Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
October 10, 2012
A Tea banging Family Values Hypo-critter!
Rep. Scott DesJarlais, a pro-life, Tea Party Republican who represents Tennessee, pressured his mistress and patient into getting an abortion, according to audio of a phone call obtained by the Huffington Post.
During November, 2000 divorce proceedings, Desjarlais’ ex-wife accused him of “dry firing a gun outside the Plaintiff’s locked bedroom door, admission of suicidal ideation, holding a gun in his mouth for three hours, an incident of physical intimidation at the hospital; and previous threatening behavior … i.e. shoving, tripping, pushing down, etc.” The case was brought up during Desjarlais’ campaign against Dem Rep. Lincoln Davis in 2010.
Michael McAuliff of HuffPo writes that the newly unearthed phone call took place in September, 2000, when Desjarlais was trying to save his marriage:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/pro_life_goper_pressured_mistress_to_get_abortion/
.
Family Values Prick: Anti-abortion GOPer Pressured MISTRESS To Terminate Pregnancy
A Tea banging Family Values Hypo-critter!
Rep. Scott DesJarlais, a pro-life, Tea Party Republican who represents Tennessee, pressured his mistress and patient into getting an abortion, according to audio of a phone call obtained by the Huffington Post.
During November, 2000 divorce proceedings, Desjarlais’ ex-wife accused him of “dry firing a gun outside the Plaintiff’s locked bedroom door, admission of suicidal ideation, holding a gun in his mouth for three hours, an incident of physical intimidation at the hospital; and previous threatening behavior … i.e. shoving, tripping, pushing down, etc.” The case was brought up during Desjarlais’ campaign against Dem Rep. Lincoln Davis in 2010.
Michael McAuliff of HuffPo writes that the newly unearthed phone call took place in September, 2000, when Desjarlais was trying to save his marriage:
“But the new transcript and other revelations from court documents paint a more damning picture of a man who was a serial philanderer willing to push one of his lovers — whom he met as a patient with a foot problem — to terminate a pregnancy, even when he suspected he was the father.
‘You told me you’d have an abortion, and now we’re getting too far along without one,’ DesJarlais tells the woman at one point in the call while negotiating with her over whether he’ll reveal her identity to his wife. They then discuss whether he will accompany her to a procedure to end the sort of life the congressman now describes as ‘sacred.’”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/scott-desjarlais-abortion-pro-life_n_1953136.html?1349878415
‘You told me you’d have an abortion, and now we’re getting too far along without one,’ DesJarlais tells the woman at one point in the call while negotiating with her over whether he’ll reveal her identity to his wife. They then discuss whether he will accompany her to a procedure to end the sort of life the congressman now describes as ‘sacred.’”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/scott-desjarlais-abortion-pro-life_n_1953136.html?1349878415
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/pro_life_goper_pressured_mistress_to_get_abortion/
.
October 10, 2012
Women are driving participation in this election. Women's issues--from access to affordable contraception and health care to pay equity--have dominated the political debate since February. And also, by the way, we are 52% of the population. And we deserve to have the candidates debate the issues that impact us directly.
Time is short, but Candy Crowley and debate organizers are watching the coverage from this debate closely as they choose topics and questions for the next one. Focus groups from the debate are showing that women are frustrated--and we need to show Crowley and the rest of the debate organizers how many of us are demanding that issues we care about are included next time. Please sign the petition today.
ADD YOUR VOICE!
http://act.weareultraviolet.org/cms/sign/crowleydebate/
TELL Candy Crowley: WOMEN Deserve A VOICE In The NEXT DEBATE!!
Zero. Zip. Zilch. That's the number of times women or women's issues came up in last night's debate.Women are driving participation in this election. Women's issues--from access to affordable contraception and health care to pay equity--have dominated the political debate since February. And also, by the way, we are 52% of the population. And we deserve to have the candidates debate the issues that impact us directly.
Time is short, but Candy Crowley and debate organizers are watching the coverage from this debate closely as they choose topics and questions for the next one. Focus groups from the debate are showing that women are frustrated--and we need to show Crowley and the rest of the debate organizers how many of us are demanding that issues we care about are included next time. Please sign the petition today.
Our message to Candy Crowley and the debate organizers:
Candy Crowley and Debate Organizers: Please include questions about Obama and Romney's positions on issues that impact women directly--like contraception, reproductive health care, pay equity and paid family leave. We're 52% of the population and deserve to know where the candidates stand on issues like these. We're disappointed that the first debate didn't mention a single one.
Candy Crowley and Debate Organizers: Please include questions about Obama and Romney's positions on issues that impact women directly--like contraception, reproductive health care, pay equity and paid family leave. We're 52% of the population and deserve to know where the candidates stand on issues like these. We're disappointed that the first debate didn't mention a single one.
ADD YOUR VOICE!
http://act.weareultraviolet.org/cms/sign/crowleydebate/
October 10, 2012
7News spoke with Doherty’s mother.
"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty, Glen’s mother.
There was no response from the Romney camp.
'Mother of NAVY SEAL Killed In Libya CRITICIZES Romney'
7News spoke with Doherty’s mother.
"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty, Glen’s mother.
There was no response from the Romney camp.
October 10, 2012
THATS BECAUSE YOU AND MITT ARE LIARS!!!
They're trying to be tactfully clever by predicting that Democrats will be screaming BLOODY LIAR after the Biden/Ryan debate so, in turn, they can quickly claim the high road and say " See, just like we predicted,...the Democratic strategy is to call us LIARS!!
Democrats need to CONTINUE calling them BOTH LIARS and putting the MSM on notice for cherry-picking and NOT calling out Romney or Ryan on their LIES and DISTORTIONS and remaining silent on the sidelines.
REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY - Paul Ryan: Democratic Strategy Is ‘To Call Us LIARS For A Month’
THATS BECAUSE YOU AND MITT ARE LIARS!!!
They're trying to be tactfully clever by predicting that Democrats will be screaming BLOODY LIAR after the Biden/Ryan debate so, in turn, they can quickly claim the high road and say " See, just like we predicted,...the Democratic strategy is to call us LIARS!!
Democrats need to CONTINUE calling them BOTH LIARS and putting the MSM on notice for cherry-picking and NOT calling out Romney or Ryan on their LIES and DISTORTIONS and remaining silent on the sidelines.
WashingtonPost:
In a radio interview three days ahead of his debate against Vice President Biden, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan on Monday contended in some of his strongest language yet that Democrats are distorting his and Mitt Romney’s record on the issues.
“They’re just going to call us liars for a month, is basically what they’re going to do, it looks like. … It seems pretty clear that their new strategy is basically just call us liars, to descend down into a mud pit and hopefully with enough mudslinging back and forth and distortion, people will get demoralized and then they can win by default; sort of a choice of the lesser or two evils,” Ryan told radio host Frank Beckmann on Monday morning.
Ryan, who called in to the radio show ahead of a Monday night event to Rochester, Mich., said that he and Romney believe that the Wolverine State is “absolutely” still in play even as most recent polls show Obama ahead by double digits.
Ryan also sought to raise the bar for Biden before Thursday’s face-off at Centre College in Danville, Ky., noting that Obama chief strategist David Axelrod has been spending time in recent debate sessions with the vice president.
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/08/ryan-new-democratic-strategy-is-to-call-us-liars-for-a-month/
.
In a radio interview three days ahead of his debate against Vice President Biden, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan on Monday contended in some of his strongest language yet that Democrats are distorting his and Mitt Romney’s record on the issues.
“They’re just going to call us liars for a month, is basically what they’re going to do, it looks like. … It seems pretty clear that their new strategy is basically just call us liars, to descend down into a mud pit and hopefully with enough mudslinging back and forth and distortion, people will get demoralized and then they can win by default; sort of a choice of the lesser or two evils,” Ryan told radio host Frank Beckmann on Monday morning.
Ryan, who called in to the radio show ahead of a Monday night event to Rochester, Mich., said that he and Romney believe that the Wolverine State is “absolutely” still in play even as most recent polls show Obama ahead by double digits.
Ryan also sought to raise the bar for Biden before Thursday’s face-off at Centre College in Danville, Ky., noting that Obama chief strategist David Axelrod has been spending time in recent debate sessions with the vice president.
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/08/ryan-new-democratic-strategy-is-to-call-us-liars-for-a-month/
.
October 10, 2012
Conservatives need to reminded that Mitt ( if elected ) can't be trusted for a nano second and will burn them at the first chance by appointing a LIBRULE Supreme Court Justice and a lot more anti-conservative positions. Once he's anointed president, they can all go fuck themselves because folks, HE'S NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE!!.......this bug needs to placed into their craw and give them nightmares!
Conservatives were so excited by Mitt Romney’s manic attack performance during the first presidential debate that they missed the fact that Romney changed all of his positions except kill PBS. Indeed, Romney fashioned himself into an Obama-lite during the first debate, abandoning his previous positions in order to appeal to more voters. Conservatives didn’t seem to mind, which might indicate that they are more on board with attacking Obama than any real ideology. However, that’s a slippery slope for the Republican presidential candidate to navigate, because if conservatives realize what he actually said, they might not appreciate being played by Romney.
Conservatives are going to be played, like it or not, because the Romney camp interpreted their blood lust as tacit approval to move further to the left. Romney campaign officials told Politico that while their electoral map still looks terrible, “conservatives were so down on the campaign before the debate — and so rapturous during it — that they will give him a lot of maneuvering room to talk in more moderate ways.” I suspect the Romney campaign has underestimated the Right if they think that the Right was giving them the okay to moderate his positions. It’s more likely that conservatives were distracted by the rapture of Romney attacking Obama and ignored the substance of how he accomplished it.
In February of this year, Romney was telling conservatives another story in Toledo Ohio. He said, “I’m in favor of a pro-life policy. The legislation that relates to abortion which is something that is going to have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the key decisions I’ll take as the president will be number one, stopping funding for Planned Parenthood, re-instituting the Mexico City policy which says our funds can’t be used for abortion around the world and appointing justices to the Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, hopefully reverse Roe v. Wade, and return to the states, the authority for making law with regards to abortion.”
We mentioned this during the debate freakout, but it’s worth repeating. Romney “won” by losing himself and all of his previous positions except for the kill PBS stance. Will conservatives allow him to move so far to the left that he is the Obama lite he presented at the debate? That would suggest that conservatives don’t really disagree with Obama’s policies at all, and don’t really have an ideology other than hating Obama. Perhaps conservatives are clinging to the fact that while Romney changed his rhetoric, he hasn’t officially changed any of his policies to match the rhetoric. But that’s a lot of faith to put in someone who is best known for flip flopping, and someone whom the base has never trusted fully. It’s not as if Romney has specified any of his plans in detail, so anyone taking him at his constantly evolving word is risking being had.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-campaign-thinks-conservatives-mind-moves-left.html
Romney's October Surprise- STAB Conservatives In The Heart by SHIFTING LEFT
Conservatives need to reminded that Mitt ( if elected ) can't be trusted for a nano second and will burn them at the first chance by appointing a LIBRULE Supreme Court Justice and a lot more anti-conservative positions. Once he's anointed president, they can all go fuck themselves because folks, HE'S NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE!!.......this bug needs to placed into their craw and give them nightmares!
Conservatives were so excited by Mitt Romney’s manic attack performance during the first presidential debate that they missed the fact that Romney changed all of his positions except kill PBS. Indeed, Romney fashioned himself into an Obama-lite during the first debate, abandoning his previous positions in order to appeal to more voters. Conservatives didn’t seem to mind, which might indicate that they are more on board with attacking Obama than any real ideology. However, that’s a slippery slope for the Republican presidential candidate to navigate, because if conservatives realize what he actually said, they might not appreciate being played by Romney.
Conservatives are going to be played, like it or not, because the Romney camp interpreted their blood lust as tacit approval to move further to the left. Romney campaign officials told Politico that while their electoral map still looks terrible, “conservatives were so down on the campaign before the debate — and so rapturous during it — that they will give him a lot of maneuvering room to talk in more moderate ways.” I suspect the Romney campaign has underestimated the Right if they think that the Right was giving them the okay to moderate his positions. It’s more likely that conservatives were distracted by the rapture of Romney attacking Obama and ignored the substance of how he accomplished it.
In February of this year, Romney was telling conservatives another story in Toledo Ohio. He said, “I’m in favor of a pro-life policy. The legislation that relates to abortion which is something that is going to have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the key decisions I’ll take as the president will be number one, stopping funding for Planned Parenthood, re-instituting the Mexico City policy which says our funds can’t be used for abortion around the world and appointing justices to the Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, hopefully reverse Roe v. Wade, and return to the states, the authority for making law with regards to abortion.”
We mentioned this during the debate freakout, but it’s worth repeating. Romney “won” by losing himself and all of his previous positions except for the kill PBS stance. Will conservatives allow him to move so far to the left that he is the Obama lite he presented at the debate? That would suggest that conservatives don’t really disagree with Obama’s policies at all, and don’t really have an ideology other than hating Obama. Perhaps conservatives are clinging to the fact that while Romney changed his rhetoric, he hasn’t officially changed any of his policies to match the rhetoric. But that’s a lot of faith to put in someone who is best known for flip flopping, and someone whom the base has never trusted fully. It’s not as if Romney has specified any of his plans in detail, so anyone taking him at his constantly evolving word is risking being had.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-campaign-thinks-conservatives-mind-moves-left.html
October 9, 2012
Happy news:
The number of Blue Dogs grew steadily beginning in 1997, peaking at 54 members in the 111th Congress, when the fiscally conservative Democrats reached the pinnacle of their influence during the health care debate [...]
Now, the coalition faces the prospect of membership falling to its lowest ever, less than the 21 lawmakers it counted at the start of the 105th Congress. It ended that term with 25; currently there are 24 members of the group.
An unsympathetic look at the numbers shows the Blue Dogs could suffer further losses. If Roll Call’s race ratings bear out — that is, if all races leaning Democratic swing that way and vice versa — the group is looking at a ceiling of 19 members.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_27/Blue-Dogs-Brace-for-Another-Drubbing-218057-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
If the Blue Dogs lose the close races, they could be down to 14, which is on par with the "House Model Train Caucus," if such a thing existed. And really, why would anyone vote for them anymore? Their influence came from being power brokers in a Democratic-held House. They would hold legislation hostage for all sorts of goodies, threatening to bolt to the GOP at the first hint of pushback from the Democratic leadership.
Well, in a majority chamber, the out party has no power. Republicans have all the votes they need, so they don't give a damn about courting the Blue Dogs. In fact, they'd rather pick up those seats for themselves. Meanwhile, the House Democratic leadership doesn't need Blue Dogs for anything, and even if they did, they can't offer them anything in return. So if you're a conservative-leaning voter in one of those Blue Dog-held districts, why not vote for the real thing? Meanwhile, it's important these asshats win for the majority, but if any incumbent Democrats have to lose, let it be these guys.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/09/1142261/-The-Blue-Dogs-face-extinction-their-GOP-mentor-weeps
.
The BLUE DOGS Face Extinction, Their GOP Mentor WEEPS
Happy news:
The number of Blue Dogs grew steadily beginning in 1997, peaking at 54 members in the 111th Congress, when the fiscally conservative Democrats reached the pinnacle of their influence during the health care debate [...]
Now, the coalition faces the prospect of membership falling to its lowest ever, less than the 21 lawmakers it counted at the start of the 105th Congress. It ended that term with 25; currently there are 24 members of the group.
An unsympathetic look at the numbers shows the Blue Dogs could suffer further losses. If Roll Call’s race ratings bear out — that is, if all races leaning Democratic swing that way and vice versa — the group is looking at a ceiling of 19 members.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_27/Blue-Dogs-Brace-for-Another-Drubbing-218057-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
If the Blue Dogs lose the close races, they could be down to 14, which is on par with the "House Model Train Caucus," if such a thing existed. And really, why would anyone vote for them anymore? Their influence came from being power brokers in a Democratic-held House. They would hold legislation hostage for all sorts of goodies, threatening to bolt to the GOP at the first hint of pushback from the Democratic leadership.
Well, in a majority chamber, the out party has no power. Republicans have all the votes they need, so they don't give a damn about courting the Blue Dogs. In fact, they'd rather pick up those seats for themselves. Meanwhile, the House Democratic leadership doesn't need Blue Dogs for anything, and even if they did, they can't offer them anything in return. So if you're a conservative-leaning voter in one of those Blue Dog-held districts, why not vote for the real thing? Meanwhile, it's important these asshats win for the majority, but if any incumbent Democrats have to lose, let it be these guys.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/09/1142261/-The-Blue-Dogs-face-extinction-their-GOP-mentor-weeps
.
October 9, 2012
While the first face-off between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney at the Oct. 3 presidential debate feels like old news by now, the repercussions are still reverberating. Romney seems to be enjoying a debate bump in the polls, even though his “great” performance was based on bold-faced lies about his tax plan, among other issues. Many liberals found themselves perplexed by what they rated as a poor performance from Obama. Some attributed the President’s lackluster delivery to not being ready for Romney to repeatedly lie his way through the debate.
While that may be true, I believe Republicans had an even stealthier strategy that won them some short-term ground. Exactly 24 hours before the debate, several conservative outlets coördinated the re-release of a 2007 speech where then Senator Obama described the nation’s paralysis in not only responding to Katrina victims, but also in addressing the historic roots of poverty and discrimination. Obama’s remarks were impassioned and justified (take it from someone who spent her childhood in the area that would later be devastated by Katrina). See clips from the video here.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/03/conservatives-launch-desperate-attempt-to-sully-obama-with-2007-katrina-speech-replay-video/
To suit its own purposes, the Daily Caller spun Obama’s remarks with the following rhetoric:
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using [a black] accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/?print=1
So, ahead of the debate, conservatives tried to paint “angry black” Obama as someone who is unable to connect or care about the (dwindling) white majority. (Ironically, it’s actually Romney who fails to connect with a healthy slice of Americans.) The over-hyped video release was a real “Hail Mary” play for Republicans, and the timing was just right to elicit a course correction from Obama and his debate team. As the Democratic camp prepped for the debate amid accusations of Obama being “too black,” Obama probably focused his attention on exuding poise and restraint. He wanted to prove that “angry black man” motif false, so voters could see through the political charade and hear the truth about issues ranging from Medicare to solving the deficit.
What Obama didn’t account for at the time is the fact that our racially unfair society apparently has no problem with “angry white men.” Thus, Romney’s camp filled the personality vacuüm the video release created by prepping Romney in the opposite way – coaching him to appear boisterous, aggressive, and indignant.The result was what we saw on Oct. 3: A fiery and aggressive Romney up against what appeared to be a muted and baffled Obama. I think we’ll see a renewed vigor from Obama in the next match-up. He’s too clever a guy, too careful a planner, to be fooled twice.
cont.
How The GOP Booby-Trapped The 1st Debate – And Why It Won’t Fool Obama Again
While the first face-off between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney at the Oct. 3 presidential debate feels like old news by now, the repercussions are still reverberating. Romney seems to be enjoying a debate bump in the polls, even though his “great” performance was based on bold-faced lies about his tax plan, among other issues. Many liberals found themselves perplexed by what they rated as a poor performance from Obama. Some attributed the President’s lackluster delivery to not being ready for Romney to repeatedly lie his way through the debate.
While that may be true, I believe Republicans had an even stealthier strategy that won them some short-term ground. Exactly 24 hours before the debate, several conservative outlets coördinated the re-release of a 2007 speech where then Senator Obama described the nation’s paralysis in not only responding to Katrina victims, but also in addressing the historic roots of poverty and discrimination. Obama’s remarks were impassioned and justified (take it from someone who spent her childhood in the area that would later be devastated by Katrina). See clips from the video here.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/03/conservatives-launch-desperate-attempt-to-sully-obama-with-2007-katrina-speech-replay-video/
To suit its own purposes, the Daily Caller spun Obama’s remarks with the following rhetoric:
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using [a black] accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/?print=1
So, ahead of the debate, conservatives tried to paint “angry black” Obama as someone who is unable to connect or care about the (dwindling) white majority. (Ironically, it’s actually Romney who fails to connect with a healthy slice of Americans.) The over-hyped video release was a real “Hail Mary” play for Republicans, and the timing was just right to elicit a course correction from Obama and his debate team. As the Democratic camp prepped for the debate amid accusations of Obama being “too black,” Obama probably focused his attention on exuding poise and restraint. He wanted to prove that “angry black man” motif false, so voters could see through the political charade and hear the truth about issues ranging from Medicare to solving the deficit.
What Obama didn’t account for at the time is the fact that our racially unfair society apparently has no problem with “angry white men.” Thus, Romney’s camp filled the personality vacuüm the video release created by prepping Romney in the opposite way – coaching him to appear boisterous, aggressive, and indignant.The result was what we saw on Oct. 3: A fiery and aggressive Romney up against what appeared to be a muted and baffled Obama. I think we’ll see a renewed vigor from Obama in the next match-up. He’s too clever a guy, too careful a planner, to be fooled twice.
cont.
October 9, 2012
Spread this video!
Annc: Mitt Romney said a lot in the debate. But romney was caught saying very different things at a 50,000 dollar a plate fundraiser. Listen: Romney: There are 47 percent of the people...who believe that they are victims....who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. ... my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: that's what romney really thinks about veterans Romney: my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: about police officers Romney: my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: about seniors on social security Romney: my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: Romney's plan makes middle class families pay 2000 dollars a year more, while giving multi-millionaires like himself a tax cut. Behind closed doors, he's just not looking out for us.
AFSCME PEOPLE and Priorities USA Action "DEBATE" Presidential IE Radio Spot
Spread this video!
Annc: Mitt Romney said a lot in the debate. But romney was caught saying very different things at a 50,000 dollar a plate fundraiser. Listen: Romney: There are 47 percent of the people...who believe that they are victims....who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. ... my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: that's what romney really thinks about veterans Romney: my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: about police officers Romney: my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: about seniors on social security Romney: my job is not to worry about those people. Annc: Romney's plan makes middle class families pay 2000 dollars a year more, while giving multi-millionaires like himself a tax cut. Behind closed doors, he's just not looking out for us.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
