provoking blurb the other day, Jim. Said something like if women lost the right to choose, a rapist could then choose the mother of his children.


Jennifer this argument really doesn't hold much strength.  So a mother terminates an innocent human life because of a horrific act of aggression of done by someone else.  That doesn't even begin to stop the consequences of the rapist's choice.  It doesn't diminish the memories of the rape in the least.  It doesn't stop the wondering whether it really was right to kill who was from her own body also.  It does add the trauma of abortion to the trauma of rape.

As terrible as it all is, I can at least imagine a woman going through with the birth of the child in a proud defiance of all that was wrong in the rape.  The rapist can never choose who this child will turn out to be.  The rapist can never choose to stop a determination that is willing to defeat the past by practicing love and total acceptance of a totally new human being.

And while I can never make someone see it this way ... It should at least be obvious that an argument about abortion nullifying the "choice" of a rapist, and that being the only means of doing so, is quite flimsy.


Just something else for you to consider.


Stephen
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


38 posted 10-04-2008 08:58 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Bear.  No, it's not.  Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Hi Steven -- As always, I respect your viewpoints.  I have never argued that a pro-life position is wrong.  I have suggested that a pro choice position isn't "wrong" either.  I suggest that nobody need be forced to have an abortion and nobody need be forced to not have one.  The choice can be made according to the dictates of one's conscience, and not everyone's conscience dictates the same thing.

Best, Jimbeaux


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


39 posted 10-04-2008 10:05 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Stephen, the link below will take you to the site and from there you can download the entire article. It's a real eye-opener.

"few states have passed special laws to aid the large numbers of raped women who choose to raise their rape conceived children. Without such laws, in most states, a man who fathers a child through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges to that child as does any other father of a child."

"Rapists Exercising Parental Rights over Their Rape Conceived Children: Why the Law Has Failed To Address this Problem - Shauna R. Prewitt, Georgetown University Law Center"
http://works.bepress.com/shauna_prewitt/1/

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


40 posted 10-04-2008 11:38 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I suggest that nobody need be forced to have an abortion and nobody need be forced to not have one.  The choice can be made according to the dictates of one's conscience, and not everyone's conscience dictates the same thing.

Jim, why do you think that same argument is unlikely to be applied to a mother's two-year-old daughter? Nobody need be forced to killer their toddler and nobody need be forced to not kill their child?

Let's face it. Not all things come down to personal choice. Therein, after all, would lie anarchy.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


41 posted 10-05-2008 12:51 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

May I lend some sanity here?

Only 1 percent of ALL abortions are rape-connected.  That means we have a law on the books for 1%, and 99% of the rest of US just have to live with it.  1.3 million US abortions a year.  The aborted number would make it the 7th largest city in the United States.  Sorry man, that's sick.  
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


42 posted 10-05-2008 06:03 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

There's nothing much good about abortion, or for that matter killing animals for sport or food.  Life consists of a series of choices, ranging from the unconscious, through the insignificant and simple to the momentous and complex.  Often we use aids, maybe crutches, to help us cope mentally with the more difficult ones.  Justifying society's interference in whether or not a woman has an abortion on the grounds of social economics (the "we pay, we say" argument) is in my view one of the most tenuous justifications I have yet heard.  I guess such an argument would ultimately take us back to the days of darkened rooms, carbolic soap, knitting needles and rue.

And then there's religion - or perhaps more relevantly the belief in a god who knows about and cares about our material condition, as opposed to our spiritual condition.  Apart from the obvious logical difficulty with that initial premise, the application of rules laid down by such a deity to the question of abortion involves selective leaps of faith.  These involve, inter alia, faith in the existence of the deity, faith that "he" made the rules, faith in a mode of application of those rules, faith that the fertilized egg does in fact constitute life within the meaning of the rules.  But nevertheless if a person is possessed of the mentality that allows them to believe these chains of faith based reasoning such a person, it has to be admitted, is then equipped with a terrific aid for dealing with life's more difficult choices.  In fact many choices simply disappear. Issues which to non-believers may be complex matters involving a compassionate and individualistic approach become black and white.

In the case of abortion, life choices are removed.  Such thorny matters as the issue of whether death of an unborn foetus is always the worst option when weighed against, for instance, a life of mental illness for another being, are not to be considered.  Complexities such as a woman's mental and physical state, the circumstances of the conception, financial pressures, family coercion, drug issues, male domination, blackmail, social expectation, naivety, failure of education, poverty, criminal assault all vanish.  Fortunately for believers, individual circumstances are not to be taken into consideration in applying "divine rules".  

Yes, Ron, all things start with personal choice.  In my view life IS choice and I for one prefer to allow myself the flexibility to make those choices (at least I think I do!  What my subconcious is doing I have no idea).  That is not to advocate anarchy, although "anarchy" in our natural state is perhaps the natural condition; are the birds anarchic?  "Civilisation" is essentially the modification of personal choices to allow communal living, in a manner never "intended" by nature (whole different topic).  Lay down laws, and rules, but have courts and tribunals to interpret and apply those rules in the light of  particular circumstances.  Abortion is never a "good" choice.  Instinctively I rail against it, and the idea of using it as a cheap and easy method of contraception I find abhorrent.  But to zealously dictate from the comfort of maleness (or any other non pregnant condition): "thou shalt not escape the consequences of your sin" and never mind the circumstances, seems to me to be devoid of logic and compassion.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


43 posted 10-05-2008 07:57 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
But to zealously dictate from the comfort of maleness (or any other non pregnant condition): "thou shalt not escape the consequences of your sin" and never mind the circumstances, seems to me to be devoid of logic and compassion.

Okay, Moonbeam. And, again, why shouldn't the same logic be applied to the two-year-old daughter?
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


44 posted 10-05-2008 09:43 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

I am not sure if we are talking about the same logic, because I don't see why it shouldn't Ron.  My logic simply implies that very little is simple, and accordingly that such questions as the power of life and death, mental illness or health etc, of one being over another should not be dictated by some universally applied rule.  Life is generally a mess and requires messy solutions.  Clearly, as there is presumably no argument that a 2 year old girl is a physically independent, separately conscious being, most reasonable people would, I think, feel there are fewer circumstances where it would be reasonable for a mother to kill her daughter than in the case, say, of a one week old foetus.  But the logic that I was citing - individually tailored solutions (to use a horribly bureaucratic phrase) - still holds.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 10-05-2008 10:53 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Fewer circumstances, moonbeam? Would you care to elaborate on that?

I would certainly hope that there would be NO circumstances imaginable where it would  ever be deemed reasonable, by anybody, for a mother to kill her 2 year old child.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


46 posted 10-05-2008 01:46 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Denise

The logic would of course break down if there were no circumstances, so of course there are such circumstances.  You have 5 daughters, all equally loved.  A gunman breaks into your home and kills daughter number 1.  He then hands you a pistol and instructs you to kill daughter number 2 or he will also shoot and kill daughters 3, 4, and 5.  

Ok, I know this scenario needs added detail to be watertight, but I can think of dozens of others where society or a court would not blame a mother for killing her daughter as the lesser of two evils.  In several of the scenarios I have in mind she would be hailed as a self sacrificing heroine in fact.  

M

And also:

Tracy and her Mom were vacating in Austria.  Always a keen venicular enthusiast her Mom suggested to Tracy that they should go ride on the famous Austerhausen quadruple track line up the nearby mountain.  When they arrived they had missed a ride by seconds, they watched the train full of 100 tourists start off up the mountain.  The kindly operator offered for them to ride in the empty carriage on the parallel up line.  Tracy agreed and jumped in excitedly.  Her Mom hesitated, she'd always wanted to operate the signals and points of a venicular and the nice operator seeing her interest agreed to let her.  Soon both veniculars were proceeding up the mountain at a stately pace with Tracy's Mom learning how to control the signals and points.  

"Just gotta go to the gents", the English speaking operator said to Tracy's Mom, "you'll be fine for a second or two".

In that second or two though an empty venicular suddenly appeared plunging down the line on which the tourists' train was rising.  In a few seconds there would be an impact that would kill and main a 100 people.  There was one chance!  Halfway down the mountain a crossover line enabled trains to be switched from one line to the other.  Tracy's Mom thought quickly, her daughter was on the other line!  One life for a hundred.  She closed her eyes and pulled the points lever.
.........

Anyway come to think of it Denise didn't your god make the ultimate sacrifice too: his beloved son, for some nebulous reason which escapes me for the moment!

M

[This message has been edited by moonbeam (10-05-2008 02:43 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


47 posted 10-05-2008 02:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

If he handed me a pistol, I'd shoot him.

So, please, feel free to list one or two of your other dozens of scenarios.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


48 posted 10-05-2008 02:45 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

I just did, above (see my edit).

Yes, as I said the scenario needed added detail.  But in any event, I knew you'd say that and it matters not because it's not what you would actually do that matters but what would be considered reasonable. To use your own words, it would probably be deemed quite reasonable for a mother to kill her daughter in those circumstances, specially if she knew the man was wearing body armour and she was a useless shot (there that's a bit of the missing detail).

I, for one, on a jury, wouldn't convict a mother who killed her daughter under those circumstances, or in the circumstances of Tracy's mom.  Would you?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


49 posted 10-05-2008 03:33 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Honestly, I'd save my daughter in your second scenario because I have a connection with her that I don't have with the strangers. Call me selfish. I'm not God.

In your first scenario, body armor or not, I'd give it my best shot, and keep shooting till I was out of bullets and he was running for his life trying to dodge them. Hopefully one of the shots would find his achilles heel.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> John McCain - The Keating Five   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors