Suggestion for bush in iraq: stop the PR - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

HarmlessRabbit · 10-29-2003, 01:25 AM

Interesting article here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=15888

Quote:

Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

10.28.03 - AUSTIN, Texas -- There is something faintly risible about the American habit of thinking we can fix problems through better public relations. We seem to think a positive mental attitude and high approval ratings can solve anything from shingles to famine. Global warming? Spin that puppy right out of existence. Economy bad? Send the treasury secretary out to predict the creation of 200,000 new jobs a month -- that'll make everybody feel better.

We have public relations firms that specialize in business disasters -- does one of your products turn out to kill people? Have you been putting asbestos in people's homes for years? Are you a notorious polluter? What you need is a good PR firm -- yes, my friends, a multimillion dollar campaign to convince people that despite your current problems your firm is warm and cuddly, cares about the environment and supports the Boy Scouts.

I am told that in Hollywood, there are PR people who specialize in repairing the damage to the reputations of movie stars who get nasty divorces and otherwise misbehave.

Despite what I am sure are the invaluable services of the many PR people of our nation, sometimes it is actually smarter to attack the problem itself than the public relations surrounding it. I suspect that's where we are with the situation in Iraq.

I have enjoyed the administration's PR offensive. The Bush White House's touching efforts to try to get the media to report that the glass is half-full rather than half-empty have yielded several nuggets of black comedy. George Nethercutt, a Republican congressman from Washington state, spent four days in Iraq and told an audience at home: "The story of what we've done in Iraq is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

Major oops. "Let's ignore the dead soldiers" is not going to improve anything.

Sending out letters to the editor supposedly written by soldiers serving in Iraq reporting that everything there is tickety-boo didn't work out well, either. The news that the letters had been sent without the soldiers' knowledge or permission got considerably more attention than the letters themselves would have.

The administration's efforts to spin the results of the conference in Madrid were equally unimpressive. Of the touted $18 billion pledged, only $4 billion is in grants -- the rest is loans. They want it back.

Bush has been touting the cheerful reports brought back by congressional delegations. Right. It's so secure in Iraq, the delegations spent their nights in Kuwait.

A Washington Post story by Dana Millbank reports the Pentagon is enforcing for the first time a policy that dates back to Gulf War I: no pictures of flag-draped coffins. This is apparently an attempt to control what Gen. Hugh Shelton calls "the Dover test" -- the public reaction to photos of coffins that flow into Dover AFB in Delaware.

The Pentagon believes public support for a military action is eroded by photos of coffins, so it's fixing that problem by stopping the photos. Reminding people of the real cost of Iraq, which is not in billions of dollars but in dead young Americans, seems to me something the media have an obligation to do. However, the flag-draped coffin photo is only one way to do it. "News Hour With Jim Lehrer" has been running photos of the faces of those who have been killed in complete silence at the end of the program.

In another tragic triumph of reality over public relations, the attack on Al Rashid hotel Sunday "narrowly missed" Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, according to The Wall Street Journal. The attack injured 17 and killed a lieutenant colonel. The Financial Times reported that Wolfowitz was "shaken ... unshaven, with his voice trembling shortly after the rocket attack." Not to wish ill on Wolfowitz, but he is the one who promised us this war would be "a cakewalk" and that Iraqis would greet us with dancing and flowers. Ironic that he got a chance to see the real results.

Since President Bush declared our "mission accomplished" in Iraq, 213 American soldiers have died there and thousands have been wounded (the Department of Defense no longer gives out the number of wounded, like that's going to make it better). That is not a public relations problem. That cannot be fixed by more chipper reporting.

I suggest we drop the public relations offensive and concentrate on fixing the problems on the ground. When you look at the real problems, the question is not whether the media are misreporting the situation, but whether anyone in the administration knows what they're doing. Disbanding the Iraqi army was a terrible mistake; sending in Turkish troops will be another, according to those who know the region; and the corporate contracts awarded without open bidding turn out to be dripping with gold plate.

As Casey Stengel once demanded, "Does anybody here know how to play this game?"

I agree with the author. The Bush Administration has been even slicker and PR-heavy than the Clinton Administration, which I already thought was pretty PR-heavy in the first place.

The media would report good news if there was a consistent good news story to report. The bickering and sniping between Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell all makes the Iraq strategy look muddled, and the media definitely picks up on that.

A PR guy I used to work with said the media only likes two kinds of stories: you're down and going up, or you're up and going down. I see no vast conspiracy in the media here to only report the bad news in Iraq, I see a lot of newsworthy stories about the bad things going on there.

Sparhawk · 10-29-2003, 07:16 AM

What Clinton started with his 'constant campaign' has been perfected by the Bush team, with Karl Rove at the reigns. The sad thing is that this focus on politics and 'good PR' has completely swept aside any sort of a coherent domestic policy.

Part of this problem stems from Bush's lack of good domestic policy leaders. He's got all these very powerful individuals (Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney), and they are all focused on foreign policy, and with his domestic team it seems all he's got is Rove, a professional political operative with no policy experience running the show.

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 08:02 AM

Luckly for the Bush team, I don't think either of you will be listened to, nor will they listen to the author.

Thanks for another left wing website to link too though, I wasn't aware of that site.

As for the 'reporting' of the news, the ONLY thing you hear about from Iraq is this or that attack. You don't hear if we got any bad guys, only '2 americans killed in blast'. Based on what most of the soliders are saying and the polls of the Iraqi people, things are going pretty well, and the Iraqi's want us there.

Darkblack · 10-29-2003, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Luckly for the Bush team, I don't think either of you will be listened to, nor will they listen to the author.

Thanks for another left wing website to link too though, I wasn't aware of that site.

As for the 'reporting' of the news, the ONLY thing you hear about from Iraq is this or that attack. You don't hear if we got any bad guys, only '2 americans killed in blast'. Based on what most of the soliders are saying and the polls of the Iraqi people, things are going pretty well, and the Iraqi's want us there.

We are not wanted there. We lose at least 2 Americans a day. The attacks are getting more frequent and more intense. The schools that are supposedly rebuilt are not in usable condition.

When Americans stop dieing over there everyday then you can talk about how great it is ok.

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
We are not wanted there. We lose at least 2 Americans a day. The attacks are getting more frequent and more intense. The schools that are supposedly rebuilt are not in usable condition.

When Americans stop dieing over there everyday then you can talk about how great it is ok.

Oh REALLY?

Quote:

Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

• Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

• The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--''Democracy can work well in Iraq,'' or ''Democracy is a Western way of doing things''--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.

• Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

• Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

• Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said ''never.'' It's time to scratch ''Khomeini II'' from the list of morbid fears.

• You can also cross out ''Osama II'': 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.

• And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked ''Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?'' A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished. This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. ''We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam,'' said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month--and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.

Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year. We're making headway in a benighted part of the world.

We arn't wanted? That's a load of Barbra Streisand.

Darkblack · 10-29-2003, 09:48 AM

and I can pull some numbers that says the exact opposite if you like.

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 09:51 AM

Do so. Make sure its a properly conducted poll.

Darkblack · 10-29-2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Published on Thursday, September 11, 2003 by the Financial Times/UK
Iraqis Do Not Trust Americans, Says Poll
by Guy Dinmore in Washington

Braving bullets, arrests and hot pursuit while carrying out the first scientific survey of Iraqi public opinion, pollsters commissioned by a conservative US think-tank have discovered that most Iraqis do not trust Americans and want to be left alone.

John Zogby, president of Zogby International which completed the poll last month, summed up the findings on Wednesday, saying that, like most Arabs, Iraqis want to "control their own destiny", without the intervention of outside forces, and are confident in their own ability.

"Now that tyranny is over," he said, "it is time to move forward but not as a colony."

In that sense Iraqis broadly agree, but for different reasons, with the Bush administration's stated goal of handing over power and getting out as soon as possible.

Commissioned by the American Enterprise Institute, the pollsters sought to survey a representative cross-section of Iraqi society by going to four cities: Mosul and Kirkuk in the north, Ramadi in the mostly anti-US Sunni area of central Iraq, and Basra in the Shia south. A total of 600 people were interviewed in public places.

In Ramadi the pollsters were caught in crossfire in an ambush of US forces. One was arrested by Kurds in the north, while others were chased by car. In Basra some were detained for 24 hours.

Asked if the US and UK should help make sure a fair government is set up in Iraq, or should the Iraqis work this out themselves, 31.5 per cent wanted help while 58.5 per cent did not.

Some 38.2 per cent agreed that democracy could work well in Iraq, while 50.2 per cent agreed with the statement that "democracy is a western way of doing things and it will not work here".

Asked whether in the next five years the US would "help" Iraq, 35.3 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said the US would "hurt" Iraq. Asked the same of the UN, the figures were almost reversed, with 50.2 per cent saying it would help and 18.5 per cent the opposite.

Reguarding US and British troops, some 31 per cent wanted them to leave in six months and a total of 65.5 per cent in a year. Some 25 per cent said they should stay two years or more.

Interviewees were given a list of five countries they would like to model Iraq after.

A total of 36 per cent chose the four Middle Eastern countries listed (16 per cent for Saudi Arabia, 11 per cent for Syria, 6.5 per cent for Egypt and 2.8 per cent for Iran) while 21.5 per cent settled for the US, the only western country listed.

Seven out of 10 Iraqis think their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2003

We are wanted there? That's a load of George Bush.

Sparhawk · 10-29-2003, 10:02 AM

Wow, the funny thing is that was the same exact poll.

Liquor Dealer · 10-29-2003, 10:06 AM

Figures sometime lie - liars sometime figure.

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

A total of 36 per cent chose the four Middle Eastern countries listed (16 per cent for Saudi Arabia, 11 per cent for Syria, 6.5 per cent for Egypt and 2.8 per cent for Iran) while 21.5 per cent settled for the US, the only western country listed.

16+11+6.5+2.8+21.5 = 57.8

Pardon?

New math?

maximusveritas · 10-29-2003, 11:02 AM

It's interesting that you guys posted articles with completely different spin on the same poll. By the way Ustwo, I believe the rest of the respondents chose "None of the Above", making it much harder to stomach the AEI's outrageous spinning.

Just today, James Zogby, the brother of the president of Zogby polling, wrote an article in the Guardian on this very subject. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...073049,00.html

Quote:

Bend It Like Cheney
Polling evidence shows most Iraqis have a negative view of the US-led occupation. Spinning the figures to suggest otherwise won't help

James Zogby
Wednesday October 29, 2003
The Guardian

Early in President Bush's recent PR campaign to rebuild support for the US war effort in Iraq, Vice-president Cheney appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. Attempting to make the case that the US was winning in Iraq, Cheney made the following observation:
"There was a poll done, just random, first one I've seen carefully done; admittedly, it's a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that's got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.

"One of the questions asked is: 'If you could have any model for the kind of government you'd like to have' - and they were given five choices - 'which would it be?' The US wins hands down. If you want to ask them, do they want an Islamic government established, by two to one margins they say no, including the Shia population. If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60% ... said they want the US to stay for at least another year."

He went on: "So admittedly there are problems, especially in that area where Saddam Hussein was from, where people have benefited most from his regime. But to suggest that that's representative of the country at large, or the Iraqi people are opposed to what we've done in Iraq, or are actively and aggressively trying to undermine it, I just think that's not true."

In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish its interpretation of the findings. But the AEI's "spin" and the vice-president's use of its "spin" created a faulty impression of the poll's results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.

For example, while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would like, Iraqis chose "the US ... hands down". In fact, the results of the poll are quite different. Twenty-three per cent of the Iraqis surveyed said that they would like to model their new government after the US; 17.5% would like their model to be Saudi Arabia; 12% said Syria, 7% said Egypt and 37% said "none of the above". Hardly "winning hands down".

When given the choice as to whether they "would like to see US and British forces leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years", 31.5% of Iraqis said these forces should leave in six months; 34% say a year, and only 25% say two or more years. So while technically Cheney might say that "over 60% [actually 59%] ... want the US to stay at least another year", an equally correct observation would be that 65.5% want the US and Britain to leave in one year or less.

The ZI survey was one of only a handful that have been conducted in Iraq since the fall of Saddam. As with the others, its results must come with a health warning: the sample was small - 600 Iraqis were surveyed, in four cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the south), Mosul (in the north), Kirkuk (a Kurdish-influenced oil city), and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the so-called Sunni triangle) - and the survey was conducted in difficult conditions by a western agency. However, spin can only distort an already confused picture.

Other numbers go further to dampen the vice president's and the AEI's rosy interpretations. For example, when asked if "democracy can work in Iraq", 51% said "no; it is a western way of doing things and will not work here."

And attitudes toward the US were not positive. When asked whether, over the next five years, they felt that the "US would help or hurt Iraq", 50% said that the US would hurt Iraq, while only 35.5% felt the US would help. On the other hand, 61% of Iraqis felt that Saudi Arabia would help Iraq in the next five years, as opposed to 7.5% who felt Saudi Arabia would hurt their country. Half felt that the UN would help Iraq, while 18.5% felt it would hurt. Iran's rating was very close to the US's, with 53.5% of Iraqis saying Iran would hurt them in the next five years, while only 21.5% felt Iran might help them.

It is disturbing that the AEI and the vice-president could get it so wrong. Their misuse of poll numbers to make the point they wanted to make resembles the way critics have noted that the administration used "intelligence data" to make a case to justify the war.

But wishing something to be can't make it so. For the administration to continue to tell itself and the American people that "all is well," only means that needed changes in policy will not be made.

Consider some of the other poll findings:

· Over 55% give a negative rating to "how the US military is dealing with Iraqi civilians". Only 20% gave the US military a positive rating.

· By 57% to 38.5%, Iraqis indicate they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.

· When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49% said as "resistance operations". Only 29% saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists".

· When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country, only 6.5% said the US, while 27% said the US and the UN together, 14.5% preferred only the UN, and the largest group, 45%, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.

There are important lessons here; lessons policy-makers ought to heed if they are to help Iraq move forward. What Iraqis appear to be telling us is that they have hope for the future, but they want the help of their neighbours more than that of the US. That may not be what Washington wants to hear, but it ought to listen. Because if policymakers continue to bend the data to meet their desired policy, then this hole they are digging will only get deeper.

· Dr James J Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute. His brother, John Zogby, is the president of Zogby International, which carried out the poll in Iraq

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 11:55 AM

James Zogby was against the war from the start and worried about those nasty 'neocons' from the start. He is not unbiased. That not withstanding...

Quote:

· Over 55% give a negative rating to "how the US military is dealing with Iraqi civilians". Only 20% gave the US military a positive rating.

· By 57% to 38.5%, Iraqis indicate they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.

· When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49% said as "resistance operations". Only 29% saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists".

· When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country, only 6.5% said the US, while 27% said the US and the UN together, 14.5% preferred only the UN, and the largest group, 45%, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.

#1 -

Quote:

Almost six in 10 in the poll (58%), said US troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying “very well”. Twenty percent said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9% said very badly.

Odd dicotomy?

#2 - So?

#3 - This was before they were blowing up full Masq's I believe.

#4 - Well DUH, I would expect they would want their own people in charge.

But they also said this...

Quote:

Two-thirds, 67 percent, say they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion. Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off.

The Gallup poll of 1,178 adults was conducted face to face in the respondents' household from Aug. 28 through Sept. 4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Gallup plans to poll extensively in the coming months and years in Iraq and has established a center in Baghdad to coordinate the polling effort.

The survey found that 62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships they have endured since the invasion. In the five months since coalition forces defeated Saddam and his armies, Iraq has faced continuing violence, electrical outages, job shortages and civil unrest.

Six in 10 said they have a favorable view of the new Iraqi Governing Council, but most see its priorities as set by coalition authorities. Half said the coalition authorities are doing a better job now than two months ago, while 14 percent said they were doing a worse job.

Richard Burkholder, head of the Gallup team in Baghdad, said residents of the city of more than 6 million were eager to talk with his researchers and most who were contacted agreed to be interviewed in their own homes.

(this is more recent then the Zogby poll btw)

eple · 10-29-2003, 12:00 PM

whatever, was a troll anyway

phukraut · 10-29-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
16+11+6.5+2.8+21.5 = 57.8

Pardon?
New math?

most likely the rest chose not to answer the question. some answers could also have been thrown out.

or if you are referring to the 36%, then you included those that chose the USA, 21.5%, in your calculation. it should not be included.

10-29-2003, 07:16 AM	#2 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	What Clinton started with his 'constant campaign' has been perfected by the Bush team, with Karl Rove at the reigns. The sad thing is that this focus on politics and 'good PR' has completely swept aside any sort of a coherent domestic policy. Part of this problem stems from Bush's lack of good domestic policy leaders. He's got all these very powerful individuals (Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney), and they are all focused on foreign policy, and with his domestic team it seems all he's got is Rove, a professional political operative with no policy experience running the show. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-29-2003, 08:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Luckly for the Bush team, I don't think either of you will be listened to, nor will they listen to the author. Thanks for another left wing website to link too though, I wasn't aware of that site. As for the 'reporting' of the news, the ONLY thing you hear about from Iraq is this or that attack. You don't hear if we got any bad guys, only '2 americans killed in blast'. Based on what most of the soliders are saying and the polls of the Iraqi people, things are going pretty well, and the Iraqi's want us there. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-29-2003, 09:51 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Do so. Make sure its a properly conducted poll. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-29-2003, 10:02 AM	#9 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Wow, the funny thing is that was the same exact poll. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-29-2003, 10:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Figures sometime lie - liars sometime figure. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

10-29-2003, 09:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	and I can pull some numbers that says the exact opposite if you like.

10-29-2003, 12:00 PM	#14 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	whatever, was a troll anyway Last edited by eple; 10-29-2003 at 12:07 PM..