Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fetzie » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:33 am

That that question even has to be asked...
Fetzie | Protection/Holy Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Former Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:05 pm

Fetzie wrote:That that question even has to be asked...

Agreed
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:56 pm

As Jim pointed out, they shouldn't have to ask it... it's within their (legislature) power to say whether or not he has that as an option. If they're asking, then clearly they aren't doing their job (as if the sequestration didn't already show that.)
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fetzie » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:42 pm

In other news, the population of the Falkland Islands have held a referendum on whether to remain a British Overseas Territory.

1,672 Eligible voters
1,517 Votes cast (90.7% participation)
1,513 Votes were in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory (99.7%)
3 Votes were in favour of revoking the status as a British Overseas Territory
1 Vote was voided

Now that is what I call voter participation. Elsewhere you are lucky to reach the 30-40% required for the result to be representative enough to count for anything.
Fetzie | Protection/Holy Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Former Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:08 pm

Fetzie wrote:In other news, the population of the Falkland Islands have held a referendum on whether to remain a British Overseas Territory.

1,672 Eligible voters
1,517 Votes cast (90.7% participation)
1,513 Votes were in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory (99.7%)
3 Votes were in favour of revoking the status as a British Overseas Territory
1 Vote was voided

Now that is what I call voter participation. Elsewhere you are lucky to reach the 30-40% required for the result to be representative enough to count for anything.


Image
Strategic Sheep Purposes! Suck it Argentina!!
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:38 pm

Skye1013 wrote:As Jim pointed out, they shouldn't have to ask it... it's within their (legislature) power to say whether or not he has that as an option. If they're asking, then clearly they aren't doing their job (as if the sequestration didn't already show that.)
The more I read from that guy, the more he sounds like every other blow hard demagogue out there. That's unfortunate, I was hoping he wasn't like that when I first read his blog.

The reason for the filibuster wasn't just about the question, is was because the first time the question was asked, it wasn't clearly answered. Granted Holder wasn't answering the non engaged aspect, so it wasn't that big of a deal, and it was mostly just a bunch of showboating. At least Jim, "Snark and sarcasm and political theater aside" finally admitted that there was some point.

Congress can't really stop a President's (or his attorney general's) interpretation of law. There is existing law that deals with this, I've read that Sen Paul referenced it quite a bit in his filibuster, but that law is open to interpretation. If the President were to believe that he was authorized such action, it wouldn't be dealt with legislatively until after the fact.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:06 pm

Fetzie wrote:Now that is what I call voter participation. Elsewhere you are lucky to reach the 30-40% required for the result to be representative enough to count for anything.


Why the high turnout? What caused the issue to come up for a vote?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:45 am

Argentina and the UK have been at each other's throats for decades about those islands, especially now that the UK has begun digging up for oil.
One interesting point is that not every inhabitant of the islands could vote. Still, if memory serves, it was certainly over 60% of the population, so, with those restults, we can be pretty sure the vote result is legit.
Amusingly, though, Argentina decried the vote as "non-valid" since before the results because the voters aren't inhabitants, but the international equivalent of squatters on Argentinian land.

Business as usual, shall we say.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:10 am

The current Argentinian government are the ones that've made it an issue lately; they've been using it to stir up nationalist support.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4795
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:01 am

True. Sorry, I should have pointed that as well.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:19 am

My money is on Argentina making a fuss over it purely for domestic policy reasons, and then doing nothing - they tried once and got the behinds handed to them, I doubt very much if they would try again (its not like the power ratio has changed in favor of argentina, I'd guess quite the contrary.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fetzie » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:34 am

Sagara wrote:Argentina and the UK have been at each other's throats for decades about those islands, especially now that the UK has begun digging up for oil.
One interesting point is that not every inhabitant of the islands could vote. Still, if memory serves, it was certainly over 60% of the population, so, with those restults, we can be pretty sure the vote result is legit.
Amusingly, though, Argentina decried the vote as "non-valid" since before the results because the voters aren't inhabitants, but the international equivalent of squatters on Argentinian land.

Business as usual, shall we say.



The "non-eligible" could well be under-18s, who are generally non-eligible to vote in any election anywhere.

Argentina's armed forces have hardly been touched since the 1982 war. Their soldiers are under-paid, the machinery is under-maintained and a single destroyer from the British Navy could probably fend them off without breaking a sweat.

My money is on Argentina making a fuss over it purely for domestic policy reasons, and then doing nothing - they tried once and got the behinds handed to them, I doubt very much if they would try again (its not like the power ratio has changed in favor of argentina, I'd guess quite the contrary.


President Fernandez has been using the Falklands as a way to keep domestic policy busy, and to divert attention away from the fact that the State is pretty much bankrupt.
Fetzie | Protection/Holy Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Former Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:01 am

I'd like argentina to try it... just for lulz
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fetzie » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:09 am

Maybe she'll stop the posturing when all of here military equipment has been destroyed...wait. This is Fernandez de Kirchner we're talking about. If she invades the Falkland Islands, she'll go to the UN and complain that we defended the islands.

Fucking hypocrite, talking about how Britain is acting all colonial while trying to assert control over the islands regardless of what the inhabitants want. SHE is the colonialist (or wannabe colonialist, given that she doesn't have the military power to actually become one).
Fetzie | Protection/Holy Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Former Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:30 am

Fetzie wrote:Fucking hypocrite, talking about how Britain is acting all colonial while trying to assert control over the islands regardless of what the inhabitants want. SHE is the colonialist (or wannabe colonialist, given that she doesn't have the military power to actually become one).


I wonder what the indians* of Argentina think of all that "colonialist!" rethoric?

*amerindians/native argentinians/indigenous/whatever they want to be called
Paxen
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fetzie » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:54 am

Paxen wrote:
Fetzie wrote:Fucking hypocrite, talking about how Britain is acting all colonial while trying to assert control over the islands regardless of what the inhabitants want. SHE is the colonialist (or wannabe colonialist, given that she doesn't have the military power to actually become one).


I wonder what the indians* of Argentina think of all that "colonialist!" rethoric?

*amerindians/native argentinians/indigenous/whatever they want to be called

Pretty sure they got massacred two hundred years ago by the Spanish colonialists when they arrived in Argentina, so they are not in a position to complain unless somebody can find a medium.
Fetzie | Protection/Holy Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Former Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:18 am

Remember kids! Taking over land is O.K. as long as any former inhabitant is feeding the worms!
Seriously, it's hilarious how far this entire story went, because some political douchenoozle can't fess up about socio-economic troubles.

"Hey, guys, as you know, we're hear to discuss the national debt, that has recently-OH FUCK GUYS LOOK AT THAT DOUCHE BRIT ON OUR LAND!!! HAXX!"

*frowns* Wait. Do politicians actually work like every fail raider ever?
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:41 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Skye1013 wrote:As Jim pointed out, they shouldn't have to ask it... it's within their (legislature) power to say whether or not he has that as an option. If they're asking, then clearly they aren't doing their job (as if the sequestration didn't already show that.)
The more I read from that guy, the more he sounds like every other blow hard demagogue out there. That's unfortunate, I was hoping he wasn't like that when I first read his blog.

The reason for the filibuster wasn't just about the question, is was because the first time the question was asked, it wasn't clearly answered. Granted Holder wasn't answering the non engaged aspect, so it wasn't that big of a deal, and it was mostly just a bunch of showboating. At least Jim, "Snark and sarcasm and political theater aside" finally admitted that there was some point.

Congress can't really stop a President's (or his attorney general's) interpretation of law. There is existing law that deals with this, I've read that Sen Paul referenced it quite a bit in his filibuster, but that law is open to interpretation. If the President were to believe that he was authorized such action, it wouldn't be dealt with legislatively until after the fact.


And i'm on the opposite end. The more I read from him, the more I really agree with what he's saying, and while you may not care for the snark and sarcasm, I do. I find it refreshing. It feels like having a conversation with a friend, instead of reading some of the other blogs out there.

That wasn't the reason for the filibuster either. Let's be honest. The point of the filibuster was to delay, to slow down, to obstruct. And Wright even points out, that those questions should be asked. But not by the legislature. They should be asked by the citizens, and the legislature should be finding the answer.

I kind of thought that Congress' job was to create the laws. If they don't like the way a law is interpreted, then they should stop beating around the bush, and clear up the laws. And like he pointed out, many of these very people didn't have a problem with these powers that they voted to the president, when it was their party in the White House. When Dubbya had these powers, there wasn't a huge outcry by either party. This latest filibuster, is just another example at the Floundering attempts to stop, stump, and grind to a halt anything that the Conservatives aren't in favor of right now.

You want to know if the president can? Stop standing there for FOURTEEN FREAKING HOURS DRONING ON, and get done with what was on the table, so that you can get on to the issues that you want to him hawl and complain about.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:39 pm

Did someone forget to tell him not to reveal the true agenda of the Republican party to the people?

http://www.ibtimes.com/paul-ryan-we-wont-give-destroying-health-care-american-people-1121829
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:48 am

Sagara wrote:Remember kids! Taking over land is O.K. as long as any former inhabitant is feeding the worms!
Seriously, it's hilarious how far this entire story went, because some political douchenoozle can't fess up about socio-economic troubles.

"Hey, guys, as you know, we're hear to discuss the national debt, that has recently-OH FUCK GUYS LOOK AT THAT DOUCHE BRIT ON OUR LAND!!! HAXX!"

*frowns* Wait. Do politicians actually work like every fail raider ever?

To answer the question; no.
If you add in a "some" or "populist" between "Do" and "politicians", then abso-f'ing-lutely.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:00 pm

Shoju wrote:And i'm on the opposite end. The more I read from him, the more I really agree with what he's saying, and while you may not care for the snark and sarcasm, I do. I find it refreshing. It feels like having a conversation with a friend, instead of reading some of the other blogs out there.
Fair enough.

Shoju wrote:That wasn't the reason for the filibuster either. Let's be honest. The point of the filibuster was to delay, to slow down, to obstruct.
Honest? I can't imagine how you could possibly reach that conclusion. I mean I get that a filibuster in general is meant to block a vote, but if there was ever a filibuster whose intent had nothing to do with your conclusion, it's this one. It was grandstanding, it was getting a point across, but it wasn't seriously meant to block the vote on Brennan. Is anyone even trying to claim otherwise?

Shoju wrote:And Wright even points out, that those questions should be asked. But not by the legislature. They should be asked by the citizens, and the legislature should be finding the answer.
First, the legislature is a group of citizens and they are meant to represent other citizens, so doesn't it make sense that they would ask? Isn't asking probably the best way to find that answer? I'd think it would be pretty difficult to know how an administration interprets a given set of laws, without asking or waiting until the administration acts contrary to its intent. So the question was asked, and when he felt like the question was dodged, he staged the filibuster to make his protest and ask again. When he got a direct response, he declared success and stopped...hard to argue with that.

Shoju wrote:And like he pointed out, many of these very people didn't have a problem with these powers that they voted to the president, when it was their party in the White House. When Dubbya had these powers, there wasn't a huge outcry by either party. This latest filibuster, is just another example at the Floundering attempts to stop, stump, and grind to a halt anything that the Conservatives aren't in favor of right now.
Yeah, well that is a flimsy argument all around. The point here is Paul's filibuster, now we jump to "many of these people" as if that's particularly relevant. The truth is, Paul wasn't even in office when these laws were put in place. These laws have passed and been extended with broad bipartisan support, except from Paul. I think he was the only Senator to vote against them. In fact he stumped pretty hard against the Patriot Act extension. It's a bit unfair to lump those folks into a criticism of Paul, and entirely consistent for Paul to be scrutinizing these topics now. It's also not inconsistent to have been in favor of the Patriot Act and not expect drones to be used in this way. Besides plenty of Dems want greater transparency on these issues too.

Again, I can't understand the idea that this was some attempt to stop something that conservatives aren't in favor of. First of all, it's probably impossible for Paul to have seriously attempted to block the vote because enough Republicans actually were in favor of Brennan. A serious filibuster would have failed. When Paul got his answer, he stopped his filibuster and the vote went on and Brennan was confirmed pretty easily. I have no idea how that could be considered an attempt to block his confirmation.

Shoju wrote:You want to know if the president can? Stop standing there for FOURTEEN FREAKING HOURS DRONING ON, and get done with what was on the table, so that you can get on to the issues that you want to him hawl and complain about.
Wow...fourteen whole hours? Funny thing is, he got his answer...how long do you think it would have taken and how many legislative sessions would have been delayed had he proposed legislation?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:45 pm

He got his answer, but was it an answer worth getting, or even a question worth asking? Of what possible relevance is the answer to the question, or the question itself, to any citizen out there? To devote 14 hours to a non-issue is literally a waste of time. Not just Paul's time, but the time of all 100 senators.

100 people wasting 14 hours at around $90 per hour (estimated for a $174,000 salary - varies with vacation days) equates to $126,000 of taxpayer money pissed away to answer an irrelevant question.

Proposing legislation is their job. It's what they get paid for. Asking one irrelevant question for 14 hours is just a waste.

The President is going to do whatever it takes to get the job done, because he's sworn to get the job done, and because he's the freaking President. That's the $126,000 answer, except it didn't take me 14 hours to figure it out.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:27 pm

But doing their due diligence before proposing legislation is also incumbent in their job. I mean, it would be a waste of time to propose legislation to make something illegal...that's already considered illegal.

And good grief, please don't even get me started on wasting gov't time/money. Are they even paid by the hour? I suspect they were getting this salary whether they sat there for this or not (and most of them probably didn't stay the whole time), so the costs are somewhat specious. I doubt that all 100 of them were there, and those that were were probably not totally impeded, and could still be productive if they chose. On the relativity scale, this is a ridiculously small example of waste.

But hey, if you want to criticize Paul for the grandstanding and wasting resources, I got no beef with that, but be consistent and scale the complaints appropriately.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:47 am

but was it an answer worth getting, or even a question worth asking?

If your answer to this is no, then I really don't understand what kind of government/state you want - because the only form of state where I can see the answer not being worth asking is one where you know that regardless whether they answer yes or no, they will change their mind when expedient - i.e. a malevolent dictatorship / policestate / ministry of truth doublespeak.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:03 am

The point is, obviously, that it was a waste of time, and time is money. What is the worth of our entire Senate on an hourly basis? If they had something important to do like balancing a budget or trimming waste from pork-barrel spending, maybe it's somewhat important that they spend their time on that instead of on stupid questions.

And it is a stupid question. Might as well ask if the President can kill a citizen with a three-tined dinner fork, then work up to a four-tined fork, then maybe a soup spoon. Hell, they could get through the entire Senate session before finishing the flatware. Then onto garden implements, perhaps. The official answer is going to be the same "no" every single damn time because the President doesn't have the authority to assassinate citizens who are minding their own business in peace with *any* implement from the humble spork to the stealth bomber.

When it's war time, however, and when the person in question is involved in activity threatening to the sovereignty of the United States, the President could use literally anything to off the bastard and whether or not it's legal he'd be a national freaking hero for doing it.

So it really is a stupid question, and it really is a waste of the entire Senate's time.

Honestly, can you conceive of a realistic situation where a drone is a superior weapon to take out an individual than a missile, RPG, mortar, or any other conventional weapon up to and including air- and sea-based weapons platforms? Yet nobody has had to take 14 hours of everyone's time to answer if the President has the authority to use those, have they?

Oh, but drone technology - that's all scary and new and stuff so we need to ask special questions, for 14 freaking ours. What a load of bullshit.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest