The Definition of Arrogance

After a heated debate over the last few days on the rule of law, it seems well to take a step back. Why do we conservatives talk about this so much?

Is it because we conservatives are favored over liberals by the rule of law? Given that when we get into contests of jailbird badminton we seem neither favored nor disadvantaged. Both sides can pull out criminals from the other side in reams.

Is it because conservatives have an inherently superior claim to logic in arguments over the advantage of a less flexible, more rigorously wordy rule of law rather than a more flexible, more academically trusting bowing to the wisdom of the courts? Where the people entrusted with enforcing law and interpreting law are perfectly honorable the answer is no.

In those two answers, though, lies the rationale of conservative ideas on the rule of law. Liberals are not better people, but liberalism makes the assumption that they must inherently be so. Take, for example this exchange between myself and Stephen Daugherty on the role of the courts. I begin with the following-

Your admonitions of trust in what are really potential tyrants, regardless of how well founded they may be in theories of institutional complexity, can give no comfort to people who have seen over and over the lessons of well-meaning consessions to calls for irrevocable power.
Conservatives make bedfellows with bad people. Prove to me Liberals do not do the same! Power-grabbers see our grievances as a resource. For today they will reserve the violence they do do those whom they find most expedient. For today your power-grabbers expediently avoid promising to hurt you. If you do not found your protections of rights in WRITTEN LAW and protect that law jealously at the ballot box, when expediency expands the bounds of those the powerful see fit to hurt to include you you will sound as foolish in your complaints to the sheep around you as we sound now to you.
Stephen, when the Constitution, the founding law of the land, can be fundamentally changed by the mere interpretation of five people there is no law.
Stephen answers-
The rule of law is dependent on the law being the final word for everybody, not some person’s opinions about what our pre-existing rights are. The law, the decisions of the court, and other elements of what the Judiciary deals with are documented, available to the people. The whims of those carrying on about pre-existing rights are not so accountable. Either the law as provided to everybody is supreme, or we’re working off the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. History tells us that government by the whims of the powerful alone nearly always ends in corruption, if not disaster.

The problem with this argument:
Stephen, when the Constitution, the founding law of the land, can be fundamentally changed by the mere interpretation of five people there is no law.
is that at its heart, it is an attack on the legitimacy of the very courts empowered by the constitution to decide what the law means. Essentially, you are saying that you consider those decisions illegitimate. Essentially, you are saying that unless they follow your intepretation, and discard well over a century of applicable jurisprudence on many subjects, then there is no legitimacy to the law at all.

God, man, do you realize what a radical position you have taken? Right or Wrong, most Americans acknowledge the courts as the final authority on the law. But to discount their decisions on political grounds as being inapplicable? Do you know how arrogant, how outside the pale you have taken yourself?

Where I have italicised Stephen's answer above he is correct (though I can tell you from personal experience it is tremendously difficult for a non-lawyer to access the minutiae of all but a few court decisions). But look at what he actually says. If the law is supposed to be the same for everybody and not "some person's opinions or whims..." why should the opinion or whim of one person who happens to be the swing vote in a Supreme Court have any more sway than the opinion or whim I may have myself? Stephen's own argument defeats itself!

As a practical matter the argument is made that the legitimacy of the ruling of the court rises from the standing of the court. While this may sound logical it flies in the face of the very legitimacy of American government itself, something Stephen accentuates with an earlier attack on one of my assertions of the origins of rights in American government-

Take this response to my comment about the constitution being meant to be the basis of a system of derived laws. Flat out wrong?

Mister, the Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in American History. Legally, though, it means nothing. We are Constitutional Democratic Republic, not a Declarational Democracy. The Declaration is a list of grievances, a manifesto meant to reject a monarchy across an ocean.
In fact, the Declaration of Independence is a legal document, not merely a manifesto, because without it the legal separation of this nation from that legal structure under which all previous formal governmental legitimacy was founded would be void. If Stephen is right on this point all of American government is illegitimate!

Secondly, while the court is present to make interpretive decisions about the law the people are the real source of governmental legitimacy. The people must recognize a rational connection between the interpretations of the court and the words of the laws they are interpreting. Decisions like the abominable Kelo v. New London, in which the Pre-Roberts Court decided that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause allowing for emminent domain seizures of private property for "public use" could place that property in the hands of a for-profit private company, undermine the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of that source of its authority. People all over America recognized the inherent threat to personal private property rights that came by the swing of one person's opinion. So am I really "beyond the pale" and "arrogant" to state that the real arrogance is to fly in the face of the nation's owners on the authority of one man's opinion?

Finally, since the people really are the source of legitimacy in American government, as the Constitution itself states, and since the Constitution reserves for the people to make the vast majority of their most difficult value decisons for themselves through state legislatures and through the Federal Congress, and since this even encompasses the power to amend the Constitution itself so it will actually say what the law needs to say to remain relevant as a national founding modern law, what are the people to make of decisions of the court, like Roe v. Wade, that simply foreclose the peoples' right to decide on a crucial value choice? Here' is what Stephen says-

As far as Roe v. Wade goes, birth has been the traditional beginning of one’s status as a person. Even the bible recommends a lighter punishment for somebody who causes a woman to miscarry than for homicide in its terms. Medical privacy was also a pre-existing right. There is legitimate question as to the quality of the argument, but it’s been settled law for quite some time.
My answer to this was as follows:
On Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) you simply avoid the real point. It is irrelevant when some vague “they” of court history regarded human life to start. Up until 1973 the states could make the value decision for when a human became human based on their local value structure with their own legally authorized representatives, who they could then toss from office if a majority of voters substantially disagreed.
The Court, by an elitist, unaccountable ruling of a tiny group of people seized from the public the right to make the most crucial choice any human being can participate in- when we become people in the eyes of the law. If their choice had been unanimous, and it was not, it would (still) have been the most arrogant judgement in American Judicial history.

This is why conservatives talk so much about the rule of law. In our understanding of government the most important aspect of this idea is that the legitimacy of all of government is derived from the people's participation, understanding, consideration, and consent. The phrase "We the People" is more important than all the other thousands of words in the Constitution of the United States combined. Liberal commenters are apalled at my assertions of the illegitimacy of court decisions when, in fact, those decisions fly in the face of the peoples' ownership of property, of political power, and even of the right to determine their own validity in the eyes of the law!

I would humbly assert that such reaches for raw power are the very definition of arrogance.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at November 2, 2008 11:35 AM
Comments
Comment #269173

Good arguments Lee. Ultimately, our founders recognized that certain truths are self-evident and our basic rights are endowed by a creator…God.

There is no court or legislature that can change this most basic principle. Some have and will try, but these truths and rights are in the heart of man and well beyond the reach of the despot or tyrant.

Posted by: Jim M at November 2, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #269175

Lee -

Your post would be laughable if it weren’t so tragically delusional.

Conservative “rule of law”????

Dude, haven’t you been paying attention? Obviously not. Do you REALLY want me to post a list of the crimes Republicans have committed in the past eight years? It’ll really get interesting when we see how few of those crimes were actually prosecuted.

But I’ll post the SAME challenge to you that NO CONSERVATIVE HAS YET ANSWERED even though I’ve asked it at least a dozen times on both watchblog and on blogcritics.org:

Can you name ANY Democratic president or governor who has ordered their aides to refuse Congressional subpoenas…as Bush and Palin have already done? EVER?

How can you possibly proclaim conservative ‘respect for the rule of law’ when your current leader AND your proposed future leader BOTH ignore the constitutionally-mandated authority of their respective Congresses?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 2, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #269178

This and your previous posts are the very definition of arrogance.

JMHO

Posted by: womanmarine at November 2, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #269180

womanmarine, I share your opinion and have shared that with Lee on different occasions as well.
I think that once or twice I added the word narcissism to my opinion, though. ;)

Posted by: janedoe at November 2, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #269185

Lee,
Actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Bush administration has trampled upon the Constitution and the rule of law, and conservatives have remained conspicuously silent. It’s no good only objecting to violations of the Constitution and the law when it’s the other side. The Constitution and the law are not partisan matters. You have to be willing to call your own side too when it crosses the line.

It’s a salient difference between conservatism and liberalism, and by extension, between Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic party is notorious for its disorganization, fractured message, and self-criticism. That’s the price that’s paid for a big tent. The GOP, on the other hand, is well known for its unity and its intolerance of dissension within the ranks. We will see the price that will be paid this Tuesday.

Months ago, I predicted Obama would win in a landslide with 56% of the vote. It’s looking like a pretty good prediction. Of course, I also predicted Palin would be kicked off the ticket, and McCain retained her. Virtually no objective observer thinks she was a good pick. Too bad, so sad.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #269187
Virtually no objective observer thinks she was a good pick.

Who do you consider to be an ‘objective’ observer? She is pulling in larger crowd than McCain or Biden and her approval numbers are still higher, and over 50%. Are you suggesting there are over 50% biased republicans in the US?

So, you make what appears to be a statement of fact and I am calling you on it, what do you have that will back up your assertion?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2008 2:26 PM
Comment #269189
conservatives have remained conspicuously silent.

It’s hard to hear when you have your fingers in your ears.

Many conservatives have left the Republican party or have been critical of the Bush administration because of this, including notably Bob Barr who insisted on the expirations on the Patriot Act before he would reluctantly vote for it and immediately regretted it, leaving the party and joining the Libertarian party several years ago.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #269192

Rhinehold,
Barr is a good example of a conservative who has left the party based upon principle. Considering the extremely low numbers of people who have followed that path & left the GOP for a third party, the example supports my point.

People attending a Palin rally are hardly examples of objective observers. Find anyone who pretends objectively assess the campaign and see what they have to say. On the Sunday morning talking heads, they all say exactly what I said- watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, even Fox with Kondrake and Barnes. Palin appeals to the Know Nothing base, but her disapproval ratings since her introduction have increased from 21% to 41%.

Independents and moderate Republicans who have turned away from the GOP to vote Democratic, such as Colin Powell, Fried (McCain campaign adviser), and others consistently cite Palin as a major reason for defecting.

Don’t feel bad about questioning my prediction about a landslide a few months ago, Rhinehold. It seems you were wrong about that too. Hang in there. It’s been tough for conservatives lately, because they’ve turned out to be substantially, demonstratively wrong on most issues of importance. Just as you changed your mind and reversed your support for the invasion of Iraq, the course of time, events will bring you over to the liberal side eventually.

Another prediction: Obama will be a terrific president, one of the best in the history of the country.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #269193

phx8….I love your predictions !
Do you do parties??? ;)

Posted by: janedoe at November 2, 2008 2:53 PM
Comment #269196

Lee, a very good and compassionate post.

I have 3 responses:

1.Why does Stephen use the bible to prove a point about when life begins and yet disavows the bible if used by our side?

2.Secondly, the left views the “rule of law” on a sliding scale. It is the result of “situation ethics”, the rule of law is dependant upon the situation. For example, Clinton violated the law by lying to a grand jury, but that was not a violation of the law to the left. To them, his impeachment was about sex. And they will never be convinced of anything else.

3. GC said, “Can you name ANY Democratic president or governor who has ordered their aides to refuse Congressional subpoenas…as Bush and Palin have already done? EVER?”

Is this against a law, or is this against your personal opinion? If it’s against GC’s beliefs, then we go back to situational ethics.

Sorry Lee, I’m sure they will jump all over the abortion issue.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #269197

Janedoe,
Only political ones! (rimshot)
The Sunday morning talk shows were interesting because most of the pundits are already doing post-mortems. It’s hard to be objective about the presidential race when the polls show a double digit lead for Obama. It’s hard not to notice that Obama put together a superb campaign and a tremendous organization, while McCain failed to do son and that Obama won all three debates.

The only positive moment seemed to come with the GOP convention, when McCain gave a decent speech and suprised everyone with the VP pick. In theory, Palin was supposed to appeal to disaffected female Hillary supporters, among others.

However, Palin was a bad choice. She was unvetted and unqualified, and that became glaringly obvious to everyone except the Know Nothing conservatives. For the Know Nothings, sharing the same values was enough. Lack of experience, wisdom, competence, education, organizational skills, none of these affected their support. Fortunately for America, virtually everyone else did notice.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 3:26 PM
Comment #269199

pxh8:

“Virtually no objective observer thinks she was a good pick. Too bad, so sad.”

“People attending a Palin rally are hardly examples of objective observers. Find anyone who pretends objectively assess the campaign and see what they have to say. On the Sunday morning talking heads, they all say exactly what I said- watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, even Fox with Kondrake and Barnes. Palin appeals to the Know Nothing base, but her disapproval ratings since her introduction have increased from 21% to 41%.”

This statement about objective observers is arrogant. If 50% of her party support her, she has a much higher approval rating than the president or congress and because you don’t like her, you call her supporters “no-nothings”. Now, that is “so sad”.

It’s not hard to understand why her dissaproval ratings are rising. “On the Sunday morning talking heads, they all say exactly what I said- watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, even Fox with Kondrake and Barnes.”

You say Fox News like it means something to us. Normally you would say Faux news, but today you say FOX NEWS, because it adds ligitimacy to your point. Well, let me tell you something, Kondrake is a liberal abd Barns is a moderate. So their opinions don’t mean squat to me.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #269200

pxh8:

“Virtually no objective observer thinks she was a good pick. Too bad, so sad.”

“People attending a Palin rally are hardly examples of objective observers. Find anyone who pretends objectively assess the campaign and see what they have to say. On the Sunday morning talking heads, they all say exactly what I said- watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, even Fox with Kondrake and Barnes. Palin appeals to the Know Nothing base, but her disapproval ratings since her introduction have increased from 21% to 41%.”

If 50% of her party support her, she has a much higher approval rating than the president or congress and because you don’t like her, you call her supporters “no-nothings”. Now, that is “so sad”.

It’s not hard to understand why her dissaproval ratings are rising. “On the Sunday morning talking heads, they all say exactly what I said- watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, even Fox with Kondrake and Barnes.”

You say Fox News like it means something to us. Normally you would say Faux news, but today you say FOX NEWS, because it adds ligitimacy to your point. Well, let me tell you something, Kondrake is a liberal abd Barns is a moderate. So their opinions don’t mean squat to me.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #269202

Sorry, I thought it was so important I hit the button twice. I felt the word “arrogant” was to strong and tried to clear it out.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 3:43 PM
Comment #269204
Don’t feel bad about questioning my prediction about a landslide a few months ago, Rhinehold. It seems you were wrong about that too. Hang in there.

No, it doesn’t. I don’t know what YOUR qualification of a landslide is, but a 3 to 4 point lead is hardly a landslide. You say that Obama will get 56%, yet there is no poll that I know of giving him anywhere near that much at the time. And it is more likely that most undecideds at this point in the game are going to go with McCain IMO. If they haven’t been swung by the rhetoric by now, another couple of days isn’t going to do it.

Let’s see on Tuesday night if it is a landslide before you start claiming it to be one.

Just as you changed your mind and reversed your support for the invasion of Iraq, the course of time, events will bring you over to the liberal side eventually.

I’ve never changed my mind on the invasion, I’m not sure where you get that one at. I said we should have pulled out in 2005 and wrote that here, but that doesn’t mean I felt it was wrong to remove Saddam from power. That your side can’t realize there are two different decision points speaks volumes.

As for me being a liberal, I am, classically. I was a Democrat at one time, worked for Dukakis’ campaign. That was when I saw what the progressive movement was and what it wanted to do and there is no way I can support a mindset that does not support individual liberty. So no, I doubt that I’ll ‘joining the ranks of the oppressors’ anytime soon.

Another prediction: Obama will be a terrific president, one of the best in the history of the country.

Based on?

My prediction? 1 term president and will go down as the main reason the Democratic party imploded because his success will be tied to the congress’ success (or failures, rather). We know how pathetic this current congress is, the fact that the majority of voters still think that the congress is controlled by republicans is the only reason the dems will regain control over it. Once there is no question and we continue to lose power in the international community because of our increasing debt and devaluing dollar, how do you think that is going to help Obama?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2008 4:06 PM
Comment #269205

Oldguy,
‘Arrogant’ is an ok description. I’m feeling kind of saucy because I’m nearly finished with a very long project, and the political scene seems to be going my way.

Kondrake and Barnes are liberal and moderate? Oh my. You must see the great majority of Americans as far left, off-the-chart liberals.

Palin is receiving support from the same crowd that supports Bush. I think the ‘Know Nothing’ appelation is fair. When she strays from a script, it goes badly. For example, there was going to be an intitiative where Palin would talk up support for special needs children. That’s all well and good. But in an interview that day, she was asked how an initiative would be paid for, since McCain promoted a spending freeze. She replied it would be paid by eliminating “earmarks.” When asked which earmarks, she volunteered one example: research on fruit flies.

Research on fruit flies is genetic research which can identify sources of disabilities that result in special needs children.

It was a stunningly stupid, Know Nothing moment. It’s not the only one. It’s not just the occasional gaffe or embarrassing misstep. Obama, Biden, and McCain all make those kinds of slip ups. With Palin, it runs the gamut of topics, and occurs virtually every time she speaks without a script. She has been an appalingly bad candidate, and it’s impossible for anyone (other than low information voters)not to notice.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #269209

old guy —
please tell me what the bible says about abortion and when a life begins? is it at conception as you say or at 1 month after birth as the bible say?
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 2, 2008 4:33 PM
Comment #269215

Rhinehold,
I think Obama will be successful for several reasons:
1) Right now, the situation with the country is terrible, and it’s likely to get worse. Obama will be given the credit for improvement, although that will take more time than anyone would like.
2) Deep down, Obama gives every indication of being a confident man. “Yes we can” is more than just a slogan. It is a fundamental optimism, and it will work its way down the chain and into the national character. The same happened with Clinton, to good effect, and with Bush, with all his fear and insecurity, to bad effect.
3) He demonstrated effective leadership in behind the scene accounts of the economic credit crisis. Although he is highly intelligent, he did not feel the need to prove he was the smartest person in the room when he met with Buffet, Rudin, and other economic experts. He listened to them in that meeting, and then took charge, and asked good questions. From there, he took a cautious approach, quietly supporting the Bush administration at a difficult time, rather than demanding they follow his own prescription. Contrast this with McCain. He sat in a meeting without asking questions. The next morning, he claimed credit for passing the solution, only to have his own party vote against it in the House.
4) People who meet with Obama seem to have a very positive impression. You never hear talk of a temper or… arrogance.

The hardest part about 56% will be the independent votes. It’s hardly discussed, but some GOP voters might turn to Barr. Gallup came out with an 11% spread, but the difficulty for pollsters is knowing what turnout will be look like, especially among young voters. Early voting indicates huge turnout, and the votes favor Obama by a wide margin. So far, so good…

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #269217

Glenn Contrarian,

It is irrelevant to this discussion what party is violating the rule of law. A number of Bush’s actions are unconstitutional. Look at these arguments and you will see the seeds of why so many conservatives have been furious with the Republican Party since 2005.

In numerous issues such as illegal immigration, voter fraud, death penalty cases involving foreign nationals, and the like- where liberals are happy to style and advertize our opposition as racism or some other brutal troglodytism the root of our fury is an astonishment at this administration’s disregard for the people’s intent in demanding laws and insistence on adherance to those laws.

Republicans told conservatives they would listen to our values on such things as courts and originalism. then they forgot the promise as quickly as they could. Bush is the worst Republican leader to hold his office since Hoover. His sins are similar, in economic terms, and worse in legal terms.

His failures, though, no more reflect on the philosophy he does not care to hold than those of Pope Leo X reflect on the teachings of Jesus. Bush is a jackass in an elephant suit. That he does not reflect well on elephants is not a good argument for jackasses.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 2, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #269218

Lee, ultimately the observance of the law rests with the people individually and collectively. If their role models and leaders observe the law and reflect a reverence for the law, the people will too generally.

When the people, in sufficient number, discredit the authority of the law, anarchy played out in myriad forms of criminal activity, will result, and sow the seeds for civil conflict or revolution.

It is arguable how close America has come to fully watering and sunning those seeds, but, the seeds for civil conflict and revolution were sown with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. And they are being watered by likes of GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Rep. William Jefferson, Sen. Stevens of Alaska, and Abramoff and DeLay.

And those seeds are being sunned by laws which are unenforceable, like the drug war, that creates an entire society outside the main with its own economy and set of laws that predate civil and social law of nations, often referred to as the law of the jungle.

And those seeds are fertilized by the manure of crappy laws like voting on a work day in the middle of the week which causes enormous losses of productivity, frustration, inordinately long lines and periods of wait to exercise a duty willingly volunteered. All in the name of undermining the right to vote granted by the Constitution and its amendments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #269219

phx8,

I remember reading research papers out of a neurological journal about ten years ago and realizing that about one in three of the papers was really just junk. That third was there because someone needed to publish something or they would be in trouble.

Drosphila is one of the most commonly studied animal models simply because it is so well understood that almost anyone with experience in a biological or genetic lab can find something to say about it. That is not a reason to cease studies of genetics in fruit flies, but you would have a challenge convincing me no one does junk studies of that, or any other much-used model.

I know dozens of extremely intelligent people, well qualified to be leaders in a number of fields because they are able to utilize the expertise of others effectively, who would not have answered that question more knowledgeably off the cuff. That does not make them stupid. On the other hand I know several people who could answer a question like that one quite well who are not even qualified to run their own departments.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 2, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #269223

Lee,
The problem with Palin is not one particular gaffe. It’s the pattern. Time & again, when she goes off script, it becomes clear she does not know what she is talking about. She is not well educated, she has never done anything that shows intellectual curiosity, she has never traveled, she does not read, and she has no experience with national politics or international politics, and she has no experience with a national political campaign.

And all of it shows.

However, she believes in herself and her followers believe in her because, as far as they are concerned, belief is all that is required. It’s enough to share the values. As far as knowledge or or organizational skill or execution goes, well, someone else who is competent is supposed to take care of that.

That is Know Nothing politics, and it is a recipe for disaster.

Conservatives should know better than to put up with it.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #269228

Hope against hope that Obama and a Democratic Congress are better than Blogo and a Democratic Congress are here in Obama’s home state of Illinois. If he wishes to succeed beyond his wildest dreams … simply avoid doing anything Blogo did. Tuesday Illinois votes for an $80 million constitutional referendum. A total waste of time and money. But it is because state citizens are tired of the Dems fighting each other. Healthcare, higher taxes, income redistributiion … sound familiar? All on the the table when Blogo was elected, none of it has passed. I hope Obama reaches accross the aisle. We dont even see them reaching accross to each other here in Illinois. Pathetic.

Posted by: Honest at November 2, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #269229

phx8,

Woodrow Wilson, who was curious, was a university president, and was well read dithered and vascillated the world into a great war, whereupon he did things even this president never considered doing to the civil rights of the nation. Then(though admittedly probably for health reasons) he badly fumbled the creation of his own dream for the world. Jimmy Carter did little better, and may only have done that well for a lack of organizational skill.

Theodore Roosevelt, well read, well studied, well written, admittedly did far better. all that said, how much does the intellect of the president tell us of how well he will do in office? We just don’t know. What Palin has done in executive offices she has done well and it’s clearly not just the luck of “Being There”.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 2, 2008 7:01 PM
Comment #269233

Lee,
Wilson didn’t start WWI. The US entered towards the end, driven by the same forces which caused the war in the first place: militarism, alliances, imperialism, nationalism, and economics. I don’t think much of Wilson’s performance, but I certainly don’t think his intelligence and education was a drawback.

Carter entered the presidency at a tremendously difficult time. Despite an economy suffering from the hangover of the war in Vietnam, and a citizenry which lost faith in the integrity of the presidency due to Nixon and Ford, Carter did pretty well. He failed in his relations with a Democratic Congress, but succeeded on many other fronts, including creation of over 10 million jobs, bringing about the fall of the USSR by arming the Afghan mujahideen, and bringing about the restoration of faith in the integrity of the presidency. Again, his education and intelligence were assets. If moral certainty was something the country needed at the time, but it did not serve him well with congressional Democrats.

Palin has done well in executive offices? You mean as mayor of Wasilla, population 7,000? Come on. She served as governor for less than two years, in a state with a population of 643,000, and accomplished nothing important enough for anyone outside of Alaska to even notice.

It wasn’t a matter of ‘Being There,’ so much as it was a matter of fitting a demographic that satisfied Rush Limbaugh and McCain’s campaign manager, Schmidt. Like a rushed marriage, it was a choice made in haste, to be repented at leisure.

The prank by the radio comedians at her expense is just another example. Most people would become suspicious when the president of France starts talking to them about how hot his wife is in bed, or talking about how much fun it is to kill things. An educated person might know enough French to catch the comment about clubbing baby seals for fun. And a competent manager would not have people on her staff foolish enough to let the call through in the first place…

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #269236
Carter entered the presidency at a tremendously difficult time.

Yes and no. Most of the issues of the Nixon administration and Vietnam were a few years in the past. The economy was bad but it would get much worse under Carter for a number of reasons, most due to his, and the democrats in congress at the time, decisions.

Carter did pretty well.

Erm, not by any measure I can think of, what criteria are you measuring him against and how would Bush have done in those regards considering he had to govern much of the time in the shadow of 9/11?

but succeeded on many other fronts, including creation of over 10 million jobs

Last time I checked a president cannot create jobs, nor can they enact legislation that could be (wrongly) argued to create jobs. How exactly did he accomplish this feat?

bringing about the fall of the USSR by arming the Afghan mujahideen

An act that took nearly 10 years to succeed? I’m sorry, but while he did help in Afghanistan, his part was minor in the entirety of what led to the downfall of the USSR, which I assume you give no credit for to Reagan and Gorbachev? Interesting attempt at the rewriting of history there…

and bringing about the restoration of faith in the integrity of the presidency.

… I can only guess at this one. There has been of restoration of faith in the integrity of the president since Nixon, phx8. Or was it there shining brightly only to have it squashed by Reagan? And if he did that, why did that no play itself out in the 1980 election.

All in all, you paint a rather rosy (and entirely innacurate) picture of the Carter administration…

She served as governor for less than two years, in a state with a population of 643,000, and accomplished nothing important enough for anyone outside of Alaska to even notice.

And Obama served as senator for two years of a six year term (he promised to complete) before entering the race for president in which he has accomplished nothing important enough for anyone inside the US to notice, other than give two good speeches. That has been very little legislation that he has gotten involved with, backed out of legislation when it started to get politically hot and has lead a remarkably unremarkable political career.

Oh, he did get mentioned in a book and wrote his own book as well. Though I’m not sure how this qualifies him for anything but author… And he did some good things for his community but, again, not sure how this qualifies him to be president. In fact, nothing in his past screams out to me ‘leader’, but does tell me he works well in group settings as a participant.

I think he would have been a great senator for many years, but not sure what makes him think he can lead anything. If he had worked for the past four years on the things that he says he intends to fix when he becomes president (but won’t have much power to do) he may have been able to help avoid the situation we are in now. Buuut, that would have not helped him become president this year I guess. Priorities.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2008 7:56 PM
Comment #269238
There has been of no restoration of faith in the integrity of the president since Nixon
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #269242

Rhinehold,
Well, the cynic in me agrees, for a lot of very good reasons, but a lot of people were willing to give it another go with Carter and Reagan…

Lee,
Saigon fell in 1975. Carter was elected in 1976. Carter initiated the policy in Afghanistan. Reagan finished the job there.

Obama was not my first or even second choice as a presidential candidate. His experience was a question mark. I think that’s a valid concern. He had to make his case with me. Obviously he succeeded. He put together a superior political organization, and ran a classy campaign. He demonstrated an ability to recognize and take advantage of a new method of creating support, in both the registering new voters and fundraising. He combined grass roots efforts with the internet to create a political juggernaut. He defeated a very tough opponent, Hillary Clinton, and he did it with style, and in such a way as to still unite the Democratic party. He is a superior orator, and he has consistently shown grace under pressure. By most accounts, he won three debates, and made a VP selection which most people consider a safe and rather cautious choice…

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2008 8:21 PM
Comment #269246

Rhinehold:

Who do you consider to be an ‘objective’ observer? She is pulling in larger crowd than McCain or Biden and her approval numbers are still higher, and over 50%. Are you suggesting there are over 50% biased republicans in the US?

Many people pull in larger crowds than Palin, are they more qualified in the minds of America? Bruce Springsteen comes to mind…..


As to Republicans being biased… are you kidding me? If I self identify myself as a Republican, do you think I might have a political bias? If there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and they overwhelmingly think she is an idiot, is that a more true statement because their number is larger?

Sorry, logic seems to have flown out the window on this one.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #269248

googlumpugus,

I don’t think people are going to see Bruce while he is running for office. And you completely ignore the rest of the statement, conveniently for you.

As for logic, yes it has because I can’t follow your last statement at all…

Could you explain what you are talking about?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #269255

Rhineold:

I’m glad you think no one would see Bruce run for office….that’s proof positive.

Are you really saying Palin is out drawing Obama? Based on what? One appearance? TV ratings? Money? Perhaps you’ll decide that the election was rigged and she really drew more votes.

I could possibly explain what I’m talking about if you can explain why you think Republicans represent unbiased judgement. It made zero sense to me, too.

If you continue to argue she’s a smart, well-rounded statesman, I’m going to have to re-evaluate your posts. Something doesn’t add up here.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 11:55 PM
Comment #269256

BTW, sorry for the misspelled name, I’ve got a sticky H key: apologies for the typo.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 11:58 PM
Comment #269258
Are you really saying Palin is out drawing Obama?

I never said that…

I could possibly explain what I’m talking about if you can explain why you think Republicans represent unbiased judgement.

I never said that either.

If you continue to argue she’s a smart, well-rounded statesman.

And I never said that…

Are you having a conversation with someone else and attributing it to me by chance?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2008 12:20 AM
Comment #269260

Lee Jamison-

If the law is supposed to be the same for everybody and not “some person’s opinions or whims…” why should the opinion or whim of one person who happens to be the swing vote in a Supreme Court have any more sway than the opinion or whim I may have myself?

Because that’s the law? It’s right there in the constitution. For a strict constructionist, you conveniently forget crucial portions of it.

The rule of law binds citizens and governing officials alike. Neither of us can decide what is law for ourselves. We empower others to write it, others to carry it out, others still to interpret it. Deny the legitimacy of that constitutional empowerment to interpret the law, which as far as I can see in the constitution isn’t limited to intepreting it your way, and you deny a fundamental part of our rule of law: our common interpretation of it. Like it or not, the Supreme court is the final authority on which of all the decisions made by lower courts are right or wrong. Their authority in turn is bound by the constitution, the appointment of judges by the President, and their confirmation by the legislature.

Nobody binds anything by what’s in the Declaration of Independence. The most legally significant portion of that text, the final part would have been perfectly compatible with the States becoming little dictatorships or kingdoms.

The Declaration was a message to the King saying “Hey, we’re officially in rebellion here.” It was never meant to be the blueprint of our government, just an explanation of our motives, and a statement that we were all independent nations now.

We kind of changed our mind a little bit, between 1776 and 1791. We scrapped an entire system of government, and started up from scratch.

Nobody treats the Declaration as anything more than a statement of principles and sentiments. If it was legally binding, why did African Americans spend another 75 years in bondage? Surely the sentiments that all men were created equal operated.

But it did not.

Humbly assert any broad pronouncements about the quality of decisions that you want, but you can’t build a case on a stern letter to the King of England.

Fun fact while I’m at it: of the nine justices who decided Kelow, seven were appointed by Republican Presidents.

And all nine are empowered by the constitution to interpret the law, even if they are liberals, and therefore not to your personal liking.

Your party seems to reach for raw power whereever it can on grounds such as these, reaching beyond the law to supposedly overriding concerns, citing such passions and such sentiments as justifications.

Fortunately, our system was not set up with that in mind, because not only can people be wrong, but they can be right and bastards about it. Our system forces moderation on people.

What you seem unable to digest is that it even moderates us when its not fair, not just. Somebody was trying to claim that because these localities were just handing off the land to private developers, it was unconstitutional. What in the law (not your feelings) would justify saying that government could not take a person’s land with due compensation?

That’s the issue, not how mean or bad it was. Other states and municipalities were quick to write up laws restricting such practices. Can’t say I’m sad. But what you have to consider is the potential negative effect of compromising eminent domain.

Oldguy-
He was making a point about personhood, about extending it to before birth. I was making the point that by ancient standards, birth was the common standard of when a person was a person. Birthdays are celebrated for a reason. Few people celebrate the day of their conception.

Birth is the first naturally visible evidence of a person’s existence.

Rhinehold-
If making predictions on elections is premature, what does that make predictions about the performance of the future President, much less his party?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 12:33 AM
Comment #269261

Stephen,

I never said that making predictions on elections were premature. In fact, it would be silly to predict an election after it already happened, wouldn’t it?

My question was why did someone think it would be a landslide when we have no indication of anything that it is going to be one, yet they asserted it as if it were already true.

I’m beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading what it being written tonight…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #269262

The Oldguy will be out of touch for a couple of days. The next time I respond, I will either be in mourning or laughing. I feel as if I did my part today. I teach an adult SS class of about 100 people and I discussed the differences between BHO and McCain from a prophetical point of view. You may not believe this, but I had a 100% agreement with my views. I encouraged them to vote their Christian beliefs. That morality was better than monetary gain, and that pleasing God was better than pleasing man. I will be spending the next two days in prayer.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 3, 2008 12:44 AM
Comment #269263

“old guy —
please tell me what the bible says about abortion and when a life begins? is it at conception as you say or at 1 month after birth as the bible say?
— Savage”

“Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” Jeremiah 1:4-5

“And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary , the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.” Luke 1:39-42

Posted by: Oldguy at November 3, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #269264

Oldguy -

You’re kidding me. You’re actually questioning whether ignoring a Congressional subpoena is against the law?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 3, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #269265

Rhinehold,
I have to admit I’m a little confused too…

Anyway, the last Gallup poll shows Obama with an 11% lead, and the latest CBS poll even larger than that. Voter turnout is being projected at 64%, which is huge. That blows polling models out of the water, since most rely upon a group of “likely” voters which downplays participation by the young, minorities, and occasional voters. I’ve mentioned this several times in the past few months- the real power and organizational strength of Obama’s campaign is only now being revealed, and it is awesome.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #269270

old guy — what about these verses?

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. — Exodus 21:22-23

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. …
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Funny how those always get ignored by those that say life begins at conception
those verses tell me that life begins at 1 month after birth and god is fine with abortion if its a cheating woman.
So far as your ss class — either they are sheep that are in lock step —our they are telling you what you want to hear.
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 3, 2008 5:53 AM
Comment #269271

Rhinehold-
Why do people think it might be a blowout? The polls, really. Obama essentially is ahead in every Kerry State, plus a number of big Red States. It’s how much all these potential victories add up to.

Oh, and we read it. We just didn’t agree with it.

Oldguy-
Don’t pray for McCain. Pray for the best to happen. God’s will, not ours.

Birth is the traditional beginning of life as a person. We’ve only had to really reconsider this in the light of new medical technology. In earlier times, things were far more dependent on exterior signs. Personally, I’m against abortion. But I have to recognize that this is a belief based on a faith that not everybody shares. This a Democracy, and though I tell people I’d just as soon eliminate abortion except for the three exceptions (life of mother, rape, incest), I can’t cut out those who don’t believe in that way. And to those who say that this means I have to stick with conservative politics because of this, they should consider that abortion is not the only decision of a life and death nature that we face with politics. Additionally, I believe that many of the basic virtues of Christianity have not been practiced by our leaders in their policies, that political christianity has so neglected mercy, charity, and other virtues, that it both falls short on an active moral basis, but also in the example it sets. If selfish money-grubbing and self-righteous but unscrupulous political practices are what Christians see other Christians doing in Washington, it will become a stumbling block for those who are trying to judge how to properly express their politics in Washington.

What happen to peacemaking? What happened to being forgiving? What happened to not getting swelled head about your own righteousness, though you’re a sinner yourself?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 8:25 AM
Comment #269273

Rhinehold,

I must be having a conversation with your alter ego. If that isn’t an accurate reflection of your post, please clarify. It’s the reason I questioned it. I read it, but apparently don’t understand what you were saying.

As to your continued defense of Palin in this thread and others, if you aren’t defending her, then what are you doing?

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 3, 2008 9:20 AM
Comment #269278

phx8,
I can’t think of a more telling statement than this in your defense of Jimmy Carter-

If moral certainty was something the country needed at the time, but it did not serve him well with congressional Democrats.
This time, then, we should really have the right man- a morally ambiguous man for a morally ambiguous Congress. Obama is rock-solid, calm as death, and so vague his followers inevitably see themselves in his image.

If he wins solid majorities in both houses to go with his leadership, thus getting to fully engage the liberal agenda, it will be interesting to see what happens when the people stop seeing themselves in his reflection.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Comment #269279

Stephen,

Lee Jamison-


If the law is supposed to be the same for everybody and not “some person’s opinions or whims…” why should the opinion or whim of one person who happens to be the swing vote in a Supreme Court have any more sway than the opinion or whim I may have myself?

Because that’s the law? It’s right there in the constitution. For a strict constructionist, you conveniently forget crucial portions of it.

The discussions of the powers of the court in the Federalist Papers indicate the assurance that, though the courts were expected to be able to invalidate laws “repugnant to the Constitution”, they were also supposed to be easily the weakest of the three branches of the government. Follow, however, the institutional bracket creep of reasoning in the Kelo decision, where a court here expands the meaning of “public use”, and there expounds upon “public purpose” and one can see a sort of mechanism the founders not only would never have imagined, but would likely have found treasonous.

When we see such creeping insurrection by the government nosing in on the common people who are the owners of society we should feel free to express what it is in plain words. It is a coupe d’ etat.

Stephen, your reasoning leaves no means for constraining the Court. You simply accept their authority under the Constitution as carte blanche, somehow trusting that they will act wisely and respect both the people and the law they are sworn to uphold. Only an imminently foolish people would grant human beings such latitude.

Handing an individual’s personal property to a wealthy individual or corporation may indeed have a public purpose, and may indeed produce many jobs, but it violates simple common sense to call it a “public use”. We the People blur the line between our government and that of the Nazis to accept the court’s reasoning.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 3, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #269282

>If 50% of her party support her, she has a much higher approval rating than the president or congress and because you don’t like her, you call her supporters “no-nothings”. Now, that is “so sad”.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 03:37 PM

Old,

Palin’s popularity among 50% of one political party is probably her problem…why only 50% of her own party?..which 50% are you talking about?..if it is the 50% that contains the ‘skinhead’ crowd, why would that be a boast…

All,

The President holds the ‘bully pulpit’, meaning the country goes in directions he leads…since the President thought lying us into a war, playing politics with a natural disaster, being dishonest about torture, suspending habeas corpus, spying on American citizens, etc., do you suppose that lack of moral compass was the reasons for financiers to believe they could make their own rules about un-backed insurance and un-valued bundling, and get away with it?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #269283

Lee Jamison-
Are you trying to invalidate Marbury v. Madison now? That’s been decided law for over two hundred years now. As for Kelo, though, what can you offer to prove that Kelo represents a significant break from previous decisions? As for the argument that this is all the fault of the liberal judges, seven out of these nine justices were appointed by Republicans.

Stephen, your reasoning leaves no means for constraining the Court. You simply accept their authority under the Constitution as carte blanche, somehow trusting that they will act wisely and respect both the people and the law they are sworn to uphold. Only an imminently foolish people would grant human beings such latitude.

There are plenty of means for constraining the effects of a court decision. Lackluster enforcement of a decision, legislation that challenges the court decision, or impales it at some weak spot. People responded to Kelo by regulating the use of eminent domain at the state and local level.

I think Kelo basically rests on the fact that once compensation has been given, the constitution is silent on what the government can do with that land. I believe that George Bush himself made his personal fortune, before becoming governor, through a similar abuse of eminent domain powers, having those who wouldn’t accept a low bid for their property kicked off for a cheap price. If your attitude is that using government to help business is an acceptable way of stimulating the economy, then what’s the problem with what they were doing?

The truth of the matter is, I did think the situation in Kelo was monstrous, and wished they had provided some rationale for slamming what was being done. However, the rule of law demands that we sometimes swallow bitter pills like these. I don’t trust the Justices to be always right, but nor would I say there are no constraints on their behavior. After all, there’s a reason why judges are one of the big reasons why folks vote for certain Presidents rather than others.

The real trouble here is that you’re unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of duly elected and appointed officials who happen to disagree with your political point of view. Well, them are the breaks in a Democracy. Sometimes you’re the one who eats, sometimes you’re the one et. It’s arrogant to assume that everything must go your way or lack legitimacy; who died and made you arbiter of that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #269288

Stephen -

That’s something that you and I (and very few evangelicals, it seems) would agree on - that we should NOT pray that this or that candidate should win, but that we should pray that His Will be done.

Lincoln once rebuked a man who was claiming that God was on the Union’s side by saying, “I’m not concerned about God being on my side. My concern is being on God’s side.” (or words to that effect)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 3, 2008 12:22 PM
Comment #269291

If there is a God…and that God would take sides in a war…in a ballgame…in a natural disaster…why in the world would anyone who is sane want anything to do with Him/Her?

How does He/She decide which side to be on?..eeny meeny miny mo…I’ll give the Falcons an extra touchdown this time?..Hannibal has a nice bunch of elephants, I’ll lend him a hand…there are two families being burned to death in that forest fire, but I think I’ll only save one family and let the other one parish…what a bunch of garbage.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 3, 2008 12:45 PM
Comment #269296

Personally, I think God is the ultimate free agent, and not bound to any one human agenda or another.

As far as deaths go, the notion of resurrection sort of balances that out. Everybody dies at some point. If you awaken on Judgment Day, though, what’s the problem, then? I don’t think anybody who’s been a good person and tried to live by His principles will be turned away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #269297

However your argument against for example the Kelo judgment is superficial at best. Did you read the precedence presented during this trial. The Supreme Court was not just presented with the facts of the case and made a ruling; they were presented precedence from even beyond the existence of the U.S. before making a ruling. And what do you determine is for “public use”?

While you are superficially looking at the land that was condemned, how about the services the City could no longer afford present to the citizens of New London because their tax base was too small. Was bankruptcy and lack of basic services such as police and fire for the residents of New London preferable? Was this an expansion of the interpretation of “public use”? The true answer to that question is no. The interpretation of “public use” as you define it, historically is not true. It is a wives tale propagated until we all believed it to be true. The precedence cited during this case indicates that this wives tale is false, so why cling to it.

The City of New London did not violate the State laws and procedures that controls redevelopment. For New London as most cities, planning for redevelopment is a drawn out process, which would have given those most adversely affected ample time to get involved. That those who fought New London, did so long after the redevelopment plan was put in place is unfortunate, and a result of them not being involved or aware of what is going on in their own city.

Finally the Supreme Court to their credit made a recommendation to us the public. This more than anything made this ruling palatable to myself. If you do not like this ruling, change the laws in your state that controls redevelopment!

Posted by: Cube at November 3, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #269309

Sorry, should have done a better job of cutting and pasting in my previous post. My posting should have read as follows:


The Court, by an elitist, unaccountable ruling of a tiny group of people seized from the public the right to make the most crucial choice any human being can participate in- when we become people in the eyes of the law. If their choice had been unanimous, and it was not, it would (still) have been the most arrogant judgement in American Judicial history.

Elitist? Why because you disagree with their judgement? I am concerned with the right wing leanings of the Supreme Court. I find it humorous that a Republican would disagree with a Court predominantly nominated to their position by Republicans/Conservatives.

However your argument against for example the Kelo judgment is superficial at best. Did you read the precedence presented during this trial. The Supreme Court was not just presented with the facts of the case and made a ruling; they were presented precedence from even beyond the existence of the U.S. before making a ruling. And what do you determine is for “public use”? While you are superficially looking at the land that was condemned, how about the services the City could no longer afford present to the citizens of New London because their tax base was too small. Was bankruptcy and lack of basic services such as police and fire for the residents of New London preferable? Was this an expansion of the interpretation of “public use”?

The true answer to that question is no. The interpretation of “public use” as you define it, historically is not true. It is a wives tale propagated until we all believed it to be true. The precedence cited during this case indicates that this wives tale is false, so why cling to it.

The City of New London did not violate the State laws and procedures that controls redevelopment. For New London as most cities, planning for redevelopment is a drawn out process, which would have given those most adversely affected ample time to get involved. That those who fought New London, did so long after the redevelopment plan was put in place is unfortunate, and a result of them not being involved or aware of what is going on in their own city.

Finally the Supreme Court to their credit made a recommendation to us the public. This more than anything made this ruling palatable to myself. If you do not like this ruling, change the laws in your state that controls redevelopment!

Posted by: Cube at November 3, 2008 4:27 PM
Post a comment