Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Or a Congressional Medal of Freedom.
With the way they're looking toward 06? Don't think so bucky.
With the way they're looking toward 06? Don't think so bucky.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Umm.. ok.Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Or a Congressional Medal of Freedom.
With the way they're looking toward 06? Don't think so bucky.
Just like "there ought to be limits to freedom"?? Thank Dubya for that gem. Oh and nice link to the UK right to protest web page -- are you suggesting we should adopt other country's laws? Or did you just google to fast to notice?
They are well within their limits of protesting. Otherwise, the police would have arrested them already. I haven't seen or heard anyone arrested yet so they are following the law. The fact that the owner can't handle this is his problem.
You are right. There are limits to protesting. Thankfully, these protestors haven't crossed any of those limits. Nice of you to defend them Zendari. Didn't expect that from you.
As for this "gentleman" getting ready for dove season...has anyone thought that he wasn't necessarily talking about the bird when he stated that? After all, he sounds like a "hawk".....a chickenhawk.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
So, the protestors haven't broken any laws and the owner hasn't broken any laws, yet you've decided to criticize one and not the other?
So, the protestors haven't broken any laws and the owner hasn't broken any laws, yet you've decided to criticize one and not the other?
You don't see the protestors firing guns, do you?
Who's been attacking their right to protest?
"Listen: I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her position. And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position," Mr. Bush said.
And that is absolutely correct. If she decides to throw herself into public spotlight, however, we as Americans also have the right to agree or disagree with her position accordingly.
Wow, is this woman enjoying the spotlight or what? Now she's sitting there on the road outside of Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch demanding that the Israelis leave Palestine. She actually believes that if the Israelis would just leave the area that Arabs call Palestine everything would be hunky dory; the Islamic jihadists would leave us alone. With this utterance we now know that Cindy Sheehan has gone off the deep end. She has no understanding of Islam and no understanding of jihad. She has become a danger to the future security of this country rather than an oddity on the roadsides of Texas.
Cindy now says she's not going to pay her taxes. On the subject of federal taxation, she said: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me and we'll put this war on trial." Yet another argument for the FairTax.
She also said the administration should be tried for war crimes and sent to jail. I wonder how she feels about Saddam Hussein being tried for war crimes. What about the insurgents that killed her son?
Sadly, these are the actions of a grieving, irrational mother who lost her son. Unfortunately, all she's doing is tarnishing his memory and embarrassing herself with these little escapades.
Boortz.com/nealz newz
And her husband is filing divorce papers on her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cindy Sheehan and the president have talked before, about two months after Casey's death, when Sheehan and her husband, Patrick, joined other grieving parents for a private meeting with Bush at Fort Lewis in Washington.
The Sheehans debated before the meeting whether to confront Bush with their criticism but decided it would be inappropriate.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," she told The Reporter, her hometown paper in Vacaville, after the session. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
Sheehan now says that Bush treated the meeting as if it were "a tea party" and behaved inappropriately by referring to her as "mom."
In an interview at her Crawford campsite, Sheehan said her initial reaction to Bush reflected her grief and shock over her son's recent death. Her anger toward the president increased with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the release of a British memo questioning the White House rationale for war.
By her own description, this former Catholic youth minister has become an anti-war radical.
"Maybe I always was radical, but I never really was well-informed," she said. "I don't pussyfoot around. This situation demands strong language. I don't let people tell me that Casey was lost - he was murdered."
Members of the far left have embraced her, and she has adopted their language. In a June interview with Socialist Worker Online, Sheehan scoffed at suggestions that the United States should "finish the job" in Iraq.
"How can you finish imperialism? It doesn't end, it just spreads," she said. "Some people think that we're fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new `ism.' It was `communism' when I was growing up."
In person, sitting beside a quiet country road in Texas, Sheehan is friendly, engaging and open. She acknowledges that her tactics and tough talk might alienate other military moms.
"The people who think their child died for a noble cause, they might need to believe that," she said. "But one day, they might wake up and realize it is not a noble cause."
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/12361333.htm
Cindy now says she's not going to pay her taxes. On the subject of federal taxation, she said: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me and we'll put this war on trial." Yet another argument for the FairTax.
She also said the administration should be tried for war crimes and sent to jail. I wonder how she feels about Saddam Hussein being tried for war crimes. What about the insurgents that killed her son?
Sadly, these are the actions of a grieving, irrational mother who lost her son. Unfortunately, all she's doing is tarnishing his memory and embarrassing herself with these little escapades.
Boortz.com/nealz newz
And her husband is filing divorce papers on her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cindy Sheehan and the president have talked before, about two months after Casey's death, when Sheehan and her husband, Patrick, joined other grieving parents for a private meeting with Bush at Fort Lewis in Washington.
The Sheehans debated before the meeting whether to confront Bush with their criticism but decided it would be inappropriate.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," she told The Reporter, her hometown paper in Vacaville, after the session. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
Sheehan now says that Bush treated the meeting as if it were "a tea party" and behaved inappropriately by referring to her as "mom."
In an interview at her Crawford campsite, Sheehan said her initial reaction to Bush reflected her grief and shock over her son's recent death. Her anger toward the president increased with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the release of a British memo questioning the White House rationale for war.
By her own description, this former Catholic youth minister has become an anti-war radical.
"Maybe I always was radical, but I never really was well-informed," she said. "I don't pussyfoot around. This situation demands strong language. I don't let people tell me that Casey was lost - he was murdered."
Members of the far left have embraced her, and she has adopted their language. In a June interview with Socialist Worker Online, Sheehan scoffed at suggestions that the United States should "finish the job" in Iraq.
"How can you finish imperialism? It doesn't end, it just spreads," she said. "Some people think that we're fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new `ism.' It was `communism' when I was growing up."
In person, sitting beside a quiet country road in Texas, Sheehan is friendly, engaging and open. She acknowledges that her tactics and tough talk might alienate other military moms.
"The people who think their child died for a noble cause, they might need to believe that," she said. "But one day, they might wake up and realize it is not a noble cause."
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/12361333.htm
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Ditto
By the way, when you find the ignore button, let me know. Can you dispute anything I said? Did Bush not meet with her already? Does she feel that because she lost a son she is entitled to open-door access to the President of the United States anytime she feels like discussing Moore's movies? Did she not meet (and blog on his site) Mr. Moore? Has Democrat strategist not met with her? Wake me up when her :15 minutes in the spotlight is over.
Thanks for the info, Rich...like the fact that the president HAS met with her already, this little tid bit has not made major news that I have seen...will have to look into this.
Too funny. Some liberish liberalcon site framed her :15 minutes like this:
"Cindy Sheehan is the Rosa Parks of military mothers..." :roll:
"Cindy Sheehan is the Rosa Parks of military mothers..." :roll:
Right, thanks for digging up this little tidbit of dirt that her husband is filing for divorce. WTF does that have to do with anything other than another lame attempt by the freepers to discredit her somehow? Maybe you can go digging through her trash and find out some more useless information.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Now her husband is filing for divorce.
I don't know if this poor woman has been completely brainwashed by Michael Moore et al or if she is on a genuine crusade. But right now her entire family is begging her to stop and her husband is leaving her. If she doesn't stop and look around her family is going to abandon her altogether.
I actually feel bad for her.
I don't know if this poor woman has been completely brainwashed by Michael Moore et al or if she is on a genuine crusade. But right now her entire family is begging her to stop and her husband is leaving her. If she doesn't stop and look around her family is going to abandon her altogether.
I actually feel bad for her.
Just the facts. And the fact is they had their say, now it is time to go home and leave the private property they are trespassing on.
Yeah, but your facts have nothing to do with what's going on down in Crawford. That's my point. And no, they are not on private property. They're on public property and have done nothing wrong. You're a little too eager to take this woman down. She must really be striking a chord. Good for her.
Country road ROW are only 50' in width to which barely covers from the road ditch outside highbank to highbank.
They are camped out their in tents.
Try that with 30 of your friends in front of the Governors house in your state, day after day.
Are these tents in the asphalt blocking roadway, or blocking drainage ditches or on private property? Do they have a county permit? The hauled in portolets in front of this guys property, oh boy, might decide to keep those after the party, kinda like lawn ornaments. Like they say...Were number 1 in the number 2 business.
They are camped out their in tents.
Try that with 30 of your friends in front of the Governors house in your state, day after day.
Are these tents in the asphalt blocking roadway, or blocking drainage ditches or on private property? Do they have a county permit? The hauled in portolets in front of this guys property, oh boy, might decide to keep those after the party, kinda like lawn ornaments. Like they say...Were number 1 in the number 2 business.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
The War Against Cindy
Butler Shaffer | August 15 2005
I got both into and out of active politics while in my late twenties, shortly after my graduation from law school. I was impressed with Barry Goldwater; became executive secretary of my state?s Republican party organization; and got elected as part of our state?s delegation to the 1964 Republican national convention. My initial enthusiasm for political action quickly dissolved in the realism that politics was nothing more than a vicious racket; that trying to reform the process was as pointless as trying to clean up the Mafia. 1964 was the last year in which I devoted any of my energies to such purposes, including voting.
During my short stay in the political circus, I noticed attributes of both "liberals" and "conservatives" that carry over in the present. In terms of how they communicated with the general public, liberals were brighter and more clever than conservatives. Like snake-oil peddlers or good magicians, liberals could put on a show to bamboozle people to embrace their programs. In contrast, conservative policies were presented with the level of excitement one would get from reading the annual report of a corporation.
With the failure of its economic and social interventionist policies becoming more evident in recent decades, liberalism has had a difficult time rationalizing its existence, and has become as useless to its constituencies as legs on a snake. Modern conservatism, on the other hand, has become anchored in maintaining the status quo, a purpose often tied to police, military force, and other instruments of institutionalized order. With liberalism in a thoroughly lobotomized state, conservatives find themselves in an open field with which to pursue their preferences for expanded coercive policies.
There is, however, a cost to politics that none of the participating parties can afford to confront: the diminution of respect for the worthiness of the individual. Politics both degrades and destroys life, nowhere in a more depraved manner than in the institution of war. For centuries, young men and women ? and their families ? have been told fantastic lies to get them to throw themselves on a grenade in furtherance of some allegedly "noble purpose." The current war in Iraq is but the latest chapter in this swinish endeavor, with administration liars and their media megaphones constantly changing the rationale for the resulting death and destruction.
One woman has chosen to call all of this into question. Cindy Sheehan ? whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year ? has been waiting outside George Bush?s Crawford, Texas, ranch for him to come out and explain to her "what was the noble cause Casey died for"? She openly confronts the Bush administration?s claim that ending the war now would "dishonor" those who have died. She responds that "by sending honorable people to die, they so dishonor themselves. They say we must complete our mission . . . but why would I want one more mother to go through what I have, just because my son is dead?" She wants to tell Mr. Bush "don?t you dare spill any more blood in Casey?s name."
This is powerful language, not just because it comes from a mother whose son was killed as a result of an act of unprovoked aggression by the United States against Iraq; but because her words are a clear challenge to the collective mindset upon which every mob depends for its power. Cindy?s stance is reminiscent of that of Wang Wei-lin, the young man who confronted the row of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. When the human spirit stands up to the cold, faceless, dehumanizing, destructive machinery of the state, there is a release of emotional energy whose force transcends material calculation.
Cindy?s efforts have met with the unsophisticated response one has come to expect from modern conservative voices. The reptilian "see-act" reactions of such people as Bill O?Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and John Gibson, only scratch the surface of the thoughtless rage with which conservatives confront a world beyond their ken. So, how did the Bush-leaguers propose to deal with Cindy?s actions? By threatening to have her arrested?, in the name of what has become the default explanation for state excesses: "national security"! As Mr. Bush gushes about Americans fighting for "freedom," his administration threatens Cindy with arrest for exercising hers!
The liberal establishment ? the left wing of the state?s bird of prey ? would have been just as indifferent to Cindy?s plea as are the conservatives. Liberals would not, however, have been so unbelievably stupid as to attack a lone, grieving mother, and threaten her with arrest. A liberal president would have met with this woman to "feel her pain" ? with full media coverage, of course ? before proceeding with the conduct of his bloody warfare.
Because the state depends, for its existence, upon the enforcement of collectivized thinking, Cindy Sheehan ? along with her message ? must be marginalized. Lies must be metabolized by the body politic; the immune system must remain on the alert for viruses of truth and understanding that might infect individual minds and enervate the collective organism. Such responses remind me of the apocryphal description of lobsters in a pot of water who, upon seeing a fellow crustacean trying to escape, pull him back with the others.
In an effort to render Cindy?s thoughts inconsequential, the established order has paraded onto television families whose sons died in Iraq. One spoke of the "very noble cause" for which his brother had died, and praised America for the willingness to "sacrifice our people." When asked about Cindy?s actions ? which it was the network?s purpose to have this man criticize ? he responded that we should "praise the sacrifice," and the fact that the soldiers had "died for a cause greater than themselves." The mother of another dead soldier ? when asked to contrast her position with Cindy?s ? stated "we support our president," adding that she believed her son had died for a noble cause.
Other relatives of Casey Sheehan issued a statement ? at whose behest it was not made known ? disagreeing with Cindy?s "political motivations" and "publicity tactics." Of course, their public statement was free of "political motivations" and lacking in "publicity tactics," as they concluded that the rest of the family "supports the troops, our country, and our President."
I have no quarrel with the families of dead soldiers wanting to believe that their children died for some important purpose. Even Cindy Sheehan?s question to George Bush asks for an explanation of the cause for which her son died. It is a part of human nature to want our lives to have some transcendent purpose, and when young people die before they have had an opportunity to define and act upon such a meaning for their lives, it is truly sad. To believe that there was something "noble" in the death of a young man or woman becomes a way of surmounting the feeling that their lives were meaningless. Such emotions are often found following the murders of small children, with parents engaging in efforts to draft a piece of legislation or create a foundation, either of which might bear the name of a fallen child.
In Gaelic, the name "Sheehan" means "peace maker." It is precisely the desire of Cindy and millions of others to foster peace and prevent additional deaths ? whether of Americans or Iraqis ? that underlies the campaign President Bush and other statists strive to marginalize. This war has been nothing but one string of ever-changing lies from the beginning. The spinmeisters continue to exploit the suffering that their lies, forgeries, and deceptions have created for untold thousands of people. The twisted-ribbon bumper-stickers that read "support the troops" have a hidden message that often comes through in the course of further discussion: "support the war and support President Bush; sacrifice the troops."
As this psychopathic administration now scans its world atlas for new targets upon which to direct its forces of "shock and awe," it is time for all of us to understand that there is nothing "noble" in the systematic slaughter of people. There is no "honor" in bringing grief and suffering to others; and no transcendent "purpose" in being part of a collective of fungible human beings to be exploited for whatever ends suit those with ambitions over the lives of others. "Life" belongs to living individuals, not to the state, a message each of us must impart to our children and grandchildren as they learn to resist the seductions of those who would destroy them. It is also time for Americans to take a stand with Cindy Sheehan and help this country rediscover its soul, and return to the sense of decency from which it has so aimlessly strayed.
We might begin our transformation with the lesson offered by a friend of Kurt Vonnegut as the two returned from Europe following their World War II soldiering. Vonnegut asked this man what he had learned from his wartime experiences, to which his friend replied: "not to believe my government."
Butler Shaffer | August 15 2005
I got both into and out of active politics while in my late twenties, shortly after my graduation from law school. I was impressed with Barry Goldwater; became executive secretary of my state?s Republican party organization; and got elected as part of our state?s delegation to the 1964 Republican national convention. My initial enthusiasm for political action quickly dissolved in the realism that politics was nothing more than a vicious racket; that trying to reform the process was as pointless as trying to clean up the Mafia. 1964 was the last year in which I devoted any of my energies to such purposes, including voting.
During my short stay in the political circus, I noticed attributes of both "liberals" and "conservatives" that carry over in the present. In terms of how they communicated with the general public, liberals were brighter and more clever than conservatives. Like snake-oil peddlers or good magicians, liberals could put on a show to bamboozle people to embrace their programs. In contrast, conservative policies were presented with the level of excitement one would get from reading the annual report of a corporation.
With the failure of its economic and social interventionist policies becoming more evident in recent decades, liberalism has had a difficult time rationalizing its existence, and has become as useless to its constituencies as legs on a snake. Modern conservatism, on the other hand, has become anchored in maintaining the status quo, a purpose often tied to police, military force, and other instruments of institutionalized order. With liberalism in a thoroughly lobotomized state, conservatives find themselves in an open field with which to pursue their preferences for expanded coercive policies.
There is, however, a cost to politics that none of the participating parties can afford to confront: the diminution of respect for the worthiness of the individual. Politics both degrades and destroys life, nowhere in a more depraved manner than in the institution of war. For centuries, young men and women ? and their families ? have been told fantastic lies to get them to throw themselves on a grenade in furtherance of some allegedly "noble purpose." The current war in Iraq is but the latest chapter in this swinish endeavor, with administration liars and their media megaphones constantly changing the rationale for the resulting death and destruction.
One woman has chosen to call all of this into question. Cindy Sheehan ? whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year ? has been waiting outside George Bush?s Crawford, Texas, ranch for him to come out and explain to her "what was the noble cause Casey died for"? She openly confronts the Bush administration?s claim that ending the war now would "dishonor" those who have died. She responds that "by sending honorable people to die, they so dishonor themselves. They say we must complete our mission . . . but why would I want one more mother to go through what I have, just because my son is dead?" She wants to tell Mr. Bush "don?t you dare spill any more blood in Casey?s name."
This is powerful language, not just because it comes from a mother whose son was killed as a result of an act of unprovoked aggression by the United States against Iraq; but because her words are a clear challenge to the collective mindset upon which every mob depends for its power. Cindy?s stance is reminiscent of that of Wang Wei-lin, the young man who confronted the row of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. When the human spirit stands up to the cold, faceless, dehumanizing, destructive machinery of the state, there is a release of emotional energy whose force transcends material calculation.
Cindy?s efforts have met with the unsophisticated response one has come to expect from modern conservative voices. The reptilian "see-act" reactions of such people as Bill O?Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and John Gibson, only scratch the surface of the thoughtless rage with which conservatives confront a world beyond their ken. So, how did the Bush-leaguers propose to deal with Cindy?s actions? By threatening to have her arrested?, in the name of what has become the default explanation for state excesses: "national security"! As Mr. Bush gushes about Americans fighting for "freedom," his administration threatens Cindy with arrest for exercising hers!
The liberal establishment ? the left wing of the state?s bird of prey ? would have been just as indifferent to Cindy?s plea as are the conservatives. Liberals would not, however, have been so unbelievably stupid as to attack a lone, grieving mother, and threaten her with arrest. A liberal president would have met with this woman to "feel her pain" ? with full media coverage, of course ? before proceeding with the conduct of his bloody warfare.
Because the state depends, for its existence, upon the enforcement of collectivized thinking, Cindy Sheehan ? along with her message ? must be marginalized. Lies must be metabolized by the body politic; the immune system must remain on the alert for viruses of truth and understanding that might infect individual minds and enervate the collective organism. Such responses remind me of the apocryphal description of lobsters in a pot of water who, upon seeing a fellow crustacean trying to escape, pull him back with the others.
In an effort to render Cindy?s thoughts inconsequential, the established order has paraded onto television families whose sons died in Iraq. One spoke of the "very noble cause" for which his brother had died, and praised America for the willingness to "sacrifice our people." When asked about Cindy?s actions ? which it was the network?s purpose to have this man criticize ? he responded that we should "praise the sacrifice," and the fact that the soldiers had "died for a cause greater than themselves." The mother of another dead soldier ? when asked to contrast her position with Cindy?s ? stated "we support our president," adding that she believed her son had died for a noble cause.
Other relatives of Casey Sheehan issued a statement ? at whose behest it was not made known ? disagreeing with Cindy?s "political motivations" and "publicity tactics." Of course, their public statement was free of "political motivations" and lacking in "publicity tactics," as they concluded that the rest of the family "supports the troops, our country, and our President."
I have no quarrel with the families of dead soldiers wanting to believe that their children died for some important purpose. Even Cindy Sheehan?s question to George Bush asks for an explanation of the cause for which her son died. It is a part of human nature to want our lives to have some transcendent purpose, and when young people die before they have had an opportunity to define and act upon such a meaning for their lives, it is truly sad. To believe that there was something "noble" in the death of a young man or woman becomes a way of surmounting the feeling that their lives were meaningless. Such emotions are often found following the murders of small children, with parents engaging in efforts to draft a piece of legislation or create a foundation, either of which might bear the name of a fallen child.
In Gaelic, the name "Sheehan" means "peace maker." It is precisely the desire of Cindy and millions of others to foster peace and prevent additional deaths ? whether of Americans or Iraqis ? that underlies the campaign President Bush and other statists strive to marginalize. This war has been nothing but one string of ever-changing lies from the beginning. The spinmeisters continue to exploit the suffering that their lies, forgeries, and deceptions have created for untold thousands of people. The twisted-ribbon bumper-stickers that read "support the troops" have a hidden message that often comes through in the course of further discussion: "support the war and support President Bush; sacrifice the troops."
As this psychopathic administration now scans its world atlas for new targets upon which to direct its forces of "shock and awe," it is time for all of us to understand that there is nothing "noble" in the systematic slaughter of people. There is no "honor" in bringing grief and suffering to others; and no transcendent "purpose" in being part of a collective of fungible human beings to be exploited for whatever ends suit those with ambitions over the lives of others. "Life" belongs to living individuals, not to the state, a message each of us must impart to our children and grandchildren as they learn to resist the seductions of those who would destroy them. It is also time for Americans to take a stand with Cindy Sheehan and help this country rediscover its soul, and return to the sense of decency from which it has so aimlessly strayed.
We might begin our transformation with the lesson offered by a friend of Kurt Vonnegut as the two returned from Europe following their World War II soldiering. Vonnegut asked this man what he had learned from his wartime experiences, to which his friend replied: "not to believe my government."
Man, I saw this on the side of a septic truck the other day...never seen it (or heard it) before; I love it, though!
>lame attempt by the freepers to discredit her somehow?
If you are not a hypocrite then you must also strongly support the position that those who try to discredit President Bush are "freepers." Whatever that is.
Not being a hypocrite I would suggest that showing that her family and friends know that she is lying about how Casey felt and how she herself used to feel, until a self serving group began to manipulate her.
Or perhaps, you feel that liberal lies (Rather and Clinton are good examples) should be supported as long as it supports the progressive agenda.
So much for truth.
Saw on Fox News that someone drove a pickup truck through the crosses with soldier names written on them that Sheehan and the others put up along the road to Bush's ranch.
Here is the only snippet that I could find on it:
Wonder if this was the same guy and he was "just getting ready for bumber cars at the upcoming county fair"?
Here is the only snippet that I could find on it:
Wonder if this was the same guy and he was "just getting ready for bumber cars at the upcoming county fair"?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter