The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools
Old July 13, 2000, 11:45 PM   #1
Randy Davis
Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2000
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 93
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Scalia-Thomas twins would multiply in Bush presidency

By Gregory Stanford

July 9, 2000

George Bush the younger can't get enough of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, ideological twins on the nation's top court. The would-be prez wants quintuplets.

Zounds. A court of Scalias and Thomases. What a difference to our freedoms a few justices would make.

Were the dissents of the twins the will of the court's majority, cops could trash the Miranda warning, government could host prayers, public employees could face dismissal for belonging to the wrong political party and, of course, virtually all abortions would break the law.

The requiem played some time ago for liberals on the Supreme Court. Today's justices can be sorted out as moderate, conservative, more conservative and most conservative. That last category comprises the twins, whom Bush admires. The Texas governor has said he would like to appoint more jurists like Scalia and Thomas to the top court.

The twins have been pulling the court rightward the hardest. They don't always dissent. Sometimes enough judges go along with the viewpoints of Scalia and Thomas so as to put them in the majority, as when the court has whittled away at affirmative action.

Their backers have defended the pair as "strict constructionists," who abide by the plain meaning of the law. That mumbo jumbo, however, masks their judicial activism in behalf of right-wing ideology, as notes a report put out recently by People for the American Way, a D.C.-based organization that TV producer Norman Lear founded to promote civil liberties and to keep tabs on the religious right.

Like all justices, the twins interpret the law, but in a far-right light, observes the report, titled "Courting Disaster: How a Scalia-Thomas Supreme Court Would Endanger Our Rights and Freedoms."

A sampling of legal life were the twins quintuplets:

Police would no longer be required to read suspects their rights before grilling them. The pair were the lone naysayers in the recent ruling upholding the Miranda mandate. They prefer the good old, pre-Miranda days, which gave rise to such expressions as the "third degree" for questioning that got physical.

The church-state wall would come crashing down. Remember last month's Supreme Court ruling that outlawed what was really government-sponsored prayer at high school football games?

Scalia and Thomas dissented, of course. This time, Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined them.

The trio also expressed bitter disappointment at the majority's decision not to review a lower court ruling striking down an anti-evolution disclaimer that teachers were required to read to students in a Louisiana school district.

Protections for racial minorities would weaken. For instance, states would no longer have to abide by the Voting Rights Act in electing judges. The report notes that fellow justices termed the twins' position on the federal statute as so "radical" that it would overturn at least 28 Supreme Court decisions.

Sex bias in the selection of juries would be OK.

The feds would lack the power to stop the destruction of endangered species on private land.

Any hope for limiting campaign financing would vanish.

Of course, for the far right, these changes are reasons to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to fill the Supreme Court with Scalias and Thomases. Yet that sector of the political spectrum seems to squeal the loudest, shouting such slurs as "jackbooted thugs" when the authorities are goring the personal liberties of a right-wing ox, as when federal agents raid the hangouts of armed militia groups or the homes of Cuban expatriates.

But for Americans who value fairness, liberty and justice, more Scalias and Thomases on the top court would amount to a nightmare.


Gregory Stanford is a Journal Sentinel editorial writer and columnist. His e-mail address is gstanfor@onwis.com

------


Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on July 9, 2000.


Randy Davis is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:04 AM   #2
Munro Williams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 936
It's articles like this that make me happy to be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I doubt seriously that Bush will nominate anyone who the "center," as represented by the illustrious journalist poste, dislikes.
Munro Williams is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:09 AM   #3
Jeff Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 1998
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,753
Thanks, Randy. Humorous post.

Interesting how the RKBA isn't on their list of civil / fundamental rights. I gather 'armed militia groups' don't value 'liberty'? Typical liberal BS.

Regards from AZ
Jeff Thomas is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:18 AM   #4
Randy Davis
Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2000
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 93
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
It's articles like this that make me happy to be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I doubt seriously that Bush will nominate anyone who the "center," as represented by the illustrious journalist poste, dislikes.
[/quote]

You betcha. I even got the secret handshake down just right

Word out here on the left coast has it that DUHbya has appointed quite a number of left-of-center judges in his tenure as Texas Governor. I notice that his admirers here are silent on THAT subject.

I wonder why ?

I expect that Bush will do exactly the same with SC justices as President, depite the TFL forums' Bush supporter "Trojan Horse" comments to the contrary.

One more great reason not to vote for this man, IMO.

------

Harry Brown for President in 2000!

Go, Libertarian Party, Go!
Randy Davis is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:22 AM   #5
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Word out here on the left coast has it that DUHbya has appointed quite a number of left-of-center judges in his tenure as Texas Governor. I notice that his admirers here are silent on THAT subject.[/quote]

Which judges did Bush appoint?

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 14, 2000).]
LawDog is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 01:01 AM   #6
bamf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Davis, CA US
Posts: 268
Well he better watch out and be careful who he picks, just because the canidates have a history of conservative verdicts doesn't mean they will continue. I forget the name of the justice, but I think Eisenhower chose him and he became one of the most liberal justices to sit on the court.

People change according to perceived importances of their position.

~bamf
bamf is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 01:05 AM   #7
Munro Williams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 936
Law Dog,

Go to Free Republic and ransack around there for a while, you'll find them. Serve articles and replies from RLK.

I'd quote you chapter and verse myself, but the school server here blocks access to that site with WebSENSE, for some strange reason.
Munro Williams is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 01:12 AM   #8
kjm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,871
Judges in Texas are not appointed, but rather elected. The only time a Judge is appointed is when there is a vacancy between elections. The Governor may then appoint a Judge to fill the vacancy until the next election. Bush has only appointed about four judges since taking office. Of those appointments, all but one were strangers to him. The AG, and others in Government try to bend the ear of the Gov to get friends appointed. The same is true in the appointment of Federal Judges too.
kjm is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 07:38 AM   #9
bookkie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 1999
Location: Arbuckle, CA, usa
Posts: 1,269
Thomas! Thomas! he de man.... If Thomas can't save us, no one can!.... I say we need Seven others just like Scalia and Thomas... Then maybe the commerce clause would get cut back to where it should be. To those transactions that are only crossing the borders. Once it crosses the border then it no longer affects the commerce clause. Also maybe we could get back to the concept that if the power is not in the constitution they can't do it.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
bookkie is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 08:17 AM   #10
proximo
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2000
Posts: 191
Munro, your school subscribes to the service WebSense provides. Part of that service is to supply a database of sites to be blocked for being objectionable. Your school doesn't necessarily know what sites are being blocked since the database is updated automatically on a periodic basis by WebSense. Some a&&hole at WebSense has a *very* anti-gun stance and blocks every pro-gun site he/she can find on the net. If you do a search in The Firingline archives, you'll see at least one post that describes how to circumvent the WebSense filtering.

[This message has been edited by proximo (edited July 14, 2000).]
proximo is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 09:26 AM   #11
MBG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2000
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 170
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Were the dissents of the twins the will of the court's majority, cops could trash the Miranda warning, government could host prayers, public employees could face dismissal for belonging to the wrong political party and, of course, virtually all abortions would break the law.
[/quote]

[Sarcasm]
Hmmm, under Clinton / Gore, every executive and administrative agency under the sun has stomped due process to the ground, government discourages thought and speech beyond the approved orthodoxy, public employees ARE dismissed for belonging to the wrong political party and virtually all self defense resulting in injury to the attacking party breaks the law.

Hello pot, this is the kettle. You’re black.
[/Sarcasm]

FWIW, I think the Supreme Court is the real political battleground. As bamf pointed out, the president can’t determine what direction they go once they’re in the seat, but they can sure pick the starting point. If Gore gets a chance to appoint, we can be certain he will try to appoint justices that won’t give him any lip.

My read on the current horse race, I think the donkeys are preparing to sacrifice the big seat this cycle for two things. First, a retake of the house. Second, a shot at the White house in ’04, with a candidate that can hold it for 8 years. Neither situation would be beneficial. Of course, it would be even worse to give the house back to the donkeys and sit the little wooden boy in the big chair.

I’ll worry about the judiciary this cycle. Personally, I think the more deadlocked the House and Senate are, the less damage they can do. I’ll vote ideologically on the local level.

Just my 2¢

Marty
MBG is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 09:32 AM   #12
K80Geoff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 1998
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,640
I don't give a damn about Miranda warnings.

I don't give a damn about abortions.

I don't give a damn about school prayers.

I don't give a damn about public employees.

I do give damn about the second amendment.


Geoff Ross



------------------
One reason to vote in the next Presidential election.

It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!
K80Geoff is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 11:45 AM   #13
416Rigby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 1999
Location: Virginia
Posts: 450
Mr. Gregory Stanford really sounds like a cool-headed, fair-minded wise man who does his research before writing and weighs his words as he types.

He probably is an anal-retentive geek with the heart of a lab-rat, whose only experience with adventure is on Wednesdays when, religiously, he watches that stupid Survivers show.

I cannot wait to see people like him pay for their actions. I don't know how, when or who to. But I sure hope that those in-your-face bastions of Communism that we call our Media come down crashing and burning within my lifetime.

And people like Gregory will be then greeting my Conservative Christian Southern heterosexual European healthy female-ogling gun-toting butt at the grocery store, which I'll exchange for a hint of a high-browed cold nod.

Do I sound mad? Who me? Nooooooo! Never!



------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com
416Rigby is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:03 PM   #14
Futo Inu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 1999
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Posts: 3,624
They're a mixed blessing, but on balance I'd love to have quadruplets.

On abortion, they're right - for better or worse, the const. does NOT guarantee a right to have an abortion - this question should be left to each state, unless you want to amend to const. to grant an abortion right.

On the recent school prayer and miranda decisions, it's a toss up/gray area. They're more wrong than right on these issues, constitutionally - Scalia lets his personal beliefs affect his decisions in the churh/state area, which is unfortunate because he is indeed a strict constructionist in most areas.

On affirmative action, they are right to the extent they vote to have a "color-blind" gov't - the purpose of the 14th amendment was to eliminate from gov't decisions any distinctions of race/color, so affirmative action violates this purpose/ideal.

On making inroads & exceptions to search & seizure, they ARE a nightmare, and don't even seem to have a problem getting the moderates to go along with them.

But most importantly, if anyone is going to protect the second, it's them, and to me, that means they're our saviors regardless of their wrong positions on search/seizure, & church/state. Take the bad with the good...

Futo Inu is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:42 PM   #15
Dizzipator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 1999
Location: Central CT
Posts: 149
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Their backers have defended the pair as "strict constructionists," who abide by the plain meaning of the law. That mumbo jumbo, however, masks ...
[/quote]

Funny, is it not, how this jackass refers to people that interpret laws as they are written as "mumbo jumbo".

I'd bet this same jackass loves justices that find rights in the "penumbras" of the constitution, but can't see the ones right in front of their faces.

[This message has been edited by Dizzipator (edited July 14, 2000).]
Dizzipator is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:52 PM   #16
dZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 1999
Location: Exiled, Fetid Swamp, DC
Posts: 7,548
Diane Rehm had some experts on her show discussing the Supreme Court Justices.

The overall concensus was that the sitting Justices are at the top of their game, very active & barring a random act of God will be there for along time.

The next president may not appoint any justices.
http://www.wamu.org/dr/shows/drarc_0...html#wednesday

dZ
dZ is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 12:58 PM   #17
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
The reason I asked about the names of the judges appointed by Gov. Bush, is that I just got finished reading an Democratic op-ed piece whining because Texas is one of the few states (if not the only one) that elects judges.

LawDog



[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 14, 2000).]
LawDog is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 03:18 PM   #18
Monkeyleg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
Gregory Stanford is the Journal Sentinel's resident race-baiter. _Everything_ he writes about is directly or indirectly related to African-Americans. If I had old copies of the
Journal, I could probably find one of his columns complaining that black astronauts weren't involved in the moon landing.

And I'll take nine Thomases or Scalias, thank you.


Dick
Want to send Bush a message? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner
you know.
Monkeyleg is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 07:52 PM   #19
Cactus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 1999
Location: Spanaway, WA
Posts: 482
LawDog,

Washington State also elects all of its judges.

The comments by Randy Davis seem to be quite typical of him when it relates to Gov. Bush. He makes an alegation with no supporting facts and then never answers when challenged to provide his sources or facts.

I think that we should all consider that we are extremely likely to have Democrat Party activists visiting this site for the next few months. They will be new members that post an extremely large number of topics and replys in a short time period. They will probably pose as conservatives and accuse GOP candidates as being "closet" liberals not to be trusted. There goal will be to get as many conservatives to support Pat Buchanon and Harry Brown as possible.

I'm sure that GOP activists will do the same on liberal boards!

This is not to suggest that all detractors of Gov. Bush are liberal trolls, but you can rest assured that some of them will be!
Cactus is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 09:58 PM   #20
Randy Davis
Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2000
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 93
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cactus:
LawDog,

Washington State also elects all of its judges.

The comments by Randy Davis seem to be quite typical of him when it relates to Gov. Bush. He makes an alegation with no supporting facts and then never answers when challenged to provide his sources or facts.

I think that we should all consider that we are extremely likely to have Democrat Party activists visiting this site for the next few months
[/quote]


ROTFLOL !

That you would think that I was a democrat party infiltrator, really made my day Cactus.

I am about as far away removed from that brand of liberal fascism that one can get.

No, what I have said is that I:

1. Dont trust Bush at all.

2. Dont think Bush will be a solid 2nd supporter at all.

In fact, just the opposite.

One more Columbine schoolyard mass murder
and he will gladly sign more gun control legislation into law.

3. Will help to continue to flood this country with even more cheap labor and
allow the theft of our tax dollars, and the free use of our medical system to "undocumented workers"(read illegal aliens, many who go on the government gravy train from day-one).

In case you didnt know, I live in the Peoples Republik of Kalifonia (El Norte`Mexico) and we get to see the effects of this border invasion every single day.

4. Will promote more UN givaway programs and send more of our soldiers to serve where they do not belong.

5. Will appoint SC justices that are not conservative.

Oh, and in case it matters to you, I DO
like G.W. Bush on a personal level, I just dont like his brand of politics and his strong ties to the Republican political party machine. Been there and done that in 1996 with Dole.

Never again!

BTW, I plan on continuing to post articles that point out Bush's shortcomings for well past the election in November, as well as other topics related to our RKBA.

No, I plan on sticking it out to the bitter end, if only to have a chance to say:

"I told you so!"
Randy Davis is offline  
Old July 15, 2000, 12:35 AM   #21
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
My, my, my. You have said all that, and it's quite a mouthful.

However, I still haven't heard the names of these judges that Bush has allegedly appointed.

In a state, yadda, yadda, yadda. You know the rest.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 15, 2000).]
LawDog is offline  
Old July 15, 2000, 01:01 AM   #22
weegee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 1999
Posts: 195
Cactus and .416 Rigby--

YOU GUYS RULE!
weegee is offline  
Old July 15, 2000, 01:08 PM   #23
Cactus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 1999
Location: Spanaway, WA
Posts: 482
Randy,

Read my post again. I did not say that YOU were a Democrat Party infiltrator. I said that some Bush detractors on this post most certainly are. I have no way of knowing what is in your heart and mind. However, you do seem to know what is in the heart and mind of Gov. Bush, despite his record and statements to the opposite.

I do find it interesting that you seem to have "identified" yourself with my description though.

What I did say is that when commenting about Gov. Bush, you typically make alegations and never give evidence supporting your alegations. You have continued to do that when you responded to my post.

As for personally liking Gov. Bush, that matters not the least to me. I don't look to our President to be my buddy, I want an effective leader.

You state that you will continue to post articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings". The past two that I have read have been anything but critical in my opinion. You posted a Salon article about how Gov. Bush is reaching out to minorities and a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial about how President Bush would appoint more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

In my mind, only a racist (this is NOT an accusation to anyone here) would find Gov. Bush's outreach to minorities a "shortcoming". I will object if he PANDERS to minorities, as with any group, but I find it great that he is reaching out to minorities and wishes to convert them to more conservative beliefs. A liberal who erroneously believes that all conservatives are a bunch of ignorant bigots, probably thinks that a forum of gun owners would become outraged by this outreach.

As for appointing more justices like Scalia and Thomas, HALLELUJAH; every Supreme Court Justice should share the Constitutional opinions of Scalia and Thomas. If this were the case, we would be on the fast track back to the Constitutional principles of our founding fathers.

Randy, you post an editorial that you apparently feel is critical of Gov. Bush's proposed appointing of more justices like Scalia and Thomas, then you state in a following post that he will NOT appoint conservative justices. Which one is it?

Please Randy, continue to post such critical articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings".
Cactus is offline  
Old July 15, 2000, 01:18 PM   #24
Brett Bellmore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: Capac, MI, USA
Posts: 1,927
Cactus: Personally, I want an effective leader who agrees with me; If he disagrees with me, I'd like him to be INeffective, to minimize the damage.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Brett Bellmore is offline  
Old July 15, 2000, 04:12 PM   #25
Randy Davis
Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2000
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 93
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cactus:
Randy,

Read my post again. I did not say that YOU were a Democrat Party infiltrator. I said that some Bush detractors on this post most certainly are. I have no way of knowing what is in your heart and mind. However, you do seem to know what is in the heart and mind of Gov. Bush, despite his record and statements to the opposite.

I do find it interesting that you seem to have "identified" yourself with my description though.

What I did say is that when commenting about Gov. Bush, you typically make alegations and never give evidence supporting your alegations. You have continued to do that when you responded to my post.

As for personally liking Gov. Bush, that matters not the least to me. I don't look to our President to be my buddy, I want an effective leader.

You state that you will continue to post articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings". The past two that I have read have been anything but critical in my opinion. You posted a Salon article about how Gov. Bush is reaching out to minorities and a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial about how President Bush would appoint more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

In my mind, only a racist (this is NOT an accusation to anyone here) would find Gov. Bush's outreach to minorities a "shortcoming". I will object if he PANDERS to minorities, as with any group, but I find it great that he is reaching out to minorities and wishes to convert them to more conservative beliefs. A liberal who erroneously believes that all conservatives are a bunch of ignorant bigots, probably thinks that a forum of gun owners would become outraged by this outreach.

As for appointing more justices like Scalia and Thomas, HALLELUJAH; every Supreme Court Justice should share the Constitutional opinions of Scalia and Thomas. If this were the case, we would be on the fast track back to the Constitutional principles of our founding fathers.

Randy, you post an editorial that you apparently feel is critical of Gov. Bush's proposed appointing of more justices like Scalia and Thomas, then you state in a following post that he will NOT appoint conservative justices. Which one is it?

Please Randy, continue to post such critical articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings".
[/quote]


Cactus,

I can see now why you are confused about my posts regarding Bush. My apologies.

My posting articles that seem to show Bush in a "good" light, are posted to show fellow gun owners and TFL readers what the Left-wing fascists are reading about Bush.

This does NOT mean that I agree with the articles at all.

I have been hoping that someone who knows more about Bush's track record in approving Texas judges would be clarified by someone here, but to date that has not occurred.

As for Bush's reaching out to minorities, he is failing in that as well. Most Blacks that vote don't trust Republicans as a general rule, never have, and do support the Democrat sponsored gravy train of "free" benefits (medicare, SSI/SSDI, free paid abortions, welfare, food stamps, ect.)

So do most so-called illegal "migrant workers", read Mexican, and other minorities whose offspring become instant American citizens at birth, enabling even more givaway money (W-I-C programs, Planned Parenthood).

Do not misunderstand me. I hold not ill will towards those who cross the border illegally to obtain free American welfare $$ and other goodies.

That is OUR fault for allowing these programs to exist in the first place. They, like all humans will do what they think is in their best interests.

No one can blame them for that.

But, you see, Bush is not going to get much support from these people anyway, as they are going to vote Democrat anyhow, if they vote at all, so why does he ignore American Republican gun-owners, who do vote, so much?

Simple: he and his political machine
know full well that most of you will vote for him no matter what he does IRT welfare giveaways and other "outreach" programs.


That is because most of you will not support a political party that promises, as part of the plank, to eliminate free government handouts and welfare, while eliminating unconstitutional gun control laws.

This whole idea that firearms are the be-all, and end-all of freedom is nonsense.Of course they are necessary, but so is educating those who take over the reigns after we are to old to fight and pass on into history.

We are losing the fight because the younger generations are being indoctrinated in the public schools to think more big government is better, sex with multiple partners is good, and guns are "bad". Bush will only make that worse, not better, IMO.

Our time is very short and may already be well past, but I digress...
Randy Davis is offline  
 

Thread Tools

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13728 seconds with 7 queries