Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next   
Author Message
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19889
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Welsh Dragon wrote:
Looks as if there's case dead on point on the question of whether a state can require a candidate for Federal office to be registered voter and the anserer is no!

Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229 . (10 th. Cir. 2000)

On top of everything - it's a decision of the 10th circuit, which includes OK

BTW - I've confirmed that the OK legislature is trying to adjourn tomorrow.

No wonder Orly Taitz is frantically imploring her half dozen followers to harass Oklahoma legislators.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9121
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
I was able put up the May 19, 2011 Senate Conference Committee Substitute version of this bill. Not very birthery at all.

1. There's nothing specific required for the president or vice president. (Strike one!)

2. All candidates have to affirm that they "possess" proof of identity and qualification to hold office. (No big deal there.)

3. There is the voter registration bit. (But as noted, there's no way that's going to be applied to a federal candidate.)

4. The State of Election Boad is to determine and publish the qualifications of each election office. (But I would suspect for POTUS it'll just recite the requirements in the U.S. Constitution, and not suddenly go all Vattel.)

5. State law already allows an election board to reject any candidate whose declaration shows the candidate is not eligible. (This, I believe, addresses Roger Calero/Eldridge Cleaver issue.)

6. In an election contest, an election board may compel a candidate to produce proof of identity and qualification. (So could a court of law; no big deal.)

7. False eligibility-declaration swearing is a felony. (Any day now!)

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Posts: 4402
Location: between the candle and the star
SuEdB wrote:
So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?


I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

_________________
We have all the wins in court. And Obama is the President.
- Epectitus


I am gray...

I stand between the candle and the star
...between the darkness and the light

-- Paraphrased from "Babylon 5" created by J. Michael Straczynski

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand'
-- from "Witch Hunt" by Rush on their "Moving Pictures" album.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23523
Quote:
Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.


Which is swearing under oath.

I would assume the words "or affirm" would also work, as that's the oath I give on an almost daily basis.

I think in my almost 40 years I've had maybe a half dozen people say "I so affirm" rather than swearing.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5510
Occupation: retired
realist wrote:
Quote:
Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.


Which is swearing under oath.

I would assume the words "or affirm" would also work, as that's the oath I give on an almost daily basis.

I think in my almost 40 years I've had maybe a half dozen people say "I so affirm" rather than swearing.


There are some sects that have a strict ban on oath-swearing and some take it even farther.

As in this case:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-0 ... arter-oath

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 87.666 per cent of all statistics are made up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
Welsh Dragon wrote:
Looks as if there's case dead on point on the question of whether a state can require a candidate for Federal office to be registered voter and the anserer is no!

Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229 . (10 th. Cir. 2000)

On top of everything - it's a decision of the 10th circuit, which includes OK

BTW - I've confirmed that the OK legislature is trying to adjourn tomorrow.



Excellent job...thank you for tying up the loose end. I was pretty sure, but didn't know where to find it.

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
thorswitch wrote:
SuEdB wrote:
So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?


I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.


They could have said so. As you can see, they elected to continue the stupid.

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:42 am
Posts: 2246
Location: left coast
Occupation: NOTICE: I am on this board for the purpose of intelligent discussion. If you disagree with my point of view and want to discuss and debate ideas in a civil and respectful manner, I am happy to engage and participate. But if you want to make things personal through insults, ad hominem, and deliberately mischaracterizing what I have said -- sorry, I won't engage with trolls.
SuEdB wrote:
thorswitch wrote:
SuEdB wrote:
So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?


I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.


They could have said so. As you can see, they elected to continue the stupid.


What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7493
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
We are a quarrelsome bunch, ain't we?

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
Curious Blue wrote:
SuEdB wrote:
thorswitch wrote:
SuEdB wrote:
So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?


I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.


They could have said so. As you can see, they elected to continue the stupid.


What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?


Swearing an oath when there isn't the option to "affirm".

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23523
Quote:
What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath [highlight]or affirm[/highlight] that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?



Swearing an oath when there isn't the option to "affirm".


But it sez "or affirm." 8>

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
realist wrote:
Quote:
What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath [highlight]or affirm[/highlight] that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?



Swearing an oath when there isn't the option to "affirm".


But it sez "or affirm." 8>

k dad

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2912
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
We are a quarrelsome bunch, ain't we?

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9121
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
poutine wrote:
We are a quarrelsome bunch, ain't we?

No, we're not.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19889
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Plagiarists!

#$%^&*()_$#$^^%&)+

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7493
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Plagiarists!

#$%^&*()_$#$^^%&)+

We are a quarrelsome, grumpy bunch, ain't we? :lol:

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2570
Location: In exile in NOVA
Ding Dong!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

\:D/ \:D/ \:D/

After a final session, which had a distinct “last day of school” tone, the OK House adjourned without even considering the Conference Committee Report.

Now there is a theoretical way for it to be resurrected but it’s so unlikely that I won’t mention it for fear of getting Orly’s little helper over-excited.

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9121
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
WD h/t on ballot-access.org!

=D>

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23523
bob wrote:
WD h/t on ballot-access.org!

=D>


Indeed. Bravo WD.

Thanks for all your hard work on all these bills. =D>

Orly is gonna haz a madz. :lol:

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
Welsh Dragon wrote:
Ding Dong!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

\:D/ \:D/ \:D/

After a final session, which had a distinct “last day of school” tone, the OK House adjourned without even considering the Conference Committee Report.

Now there is a theoretical way for it to be resurrected but it’s so unlikely that I won’t mention it for fear of getting Orly’s little helper over-excited.



No no no - put a damn stake through the heart of this evil abomination and let it rot in hell (or Oklahoma your choice).

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
realist wrote:
bob wrote:
WD h/t on ballot-access.org!

=D>


Indeed. Bravo WD.

Thanks for all your hard work on all these bills. =D>

Orly is gonna haz a madz. :lol:


Kewl...'nother Orly EPIC FAIL!

Arizona, Oklahoma, My my my...the The Kiss-O-Death Queen Strikes Again!

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19889
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9121
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

Every bill failed. But, IIRC, Taitz endorsed them all. (Some more than others, of course.)

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19889
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
bob wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

Every bill failed. But, IIRC, Taitz endorsed them all. (Some more than others, of course.)

Thanks. That 'splains it.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 10970
Location: Stalag 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
bob wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

Every bill failed. But, IIRC, Taitz endorsed them all. (Some more than others, of course.)

Thanks. That 'splains it.


It was the ones that Orly really went to bat for that were the true EPIC FAIL.
Every or Any Thing Orly endorses dies and goes away...She really is the True Kiss-O-Death.

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group