quote:McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
From wikipedia...
quote: During their time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter.[178] McCain had extramarital affairs,[178] and he later said, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[179] His wife Carol later stated that the failure was not due to her accident or Vietnam and that "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[180] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg, believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[180] According to John McCain, "I had changed, she had changed. People who have been apart that much change."[180]
I'm not sure what the juxtaposition of my quote with the quote from wikipedia is supposed to show. Ordinarily in a post structured in that way I'd expect the second quote to refute the assertion being made in the first, but since that's clearly not the case here I'm a little puzzled.
[Edited to include the post I was responding to, since I had the misfortune to make a TOPP.]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the time between John McCain being released and his affair with Cindy Hensley, he had his flight status reinstated, became a celebrated commanding officer of a training squadron, and then became the Navy's liason to the Senate. 3 years after the affair and 2 years after his divorce and then remarriage, he was elected to Congress, where he was then elected to lead the incoming freshman Republicans.
This was not a man noticably making very poor decisions through stress. edit: And even given that, he didn't just cheat on Carol McCain. He treated her horribly.
---
edit: I made my peace with it in 2000 because he owned up to it being his fault and admitting that he behaved very poorly. Given that it around 2 decades before and what I'd seen of him, I was willing to accept that he had grown a lot since then. But it was definitely a large black mark for me, as I think it should be for anyone who can seriously claim to be a character/values voter.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a recent interview, McCain said he did not want to revisit the breakup of his marriage. "I have a very good relationship with my first wife," he said. In his autobiography, he wrote: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine."
He doesn't seem to put the blame on his POW horror.
In any event, why should we be comforted by the fact that one of the candidates may have had sufficient trauma (physically and psychologically) to cheat on his handicapped wife with a woman half his age? How do we know the trauma has been sufficiently healed, especially in light of rumors of another fling 10 years ago, plus his judgment in his dealings with Keating? Not to mention not knowing the borders of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, or confusing Sunni and Shiite Muslims repeatedly, despite being corrected at lest once on camera by Sen. Lieberman?
Oh, and just to be fair and balanced with the innuendo, I'll just repeat what I've read is making the circles of chain emails: Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.
quote:Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.
So that's what he's up to....
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure what the juxtaposition of my quote with the quote from wikipedia is supposed to show. Ordinarily in a post structured in that way I'd expect the second quote to refute the assertion being made in the first, but since that's clearly not the case here I'm a little puzzled.
I made an assumption on my first post based upon the youtube clip that McCain would have taken the stance the Vietnam affected him more than he says it did but after I read your snarky post I did a wiki lookup I found more information than either of us had posted so I posted what I found. It was meant to clarify the discussion based upon wikipedia. Unlike this type of post:
quote: In any event, why should we be comforted by the fact that one of the candidates may have had sufficient trauma (physically and psychologically) to cheat on his handicapped wife with a woman half his age? How do we know the trauma has been sufficiently healed, especially in light of rumors of another fling 10 years ago, plus his judgment in his dealings with Keating? Not to mention not knowing the borders of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, or confusing Sunni and Shiite Muslims repeatedly, despite being corrected at lest once on camera by Sen. Lieberman?
which is clearly just meant to demean McCain with 'facts' and then followed by
quote: Oh, and just to be fair and balanced with the innuendo, I'll just repeat what I've read is making the circles of chain emails: Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.
which was posted to make critiscm of Obama seem ludicrous.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, I am serious in one regard to the Obama stuff. It is making the rounds in email, and being referenced in some conservative circles... And it is being believed by some people.
Yes, these can all be rationalized away, and may be uncharitable, but compare them to the base speculation about Obama that I posted above. The gulf in viciousness, if both are taking seriously, is huge. One is saying that maybe McCain's judgment isn't all that good... The other is saying that Obama will literally bring the end times upon us all.
Note also, I said "with the innuendo", which means I'm well aware the McCain criticisms are arguable points, that can be used to smear the candidate. Then again, they are all documented by the press, whereas the Obama stuff is speculation.
There's plenty to criticize Obama on: his lack of national experience, particularly as this pertains to his foreign policy; his healthcare plan; even his tax plan. Yet it seems most would rather play to baser mistrust and call him the Anti-Christ. There's even a McCain internet ad that lifts heavily from the Left Behind series as far as terminology and imagery in attacking Obama.
quote: DK, Do you think that a candidate cheating on his wife is a big deal?
Yes, it is a big deal. It is a big deal to the wife (or husband) and to the family. Elected officials know they can be blackmailed if they are discovered. Cheating is a very devastating event usually for all involved. An affair many years ago is much different than an active affair today. People can learn from their mistakes. More to the point, I could vote for someone if they had an affair. There are a lot of 'depends' on whether or not I would though. We are all human with the same human weaknesses and at times those weaknesses can overcome our better judgement. A current affair would definitely lessen my opinion of them and may cause me to combine that with other critiscms and vote for the other candidate. I am not a fan of McCain but Obama's policies are even worse so I do feel like I am having to choose between awful and very bad.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have any of you guys seen the Rick Warren moderated forum between McCain and Obama, I hope to see some youtube videos.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.
posted
I'm not so worried about a lot of people looking at his statement and saying "oh my, what a can of worms that opens!" People just don't think like that.
But I can already see the ads on TV saying McCain wants to do away with all birth control. If life does begin at conception, then any assault on even a zygote is the same thing as murder. So McCain either has to defend murder, or be against all birth control. Now I personally am not a big fan of black and white positions. But I think Obama, or his surrogates, or even just pissed off women's groups (who have a lot of money and power) perhaps in conjunction with pharmeceutical companies afraid of what this might mean for birth control pills and what not will have a very, very easy time pinning McCain into a corner and forcing him to choose, and I think given his weakness with social conservatives he'll have to side with them.
It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.
quote: It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
I don't think Obama wants any hay made out of this considering the hay that can be made out of his politics on abortion
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think they're trying to combat a couple of decades of Republicans saying they love baby killing. Even the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice monniker suggests that anyone who is for a right to choose is naturally against life, and therefore supports murder. It's part of the lexicon of the abortion debate. It's designed to make Pro-Lifers look like they actively support and like baby killing. At least that's how I frequently see the debate being framed.
When Democrats try and take a middle road, which frankly I don't see as a middle road, they get called flip floppers and wafflers who can't make a choice. Most Democrats are in favor of a ban on late-term abortions so long as there is an exception for the life of the mother. Does that make them Pro-Life? Is that an abandonment of Roe?
This is a tough discussion to have without really going into all the smaller parts that make it up. Any debate on abortion has to include a discussion on Sex Education, which is another topic Republicans and Democrats seem to widely diverge at. Democrats think comprehensive SexEd will reduce the overall number of unwanted pregnancies, and the numbers seem to bear them out on that. And they're okay with placing abortions into a strict set of circumstances, like no late-term abortions with some exceptions. The other side seems to take a "just say no" approach to SexEd, and then outlaws all abortion with no exceptions (though this does vary I think). To a Democrat, that looks ridiculous because it ups the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and puts women in a potentially life threatening situation, and results in hundreds, thousands, and some day millions of unwanted babies.
I think far too often the debate is stopped at, like Bok says, Column A or Column B, with no room for nuance. But often I think the best solutions are generally found somewhere in between. That's where my own position lies, but it's hard to find a candidate that supports exactly what I believe in because it seems like they are forced to take one side and defend it, and any ground the give is seen as a betrayal, and they are punished for it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
I don't think Obama wants any hay made out of this considering the hay that can be made out of his politics on abortion
Like that'll be left alone anyway if he stays silent on the subject? Yeah right. McCain has taken a First Strike approach to campaigning thus far, I don't see why that'd stop in the Fall.
Besides, hardcore Social Conservatives are either going to stay home or vote McCain. Obama has way too many votes that he can pick up in the middle with Independents that he needs to wrest from McCain if he's going to win critical swing states. The question is whether it's a net gain or not, and I think it would be.
And either way, neither of them will have a choice once the PACs get into the mix.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think far too often the debate is stopped at, like Bok says, Column A or Column B, with no room for nuance. But often I think the best solutions are generally found somewhere in between. That's where my own position lies, but it's hard to find a candidate that supports exactly what I believe in because it seems like they are forced to take one side and defend it, and any ground the give is seen as a betrayal, and they are punished for it.
Heaven forbid that a complicated question has a complicated answer. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain said he supported stem cell research, though he didn't specify embryonic vs. all other stem cell research, so that's a bit strange.
I don't think you can say human rights begin at conception and support embryonic stem cell research. Though him not thinking of test tube babies as conceived would not come as a surprise.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how he could reconcile test tube babies as not being concieved with the whole idea of what conception is. Egg meets sperm = Baby. That's precisely what test tube babies are, they just aren't implanted, but his statement on when life begins has nothing to do with implantation, it starts at a point before that.
If I had to guess, I'd say he supports non-embryonic stem cell research, or at least, that's what he supports NOW. Given recent advances in medical research though, I don't know how much static he'll get for that.
I think these are questions that women's groups will MAKE him answer, that before this recent statement he could skate by with campaign one liners that they so often use. But now that he has taken a firm position, he's going to get asked a lot of follow ups. No matter how he answers them, he's going to upset someone. I think Obama gets by here because he gave the answer everyone pretty much expects from a Democrat, which boils down to "safe, legal and rare," or what I call S&S (Safe & Seldom).
None of this will matter if no one ever pushes this on him and makes him answer questions about it, but there's a lot of potential for it. It's a pinatta waiting to be whacked.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That conundrum is easy to finesse. You just say you were talking about the newer, less-proven, non-embryonic stem cell research. And then send some sort of attack toward Obama to distract the press from following up on any potential discrepency between the latest statement, and any past statements (if there are any).
For all the media that Obama gets, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt like McCain has gotten. I mean, McCain's even has the networks redacting verbal gaffes from interviews prior to airing... [EDIT: Note, I don't mean to say that McCain has been making the networks do it. I just mean that it has happened).
posted
We'll see. If Obama and his surrogates, or the pro-choice establishment decide to make an issue out of his statements, I don't see him getting out of it without giving either some specifics, or a lot of room for Obama to fill in the blanks himself. McCain is the one who has pioneered that tactic in this campaign (though hardly the first to use it). If you don't define yourself, your opponent will. The longer McCain dodges, the more time Obama will have to run ads saying Mccain is anti-birth control, anti-fertility science (artificial insemination, etc), anti-reproductive rights, anti-choice, anti-women and whatever else he wants, until McCain either confirms or denies, and if he denies, he hurts himself with social conservatives after saying he's the pro-life candidate.
I'm not saying he won't have his own mud to sling, but he's going to throw it anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those attacks are full of false information. A little bit of research will show that any fetus with a reasonable chance of surviving an abortion were already protected under Illinois law.
The only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Have any of you guys seen the Rick Warren moderated forum between McCain and Obama, I hope to see some youtube videos.
Yes. I thought it was very good. I didn't see it at the time it happened, but watched the videos here: Videos & Transcript
edit: (I know nothing about that site or its origins -- I only pulled it up because it had the videos when I was doing a Google search for videos of the forum to watch - so ignore anything else on the site)
Obama's numbers have been in decline for a month now, and the electoral map at 538.com is pretty close to parity.
Most analysts seem to chalk up the swing to McCain's successful attacks, or (in the case of the Reuters article) to Obama's eroding his base with his pivot to the center. I think it's just Obama fatigue: there were so many stories about him that the population has just got tired, like a kid with a new toy once the shine has worn off.
I think that Obama's numbers will increase again in September when school's back in and he starts spending his gobs and gobs of un-campaign-finance-reform cash, while McCain will be forced to rein in his spending significantly.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those attacks are full of false information. A little bit of research will show that any fetus with a reasonable chance of surviving an abortion were already protected under Illinois law. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm The only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack.
Do you have any other pronouncements you'd like to make about the reasons people who disagree with you support enactment of particular statutes?
There's a significant difference between the new law as described and the existing statute - specifically the "reasonable chance" portion. The old law made a requirement that the doctor try to save the lives of SOME fetuses who were entirely separate from the mother and who breathed or had a heartbeat. The new law says, essentially, that when interpreting laws with the word "person", "human being", etc., a member of the species homo sapiens that has been fully extracted or expulsed from the human body.
The laws do different things. To be precise, the second law encompasses the first and much more.
You want to disagree with the law, fine. But, especially in the context of accusing others of dishonesty, don't make up claims about the only logical reason they might want to do something.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see anything about breathing or having a heartbeat in the statute or about being entirely separate in the existing law. I see "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support" and that this is to be determined even before an abortion is started in order to determine the method "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus". Where are you seeing the entirely separate and breathing parts. Is there more of this statute somewhere that I am just not seeing? Or is this in how the law has been interpreted?
What would be done differently in practice under the new law?
The new law would indeed have done more. It would have identified the fetus as a person, which would undermine Roe v Wade. The existing law which specifically addressed that.
I do think that the attacks on Senator Obama have been dishonest. It is no secret that he is pro-choice, but painting a picture of live babies in waste bins because he wouldn't support this measure is just false.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see anything about breathing or having a heartbeat in the statute or about being entirely separate in the existing law. I see "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support" and that this is to be determined even before an abortion is started in order to determine the method "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus". Where are you seeing the entirely separate and breathing parts. Is there more of this statute somewhere that I am just not seeing? Or is this in how the law has been interpreted?
They're not in the existing law,. They're in the new law. And that's the point - the new law does something different than the old law. So the existence of the old law does not mean that the "only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack."
Anyone who desires the things the new law does has logical reasons other than undermining Roe for supporting this law.
quote: It would have identified the fetus as a person, which would undermine Roe v Wade. The existing law which specifically addressed that.
It (at least the second version in the Illinois Senate also opposed by Obama) would have defined a fetus that is outside the mother as a person. How does that undermine Roe v. Wade?
quote:I do think that the attacks on Senator Obama have been dishonest.
That's fairly irrelevant to whether your comments about the reasons of those who supported the law are truthful.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You made an accusation - that there was no logical reason to introduce this bill other than to undermine Roe and allow this kind of attack on Obama. I would think someone speaking for those she disagrees with in this way would be able to articulate how it undermines Roe.
I have already explained the differences between the old and new laws. If you have a specific question about those differences - like the one I already answered - I'm happy to answer them. Are you willing to back up your statement about other people's reasons for doing something you disagree with?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. I can really have no idea what goes on in the minds of other people. The only reasons that seem logical to me for introducing a bill to protect fetuses that already were protected is to either establish the fetuses as persons or to provide ammunition for attacks.
The only reason that seems logical to me to establish that fetuses are persons is to undermine abortion rights.
What other reasons seem logical to you? How would this bill have changed what doctors were already required to do for viable fetuses?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only reasons that seem logical to me for introducing a bill to protect fetuses that already were protected is to either establish the fetuses as persons
Well of course it defines some fetuses as people - that's the express point of the bill. You still haven't explained how defining these fetuses - that are outside the mother - as persons chips away at Roe, which only addresses fetuses inside the mother.
quote:How would this bill have changed what doctors were already required to do for viable fetuses?
Why does anything have to change about how doctors treat them for this law to be supportable?
The section of the bill directly addressing this used backhanded language to define the entity as a person solely for the purposes of the criminal code. What's wrong with recognizing the backwardness of that language ("shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual") and correcting it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why not" has never struck me as a good reason for legislation.
It is not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb. You really couldn't see that?
And again, why? If not to establish that toehold, why?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He isn't saying "why not", he's saying there was a problem ("backwardness of that language") from his perspective (and presumably that of some legislators), and that this legislation corrects it.
That's not "why not".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
"X shall not be construed to mean not Y" is not the same as "X means Y".
And although I am not a lawyer, that language did not seem all that backward.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that one of the major effects of that law would be the different treatment of non-viable fetuses. That is, doctors would be forced by law to attempt to keep alive infants after an unsuccessful abortion even if that infant had no chance at any life besides a very short one filled with agony, which, as I understood it (don't recall my source and it could have been heavily biased), were basically the only ones not covered by the existing law.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb. You really couldn't see that?
So you don't consider a living member of the species homo sapiens entirely separated from its mother to be a person?
Whether or not the fetus is inside the womb is the absolute touchstone of Roe. It seems strange to see a law as undermining something when it, in fact, explicitly recognizes the limitations on the law's reach created by Roe and its progeny.
Moreover, the "not a big leap" assessment is highly inaccurate. The leap involved requires overturning Roe (more specifically, Casey). That's not just a big leap. It's a huge leap.
quote:And again, why? If not to establish that toehold, why?
Because the old law left it ambiguous whether a living member of the species homo sapiens entirely separated from the mother was a person. In fact, it created a pretty strong argument that, outside the criminal code, the fetus should not be considered a person. Correcting this seems to me to be beneficial in and of itself.
quote:I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
Yep. And I don't like the former and do like the latter, for a variety of reasons, none of which include it undermining Roe - because it doesn't do that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I do or not, in every circumstance, from a legal standpoint. I don't know, from a legal standpoint, whether a "pulsation of the umbilical cord" is sufficient to grant a fetus the same rights as a person.
So it wasn't just a matter of correcting backward language; it was a change. What are your reasons for liking the change?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it wasn't just a matter of correcting backward language; it was a change.
I'm having a real hard time seeing you as participating with a good motive here, Kate. You're presenting this as if I haven't said it's a change from the very beginning. The whole crux of my point has been that the new law is different from the old law, in direct refutation of your original point that this law did nothing. I've been consistent on this point from the beginning.
Moreover, you're continuing to quiz me on my beliefs here without answering the most relevant question on your own: How does making this change undermine Roe? All I've gotten on this point is a vague slippery-slope-like argument and a refusal to engage on the issue.
I've given reasons for liking the change already: removing the ambiguity from the old law and granting the protections of the law to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does making this change undermine Roe? All I've gotten on this point is a vague slippery-slope-like argument and a refusal to engage on the issue.
I haven't really followed the debate on this failed law much, but even I've heard it described it as having a primary purpose of undermining Roe vs. Wade from several sources. Apparently you have not, but I'm willing to bet that boots has. I don't know if this description is her main reason for thinking that it would, but it seems to me that this would be a consistent and reasonable explanation of her comments.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's mostly what I've seen the bill described as too. I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision? Unless the entire point of the law is to have someone break it and then take the whole thing to court to make up an excuse for the court to revisit Roe and perhaps overturn it? That's pretty elaborate, and there's no guarantee that the court will even hear the case, if it even gets that far.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My participation is trying to refute the attacks (see Darknight's post) on Senator Obama. The way his vote on this bill My original point was that viable fetuses already had legal protection even before the abortion procedure was started.
I get that you like a law that grants legal standing to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother. I am asking why. What does that practically get them that they didn't already have? Is it a recognition of "soul" in some way? And I don't necessarily equate a pulsating umbilical cord or even having a heartbeat as "living".
Now, taken with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act*, also sponsored by Senator Winkler, it would have made the doctors and hospitals liable civilly liable for damages including punitive damages. Is that the benefit? To make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions?
posted
Um, if the law Obama opposed doesn't affect Roe v. Wade (as alleged), then why should it be mentioned in regard to Obama's record on abortion?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
