A Party Bought And Paid For
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/21/2007

Election 2008: MoveOn.org once crowed that it had bought and owned the Democratic Party. With the Senate now blasting its tactics, that's an open question. But not, apparently, for Democrats running for president.

Quote :

"The Senate voted 72-25 on Wednesday to stand up for the integrity of America's leading military field commander, Gen. David Petraeus. Everyone knew what it was really about: MoveOn's big-bucks ad in the New York Times that outrageously attacked Petraeus even before he gave his report to Congress on the Iraq War's progress. MoveOn.org's Sept. 10 full-page ad childishly played on the field commander's name as 'General Betray Us,' in a pre-emptive bid to obscure any potentially positive news about the war getting out. The Senate's nonbinding resolution was simple enough: It expressed 'full support' for the general returning from the field of battle and 'strongly' condemned 'personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.' Given that they voted 81-0 to confirm him less than a year earlier, it was a reasonable gesture. MoveOn's ad disgusted average Americans across the country. Even the Democrat-dominated Senate couldn't halt a vote to condemn it. A quarter of the Senate, however, did refuse to condemn the attacks, and curiously, that included all Senate Democrats who seek to become the military's next commander in chief. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd voted against the symbolic measure. Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama had other things to do that day and abstained from voting. That's peculiar. Democrats like Clinton are perfectly capable of voting against radical leftists when their stunts step over the line. Last summer, for example, Dodd sponsored a bill condemning Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, for his shutdown of TV station RCTV as millions of angry Venezuelans protested in Caracas. Clinton, Obama and Biden signed on as co-sponsors. If they hadn't, they might have looked as though they were in the dictator's pocket. That's why these same Democrats' failure to condemn cheap-shot ads against Petraeus is worth a closer look. MoveOn.org is the sort of radical group that ought to be on a park soapbox instead of driving the U.S. presidential debate. But two things change that equation: One is that MoveOn.org claims to have 3.2 million members. These leftists represent a committed segment of the Democratic voter base, whose support is important to winning the Democratic nomination next year. MoveOn.org claims that its average member contribution is $40. For a Democratic candidate to dare sanction the group, no matter how boorish its actions, there are consequences. Result: MoveOn.org can act out as wildly as it likes, driving the party left — and it will. Second, MoveOn.org has gotten financing from the deep pockets of billionaires such as George Soros, who pledged it $5 million in the past and implied he would give more if that's what it took to win elections. That's not his only cause. He funds a network of organizations that have critical uses to the Democrats, such as a think tank closely associated with Hillary Clinton's supporters and ex-aides called the Center for American Progress, and plenty of others. Small wonder that the MoveOn.org organizers feel confident to carry on. The group's organizers claim to confer with Democratic representatives or their aides in Congress every morning. MoveOn's leaders declared in a 2004 e-mail that its cash contributions ensure its control of the Democrats: 'Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.' With a slew of senators who won't even condemn their worst excesses in a mere symbolic vote, it's hard to dispute that statement."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267411712756

The shameful "General Betray Us" ad has backfired big time now--and it has emphasized that the far-left loons are driving this election cycle. Do some of you really want the likes of MoveOn running the show?

And in related news, the Democrats delayed the debate about the General Petraeus ad for a week. In addition, there is this:

Democrats fail to pass anti-war bill

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Iraq.html

The Democrats can't hit there asses with both hands. LOL!

9/22/2007 4:39:29 AM

yeah, MoveOn really shot themselves in the foot on that one. whichever douchebags created that ad, and especially the ones that approved its release, should be bitchslapped.

and I agree with you about the congressional democrats. they basically blow a dead goat. im totally disgusted with their moral ambiguity and ethical hypocrisy.

probably at least as much as i am disgusted with the GOP's constant money-grubbing, fraudulent-scheming, childporn-watching, airport bathroom-masturbating, hooker check-canceling, rest area-pimping, cross-dressing meth-snorting gigolo-loving, morality-legislating, christian platitude-sermonizing holier-than-thou sanctimonious bullshit-peddling antics.

9/22/2007 4:55:49 AM

lol @ anyone who thought(or still thinks) voting for democrats was voting for change

9/22/2007 9:47:51 AM

Quote :

"Democrats fail to pass anti-war bill http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Iraq.html The Democrats can't hit there asses with both hands. LOL!"

You idiot, Republicans are over-represented in the Senate and are killing these bills. If we had a system of government purely based on proportional representation (like the house), this war would be over by now. How could you possibly blame Democrats for that?

[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2007 11:26:20 AM

Ron Paul 2008.

9/22/2007 12:11:38 PM

Quote :

"yeah, MoveOn really shot themselves in the foot on that one. whichever douchebags created that ad, and especially the ones that approved its release, should be bitchslapped."

so..... moveon puts an ad in the paper, gets international press, the f'ing senate passes a bill about it, and this is bad for them, how?
This incident has probably increased their exposure and name recognition ten fold. Sure, prominent democrats are talking about how irresponsible they are, blah blah blah. But I guarantee you the amount of money flowing to them from smaller democrats or anonymous donors or whatever is going to explode

9/22/2007 12:20:23 PM

Quote :

"Democrats fail to pass anti-war bil"

yeah, it's great that they now have to get 60 votes to pass nearly anything. On the news they've been saying stuff like "the democrats failed to pass ___ bill". uhh, no, they didn't. They've been passing bills with 52, 54, 56 votes. Last time I checked, the Senate needs a simple majority.
but no, all anyone has to do is say the word filibuster, and all of a sudden anything less than 60 votes is a failure.

9/22/2007 12:30:16 PM

Quote :

"there asses"

9/22/2007 1:30:32 PM

Quote :

" there asses"

9/22/2007 1:35:44 PM

Quote :

"there asses"

9/22/2007 4:30:16 PM

Quote :

"there asses"

9/22/2007 7:03:29 PM

^^^, ^^, and ^ Okay, I screwed up with that one.

9/22/2007 7:03:34 PM

i figured most democrats and republicans were paid for

9/22/2007 7:24:36 PM

Me too, I mean, in the movie "Shooter", there was a corrupt politician. And I can name a few others that have corrupt politicians.

Eventually, they will probably all be assasinated by Mark Wahlberg.

9/22/2007 10:36:25 PM

^ I just watched that this weekend--it was pretty good. But they did take plenty of cheap shots at Bush and conservatives.

And concerning the topic, the piece focuses specifically on the following claim by MoveOn itself:

Quote :

"MoveOn's leaders declared in a 2004 e-mail that its cash contributions ensure its control of the Democrats: 'Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.'"

The problems for the Democrats are: (1) MoveOn is putting this out in public, (2) MoveOn is putting this out in public, and (3) MoveOn is putting this out in public. Oh, and (4) the Democrats running for president--if they want to win--can't ideologically go where MoveOn is because that's not where most of America is.

9/23/2007 4:22:58 AM

MoveOn's ad, from what i understand (i never saw it) is despicable.

but the Op-Ed piece by the decidedly conservative Investor's Business Daily editorial staff is not surprising.

they want to drum up fear thatf some left-wing fringe element who runs a few spurious advertising campaigns critical of the war as having "bought and sold" the Democratic party.

that's so pathetic it would be laughable, if it weren't for the fact that red state rabble like yourself so eagerly lap it up like it was Gospel.

sorry, but MoveOn is not a legitimate political force.

9/23/2007 5:43:28 PM

Quote :

"The Republicans and Democrats are "bought and paid for" "

Fixed your thread title.

9/23/2007 5:55:13 PM

^^ You're fooling yourself.

1. MoveOn itself is the organization that claimed it had bought the Democrat Party--the "vast right-wing conspiracy" didn't gin this up.

Quote :

"MoveOn's leaders declared in a 2004 e-mail that its cash contributions ensure its control of the Democrats: 'Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.'"

Do you dispute that MoveOn put this out?

2. MoveOn is in fact quite important in today's left-wing politics. Rolling Stone and others recognized this even back in 2005:

The Online Insurgency
MoveOn has become a force to be reckoned with
TIM DICKINSON

Quote :

"Now that Howard Dean has been named chair of the Democratic National Committee -- an ascension that MoveOn helped to engineer -- the Internet activist group is placing another high-stakes wager. It's betting that its 3 million grass-roots revolutionaries can seize the reins of the party and establish the group as a lasting political force. 'It's our Party,' MoveOn's twenty-four-year-old executive director, Eli Pariser, declared in an e-mail. 'We bought it, we own it and we're going to take it back.' The group's new goal is sweeping in its ambition: To make 2006 a watershed year for liberal Democrats in Congress, in the same way that Newt Gingrich led a Republican revolution in 1994. MoveOn has already revolutionized Democratic politics, energizing the party faithful in ways Karl Rove would envy. It laid the groundwork for Dean's online insurgency in the primaries, taught Kerry to use the Internet as a campaign ATM that spews out millions in small contributions and transformed 70,000 online members into get-out-the-vote volunteers. MoveOn 'is culturally important for the party because they're teaching us how to innovate,' says Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network. 'Politics is a risk-averse business -- and they're not risk averse.'"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7048293/the_online_insurgency/

9/23/2007 11:47:49 PM

Quote :

"Do you dispute that MoveOn put this out?"

not at all. but remember: "The people who say, don't know. The people who know, don't say."

sorry if im not impressed by their self-congratulatory boasting. yeah, they had an effect on public opinion with some well-produced and timely advertising spots, prior to the 2004 elections. but their zenith has passed and have since been in declension.

now they've just underscored their increasing irrelevance, and a Rolling Stone article from 2-1/2 years ago does nothing to convince me otherwise.




[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 12:36 AM. Reason : ]

9/24/2007 12:29:16 AM

Quote :

"You idiot, Republicans are over-represented in the Senate and are killing these bills. If we had a system of government purely based on proportional representation (like the house), this war would be over by now."

On a procedural note:
The Senate was designed to be the more deliberative and slow moving of the two houses. It prevents the whims of popular opinion from jerking the legal process around. Personally, I think it is a good thing.
On a practical note:
Anyone who thinks that the war would be over if the Democrats had more control in the Senate is fooling themselves. Perhaps the war could have been prevented if they controled both houses back in 02-03, but right now they have a political interest in perpetuating the war at least until the end of the Geo. Bush administration.

9/24/2007 10:02:09 AM

Quote :

"but right now they have a political interest in perpetuating the war at least until the end of the Geo. Bush administration."

not really. there just isn't much they can do about it.

9/24/2007 10:14:25 AM

^ Actually they do. It's their big issue. They're banking on the Bush admin to keep screwing this up til November 08

9/24/2007 10:29:02 AM

^^ I disagree. If the Democrats (hypothetically) cut off funding and Iraq descends into chaos (as it likely will) the responsibility will be laid at their door, especially with the percieved turn around in Iraq. If they allow the war to fester, it becomes their primary issue until the end of the 2008 campaign. They've got no political stake in actually ending the war, and they already proved too chicken to stand up for what they think is right in 2003.

^ and she would know.

[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2007 10:29:54 AM

A very humorous (and true) piece from TIME:

Quote :

"How Dare You Wednesday, Sep. 19, 2007 By MICHAEL KINSLEY Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times. It's that ad from MoveOn.org — the one that calls General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, general betray us. All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful. It's just beyond the pale ... It's ... oh, my heavens ... say, is it a bit stuffy in here? ... I think I'm going to ... Could I have a glass of ... oh, dear[thud]. Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document. The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical. It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence — or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography. The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They're turning politics into a game of "Mother, May I?" Did you say "Here is my plan for health-care reform"? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say "I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform." All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette. The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus. It just isn't done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war. (Although, when else?) The Republican front runner, Rudy Giuliani, is another tough guy who has seized the opportunity to reveal his easily bruised soft side. He is running TV commercials saying Hillary Clinton "stood by silently" while MoveOn.org ran its despicable ad. Another way of saying this would be that she had nothing to do with the ad. But Rudy accuses her of "joining with" MoveOn.org and "attacking" General Petraeus, although the only evidence he can muster for this accusation is a clip from Clinton telling the general at a hearing that his reports of progress in the war "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." For this, Giuliani demands an "apology," not just to the general but to all American troops in Iraq. He accuses her of "turning her back" on America's brave soldiers "just when our troops need all our support to finish the job." When we try to untangle this web of accusation and innuendo, Giuliani appears to be suggesting that it is unacceptable for a Senator to express skepticism about anything said by a general in uniform. If he believes that, he does not understand democracy. I am shocked by this. In fact, if Giuliani doesn't apologize, and if the other Republican candidates don't condemn this commercial, I think I'm going to faint. "

9/24/2007 11:19:21 AM

Quote :

"^^ I disagree. If the Democrats (hypothetically) cut off funding and Iraq descends into chaos (as it likely will) the responsibility will be laid at their door, especially with the percieved turn around in Iraq. If they allow the war to fester, it becomes their primary issue until the end of the 2008 campaign. They've got no political stake in actually ending the war, and they already proved too chicken to stand up for what they think is right in 2003."

This is correct.

9/24/2007 5:06:09 PM

Jefferson Accused of Two More Schemes

Quote :

"Federal prosecutors on Friday accused Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) of soliciting bribes in two alleged schemes that had not been previously disclosed. The allegations, detailed in a seven-page document filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, will not result in new charges, prosecutors said, but they plan to present them during Jefferson's federal bribery trial as evidence of a pattern of intentional wrongdoing. In 2002, the government alleges, Jefferson asked a lobbyist of a U.S. oil service company for $10,000 a month for a family member in exchange for Jefferson's assisting the company in promoting business in Africa. The lobbyist turned down Jefferson's request, the document said. Three years later, according to the filing, Jefferson allegedly agreed to urge NASA in a letter to consider doing business with a U.S. rocket technology and rocket launch services company. In exchange, the company allegedly agreed to pay Jefferson's family business and a relative. In June, a federal grand jury indicted Jefferson, 60, on charges that he used his official position to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes for himself and his family, falsely reported trips to Africa as official business and sought to bribe the former Nigerian vice president. He has denied wrongdoing. A spokesman for Jefferson declined to comment Friday night."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701287.html?hpid=topnews



My other Jefferson thread was too old. And Duke didn't even bother responding to my last request for a thread bump, so I put it here.

Link to the old thread:

/message_topic.aspx?topic=480544

12/2/2007 3:12:24 AM

Politicians unscrupulous? STOP THE PRESSES!!!

12/2/2007 11:32:47 PM

i guess Dems finally joined in what the Repub's have become masters at

12/3/2007 12:28:03 AM

^

Quote :

"finally"

WTF?!

12/3/2007 1:07:28 AM

I think he meant "finally" in an "it was bound to happen eventually" sense.

12/3/2007 1:15:26 AM

^ Yes, thus the "WTF?! ." Does he actually think the most recent charges against Jefferson mark the beginning of Democrat corruption?

12/3/2007 1:30:03 AM

So are you denying that Republicans are the overwhelming majority in accepting bribes over the past 10 years?

12/3/2007 2:51:50 AM

^ Do you have any evidence of that? If not, STFU. I posted a link--you should try it.

12/3/2007 2:53:34 AM

we all hate you

12/3/2007 2:56:22 AM

^ If so, it's a fucking badge of honor.

12/3/2007 3:00:50 AM

^I mean, not really

12/3/2007 3:46:24 AM

I didn't think the minorities voting to try to get that welfare check could afford to buy democratic politicians.

12/3/2007 10:05:06 AM

^ WTF?!

12/3/2007 11:05:06 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: ^ I just watched that this weekend--it was pretty good. But they did take plenty of cheap shots at Bush and conservatives."

Shooter was an excellent made-for-TV action movie. The kind of thing I'd like to watch in bed on Saturday afternoon while I'm recovering from a hangover. With plenty of commercials for vinyl siding.

Anyway, you must have a really, really bad view of "Bush and conservatives" if you think that movie was taking cheap shots at them.

Okay, yeah...I was trying to make some sort of point that wasn't there.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM. Reason : sss]

12/3/2007 1:59:14 PM

^ Um. . .I'm hardly the only one who thinks that. Quick search:

Quote :

"Fuqua has turned Hunter's thoughtful book into a nutcake leftist fantasy where the baddies are all greedy, piglike Republicans. It could still have been otherwise entertaining, but the result is neither terribly thrilling nor intelligent; unlike the book, the action doesn't showcase Swagger's smarts, and his sidekick dons a Che T-shirt - perhaps to honor the gay-killing murderer? Fans of Hunter's books (and Fuqua's previous movies) will be repulsed by this rabid drivel."

Quote :

"The reason it is getting good reviews--other than it is an adequate action movie--is because of the leftist message adored by the media. It's an action movie for whacky libs, conspiracists and Bush-haters. I'm sure others will see this move. I'll be surprised if they don't report that it is more like 'Michael Moore does Point of Impact with a yuppie hero (A George Soros Production)' than the book and character we all admire."

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000Q6GUTI?filterBy=addOneStar

Quote :

"Well, there's a dig at Donald Rumsfeld and in one scene Wahlberg mutters about government lies while the report of the 9/11 Commission lies prominently on the desk in front of him but mercifully the filmmakers leave it at that and spare us their theories on the World Trade Centre attacks. Like other recent films that have tapped into the Michael Moore phenomenon and the anti-corporate / anti-Bush movement, Shooter forgets that Hollywood has been using sinister corporations and government agencies as handy bad guys for decades and it's now a hackneyed cliché. If action movies can be used as vehicles for political messages, they'll need to be re-invented first."

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=64630

12/3/2007 2:11:10 PM

N.C. Rep. Wright Indicted

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. - A Wake County grand jury has indicted state Rep. Thomas Wright (D-Hanover County) on five counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby says Wright is expected to make an initial court appearance in the next few days. Willoughby says he does not expect to charge anyone else in the case. Investigators have been trying to determine if Wright tried to purchase property backed by an apparently false guarantee of state funds. The fraud counts were formally known as obtaining property by false pretense. In September, the State Board of Elections staff suspended Wright's campaign after it failed to file a finance report for the first half of the year. Wright is in his eighth legislative term. A warrant filed in Wake County shows that an investigator looking into an allegation of loan fraud against a state representative searched a Durham nonprofit's financial records. State Bureau of Investigation Agent Rufus Williams searched the North Carolina Minority Support Center. He searched for financial records and other documents under Wright's control and a foundation he helped create. In an affidavit, the agent said he asked for the search after officials with the Durham agency said Wright obtained a loan for the foundation from a subsidiary credit union. Williams says the loan wasn't deposited in the foundation's account. Wright is already facing an investigation over his campaign finances and his attempt to purchase property with an apparently false guarantee of state funds."

http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2007-12-10-0024.html

12/10/2007 5:06:51 PM

what is the point of this thread. Candidates on both sides of the isle have been found guilty of corruption and various scandals.

12/10/2007 5:18:34 PM

I would love for MoveOn to claim they own the North Carolina Democratic Party. That would make as much sense as BlueNC claiming they own the North Carolina Democratic Party.

I can easily make the same claim that the John Birch Society and the Council of Conservative Citizens, but that would accomplish absolutely nothing.

12/10/2007 5:31:19 PM

Two things:

^^

Quote :

"isle"

Is Gilligan there, too?

My latest posts are a bit off the original intent of the thread--I had a thread specifically designated for corrupt NC Democrats. The reason I'm putting these here?

Quote :

"And Duke didn't even bother responding to my last request for a thread bump, so I put it here."

Other mods will bump threads with a simple PM.

12/11/2007 12:21:43 AM

Well, this is as good of a thread as any to post this one in:

Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-earmarks10dec10,1,6720618.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

12/11/2007 2:14:46 PM

hooksaw, why dont you ever post all the crap the GOP pulls? I mean, its little over board with you.

12/11/2007 3:22:24 PM

In fairness he did put it in quotes... as it was a direct quote from the article's title.

12/11/2007 3:23:50 PM

^^ C'mon, gunzz--the Republicans get plenty of fair and unfair bashing in TSB. The left-wing moonbats see to that--and even some conservatives:

Quote :

"There are a number of issues that I have disagreed with President Bush about: spending, border enforcement, stem cell research, and so on."

Quote :

"And it may surprise some of you to hear me indicate that I do think Bush has been arrogant. Obviously, he is also inarticulate and probably intellectually lazy, but I do not think that he is unintelligent. Eventually, I believe it will be confirmed that Bush is simply dyslexic, which would account for the overwhelming majority of his oral flubs."

hooksaw

/message_topic.aspx?topic=504034

I'm one of only a handful of conservatives here--of various stripes--and I am just making sure that the Democrats get their lumps, too. Is that so wrong?

Don't buy into the echo chamber of character attacks on hooksaw. Look into the reality of my positions.

BTW, I hate the stupid shit Republicans do, too. That's why I'm not a Republican.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 12:58:38 AM

pre set-up for the setup

12/12/2007 1:21:50 AM

^ huh? >

12/12/2007 2:21:10 AM