I wonder when the Tea Party/GOP establishment will realize that Santorum is the candidate they should have backed from day one. I mean, he's basically wrong about everything (not like that matters), but he's a decent speaker, sticks to his guns, and is the most "conservative" of the whole bunch. Too bad about the whole Google thing I guess.

Oh yeah, about 9-9-9.....



[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason : lol]

10/19/2011 11:43:44 AM

^^ Paul's plan wouldn't let people go now. It wouldn't fill positions when people leave or retire that don't need to be filled, resulting in a decrease of the federal workforce of 10%.

10/19/2011 11:45:17 AM

^^You must be on crack.

Quote :

"Yes let's drastically cut employment right now"

Let's let people keep their money rather than dumping it into unproductive military and government jobs that don't create value.

10/19/2011 11:49:04 AM

^Why? The GOP base are basically people who watch Glenn Beck and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Santorum is the closest thing there is to one of those 2 running for public office. If they wanted to nominate the antithesis to Barack Obama, that's who they should have backed. He's the candidate they want, they just don't know it yet!!!!

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM. Reason : :]

10/19/2011 11:53:52 AM

You're generalizing. Yes, there's a good amount of Republican voters that should like Santorum. He is everything wrong with the current GOP. I mean, this is a guy that appears to have learned nothing in the past ten years, like he came straight out of the GOP circa 2001.

You're short changing the rest of us, though, that understand that party politics is a necessary evil. There is a growing number of old-school, "Constitutional conservatives" that don't give a damn about same sex marriage and all those other distractions.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2011 12:04:43 PM

this is awesome:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-gop-debate-took-a-wrong-turn-on-immigration/246955/

10/19/2011 1:21:28 PM

Quote :

"You're short changing the rest of us, though, that understand that party politics is a necessary evil. There is a growing number of old-school, "Constitutional conservatives" that don't give a damn about same sex marriage and all those other distractions."

And you're shortchanging everyone else who's doing the exact same thing on the other side of the aisle by declaring by fiat the values they're focusing on as "distractions."

10/19/2011 2:12:22 PM

They are distractions. Same sex marriage, abortion, the location of mosques, and other "social issues" are completely invented and have no place in a discussion on federal-level politics. The things that matter are foreign policy, economic policy, immigration, things like that. This culture war bullshit has to stop.

10/19/2011 2:35:08 PM

Quote :

"There is a growing number of old-school, "Constitutional conservatives" that don't give a damn about same sex marriage and all those other distractions."

I guess they aren't voting GOP because your boy's #s aren't going anywhere.

Hey, anyone else want to vote for Fred Karger in the primaries with me?

10/19/2011 2:38:44 PM

Quote :

"The 9/9/9 thing is stupid, this isn't a fucking pizza delivery special. It would effectively be a regressive tax, since it would impose taxes on those that don't pay them currently."

I agree that it would be regressive, but your's is not a very good definition of regressively.

10/19/2011 4:13:15 PM

Right, hence the "effectively". The tax system is fucked up, but the end result of the 999 plan is that the lower and middle class pays more, and the rich pay less.

Just the idea that you can pick a number like that that and apply it arbitrarily is stupid. This plan would be a disaster if implemented.

10/19/2011 4:34:09 PM

He didn't pick it, Sim City did.

10/19/2011 4:40:19 PM

Quote :

"Since this spring, Mr. Romney has raised $1.5 million from employees of firms like Morgan Stanley; Highbridge Capital Management, a hedge fund; and Blackstone, a private equity firm. Mr. Obama has raised just over $270,000 from firms that were among his leading sources of campaign cash in 2008. Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million — more than donors from any other private employer in the country — have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm’s employees. Those figures do not account for all Wall Street giving, nor for the full force of each candidate’s robust network of Wall Street “bundlers,” wealthy individuals who raise money from friends, family members and business associates. And Mr. Obama continues to dominate Mr. Romney — and the rest of the Republican field — in overall fund-raising. He has raised close to $100 million so far this year for his campaign, three times more than Mr. Romney, as well as $65 million for the Democratic National Committee"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?_r=3

10/20/2011 2:44:13 AM

That's not really indicative of, well, anything at this point. Obama's not actively campaigning in a primary. Wait until we get closer to the conventions, then we'll have a better feel for who's pulling in what kind of money.

10/20/2011 7:01:45 AM

10/20/2011 5:57:53 PM

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/herman-cain-has-no-real-campaign-episodes-ii-iv.php?ref=fpa

Quote :

"With each passing day, more stories are published proving that South Carolina is not an outlier in the Cain campaign operation. Try as they might, reporters just can’t seem to find any kind of legitimate Cain campaign operation anywhere."

Was always pretty sure that Cain had no real intention of winning the nomination or the Presidency, but now we have proof. Dude just wants to be the next Palin, and get paid to tour around the country complaining about liberals.

10/24/2011 1:32:01 PM

I still don't get why Palin chose not to run. If anybody can run a Presidential campaign into the ground and somehow emerge with a profit, it's her.

10/24/2011 1:40:35 PM

hey shrike what income range are we talking with that "top 20%" on your graph?

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 7:43 PM. Reason : at the top of the page]

10/24/2011 7:43:07 PM

Look for yourself, the graph came from this data,

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Cain-9-9-9-plan.cfm

Looks like household incomes over $111,344.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM. Reason : :]

10/25/2011 1:32:47 PM

It's just amazing how weak the GOP field is, and how badly the Tea Party wants to vote for anyone other than Romney.

Trump flamed out. Bachman won a couple polls then they realized she was a crazy woman. Perry took over the pole until he opened his mouth, revealing himself to be retarded. Ron Paul doesn't like bombing Muslims, so he's out. Huntsman believes in science, so he's out. Palin decided to keep working for Fox News. Gingrich's "elect by" date was in the 90s. They should probably all be voting for Santorum if not for his Google problem. So now Cain, who isn't even a real candidate, is leading Romney by 4 points. This whole thing would be hilarious if not for how sad it is.

10/25/2011 2:00:50 PM

some sources say it would generate about the same revenue we have now and others claim it would lead to record deficits-

so which is it?

10/25/2011 4:39:13 PM

Perry's tax plan seems to be the worst of all possible worlds.

It's keeping the complexity of the current code and coupling it with an alternative maximum tax rate for rich people.

10/25/2011 5:11:21 PM

agreed

10/25/2011 5:34:19 PM

^^ exactly. "Hey, I'm gonna simplify the tax code by making you do your taxes twice... " Perry's plan is just a naked tax cut for the wealthy, the kind of which Dubya could only have dreamed about.

10/26/2011 6:55:16 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/26/poll-obama-advantage-in-crucial-battleground-state/

Quote :

"According to a Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio voters, Obama holds a four point margin over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a hypothetical 2012 general election matchup. The president's 45% to 41% margin over Romney is within the survey's sampling error. The poll indicates that Obama holds a 47% to 39% advantage over businessman and former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain and has a 47% to 36% lead over Texas Gov. Rick Perry."

Approval rating in the tubes yet still wiping the floor with the "best" the GOP has to offer. Pat Robertson is right, the GOP nominees better stop saying what they actually believe, or people won't vote for them. The 2012 election is basically going to come down to logic vs. insanity, and thankfully it looks like logic will prevail.

10/26/2011 1:26:54 PM

Yes, Barack Obama...that last bastion of logic and rationality.

10/26/2011 1:58:55 PM

Compared to the current crop of doofuses the GOP is putting forward Obama looks like a Harvard educated constitutional scholar.

/Oh wait...



/I don't even like the guy, but wow the GOP has picked a bumper crop of loons. The most reasonable two either commit adultery because America or lives in his sons' basement.

10/26/2011 2:03:57 PM

Quote :

"Yes, Barack Obama Ayn Rand...that last bastion of logic and rationality."

see how this game works

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM. Reason : first i put a name i dont liek in blank then i maek hyporbolic claim]

and before you even start, claiming that obama's the logical side of the coin here can be true without him being the bastion, unless you imagine every extreme of human nature is essentially represented (in mirrored ways) across both parties

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2011 2:06:34 PM

Quote :

"Compared to the current crop of doofuses the GOP is putting forward Obama looks like a Harvard educated constitutional scholar."

It makes sense that Obama would be a constitutional scholar, since he does such a good job at ignoring the Constitution. Obama doesn't give a single fuck about the Constitution or the rule of law, and I think it's intentional on his part.

You know we're completely and entirely fucked when "moderate" or "logical" means starting new wars, ramping up the drug war, and being a shill for the corporations and financial institutions, while being "crazy" means advocating non-interventionism and letting power reside with individuals or the state.

Quote :

"see how this game works"

You're playing a different game. Shrike, who is notoriously partisan, said that it's the GOP (insanity) versus "logic," which in this case, is Obama. Obama is virtually a carbon copy of George W. Bush. The real left should support Ron Paul over Obama any day of the week. It shouldn't even be a question. Obama pays lip service to progressives, but ultimately, he's bought and paid for.

Really, who do you think Ralph Nader would choose in a match up between Obama and Paul?

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2011 2:36:08 PM

Quote :

"Obama is virtually a carbon copy of George W. Bush. The real left should support Ron Paul over Obama any day of the week. It shouldn't even be a question."

What would the real left get out of RP exactly? I want to hear this

10/26/2011 2:43:08 PM

Restoration of civil liberties, ending the drug war, and ending our imperialist empire? Aren't those things that you want?

10/26/2011 2:44:05 PM

Yes I can cherry pick positions from anybody's platform that I'd agree with

Hitler had the trains running on time

10/26/2011 3:20:20 PM

Ending the wars should be a priority if you're maintaining any pretense of giving a shit about humanity. The same should be said about the war on drugs. Lives are being ruined on a daily basis. That's unacceptable.

10/26/2011 3:49:44 PM

Quote :

"You're playing a different game. Shrike, who is notoriously partisan, said that it's the GOP (insanity) versus "logic," which in this case, is Obama."

Yeah, I'm super partisan because I believe you, Ron Paul, and the GOP are fucking whack jobs while I support a President who has achieved nothing but positive results on every single endeavor that didn't require going through a totally fucked Congress to accomplish. In six months he's taken us from 3 wars to 1, killed Osama and al-Awlaki, and deposed a dictator for pennies with 0 loss of American life. Ignoring everything else, if a white Republican had done those same things, they would be naming city blocks after him. Instead they refuse to give blacky one iota of credit for anything, are criticizing him for leaving Iraq, and think we didn't get involved enough in Libya. To boot, the only economic "solutions" they've offered is to destroy the EPA, roll back Wall Street reforms, and cut taxes on rich people. So yes, I say those people are fucking insane, and that Obama can be a very effective President when he doesn't have to deal with them.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 3:51 PM. Reason : :]

10/26/2011 3:49:54 PM

Quote :

"Ending the wars should be a priority if you're maintaining any pretense of giving a shit about humanity. The same should be said about the war on drugs. Lives are being ruined on a daily basis. That's unacceptable."

Uh, yeah, I agree, but do you understand how you and I could disagree that RP is the best candidate for leftists even given what you just said? And can you do it without resorting to dripping venomous rage that anybody would dare question Grandpa Gold?

10/26/2011 3:54:55 PM

^^Trying to argue with you is like telling a sports fan that their team sucks. It isn't possible to win that debate. Your quarterback could throw away the ball every play, and you'd still support the team, because you think it's your team. You've been convinced that the Democratic party is on your side, just like you were convinced that the bailouts were for your own good. You've fallen prey to tribalism, just like the vast majority of humanity has.

It's a fact that if Bush was doing the exact same things as Obama, you would oppose Bush. That's because you're an ultra-partisan. You are a crazed sports fan, except in this case, it's not inconsequential games being lost, it's lives being ended and destroyed. It's people going to jail. It's societies failing to progress because U.S. policy dictates that they should not be allowed progress.

The problem with this country is that people like you don't hold politician's feet to the fire. "Your side" gets elected and you "support" them, as if that benefits anyone at all. The President doesn't need your support, he already got elected. We don't need fucking cheerleaders. We need people that think for themselves, and you don't. You just take whatever is handed down to you by your political masters without question. Maybe you'll wake up one day and realize how foolish you've been.

Quote :

"Uh, yeah, I agree, but do you understand how you and I could disagree that RP is the best candidate for leftists even given what you just said? And can you do it without resorting to dripping venomous rage that anybody would dare question Grandpa Gold?"

I disagree with Ron Paul on a good number of things. But, in comparison to Obama, Ron Paul is the easy choice. There should be no bigger issue than the human consequences of our economic and foreign policy, and in the case of the United States, the consequences are severe and far reaching. You can call it isolationist or whatever, but the U.S. has done immeasurable damage around the world. The U.S. is to blame for the widespread poverty in Latin America. The U.S. is to blame for the radicalization of Islam in the Middle East. Arguably, Western powers are to blame for the entire conflict going on in Israel.

I think people should be be allowed to get abortions everywhere. That would be ideal. I'm willing to have priorities, though, and the President really doesn't have the power to change the things that progressives are so worried about.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2011 4:14:37 PM

Yeah but do you honestly think he's going to get into office, pull everybody home, and ram through the economic stuff YOU want? Keep in mind I think your policies would produce the opposite of what you believe they would.

10/26/2011 4:22:26 PM

i'm a leftist, and i'd take Ron Paul or Gary Johnson over Obama

but i'd take Kucinich, Feingold or Nader over everyone currently on the national landscape

10/26/2011 4:37:06 PM

I don't think it would be possible for him to ram through the economic stuff I want, or that he wants for that matter. The President doesn't have that kind of power, and Paul, being a strict constitutionalist, is not likely to "assign himself powers". He's going to have to work with Congress. However, he doesn't need Congressional approval to move troops back home or stop enforcing drug laws on the federal level.

Even in the Jacksonian hard money days of the mid 19th century, the monetary reforms were backed by an entire coalition that was pissed about the reckless inflation of the 1820s and early 1830s. It's not like Andrew Jackson was able to make the changes himself. There had to be a shift in public sentiment and a Congress that reflected that.

10/26/2011 4:38:26 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/26/poll-romney-at-or-tied-for-top-spot-in-first-4-states-to-vote/

Iowa:
Romney 24%
Cain 21%
Paul 12%
Perry 10%
Gingrich 10%
Bachmann 6%
Santorum 2%

South Carolina:
Romney 25%
Cain 23%
Paul 12%
Perry 11%
Gingrich 8%
Bachmann 4%
Huntsman 1%
Santorum 1%

NH:
Romney 40%,
Cain 13%
Paul 12%
Huntsman 6%
Gingrich 5%
Perry 4%
Bachmann 2%
Santorum 1%

Florida:
Romney 30%
Cain 18%
Gingrich 9%
Perry 9%
Paul 6%
Bachmann 4%
Huntsman 1%
Santorum 1%

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 4:47 PM. Reason : a]

10/26/2011 4:46:51 PM

Quote :

"Trying to argue with you is like telling a sports fan that their team sucks."

Yeah, and trying to argue with you is like telling the Pope that God isn't real. Your faith in libertarian ideology is something that every rational human being abandoned decades ago.

Quote :

"It's a fact that if Bush was doing the exact same things as Obama, you would oppose Bush."

Bull fucking shit. We don't even have to hypothesize on this. Bush did attempt to do some of the same things Obama did. The difference is Obama actually pulled them off at a fraction of the monetary and human cost. Bush started 2 wars, Obama ended 2 wars. Bush created threats to American security, Obama has destroyed them. When Bush left office, we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month. Literally the day Obama stepped into the White House, that trend began to reverse itself and the economy is actually adding over 100,000 jobs a month now. He passed health care, Wall Street reform, START, student loan reform, credit card reform, and got rid of DADT.

Bush was an incompetent clown who only succeeded at making his buddies companies (Halliburton and friends) stock price go up. His foreign and domestic policies were disastrous and left America objectively weaker than before his term started. The fact that you even compare the two shows how disingenuous you are when it comes to giving credit where credit is due.

Quote :

"The problem with this country is that people like you don't hold politician's feet to the fire. "Your side" gets elected and you "support" them, as if that benefits anyone at all. "

When you look at what he promised vs. what he delivered, Obama has accomplished more than any President since Truman. Yet, it's "our side" (the majority of OWS) who are the ones holding his "feet to the fire" and demanding more. Meanwhile your side is simply blabbing about the same statist horseshit that hasn't been relevant since the 1700s. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul or Mitt Romney or whoever the fuck else you want that isn't Obama so you can hold your head up high and pretend you aren't actually part of the problem.

10/26/2011 5:01:51 PM

^thats a lie. Obama hasn't fulfilled most of his promises really. Hes done a good job at saying he's made accomplishments.

healthcare- promised a bunch - gave us a mandate that doesn't give care to anyone and only drives up cost and will never hold up in court

war- campaigned antiwar- increased wars more than ever.

tax- promised to end bush tax cuts for rich- extended bush tax cuts on rich...twice

energy- promised to move forward- granted permission for an increase in offshore drilling

10/26/2011 6:17:53 PM

Quote :

"war- campaigned antiwar- increased wars more than ever"

He did not simply campaign "anti-war". I swear to god, you people need to stop trying to rewrite history from 3 years ago, it's not going to work. The Obama campaign's foreign policy, as it related to military action, amounted to this:

1. Iraq was a was criminal, expensive, and mismanaged endeavor that diverted resources away from going after the real threats to American security. He would draw down our forces there and eventually end that war.

2. Afghanistan , while initially a good idea, was horribly mismanaged and the situation on the ground was far worse in 2008 than it was in 2002. He would do what he could to improve the situation and then eventually get out of there too.

3. He would ramp up air strikes, CIA drone activity, and special forces operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all over the Middle East. Instead of wasting money and American lives in Iraq, he would go after and attempt to capture/kill the real culprits behind 9/11.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but where exactly did he go wrong on those campaign promises? Not only did he do everything he said he would, the results were absolutely magnificent in killing bin Laden and really rendering Al-Qaeda operationally impotent. Not only that, when an unforeseen crisis came up in Libya, he handled it so well that it's literally left the GOP with their heads spinning. They've flipped flopped on Libya no less than 3 times, and are now saying that pulling out of Iraq was a bad idea. Neither the candidates, nor the GOP members of Congress have any foreign policy to speak of other than "anything the black man does is wrong".

My whole point is that his handling of foreign policy shows that when left to his own devices, the man gets shit done. When he has to deal with the GOP in Congress to pass domestic policy, who have shown themselves to be absolutely insane with how they've responded to his successes, things don't go so well. The problem from day one hasn't been Obama, it's been Congress, and those are the people that need to be replaced.

10/27/2011 12:00:01 PM

Reminder that Obama campaigned for single payer healthcare but conservative Democrats in congress teamed up with the GOP to talk him down to something nobody liked, namely: The individual mandate as originally conceived of by the Republicans in 1994 as an answer to Hillarycare

The funniest part is how the right wing spin machine turned this, the transformation of single payer universal healthcare to an individual mandate, as Obama 'shoving healthcare down our throats' and 'Congress ramming their liberal agenda through'.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 12:19:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdSX_P9Wbgo

Any Republican who votes for Romney is such a goddamn hypocrite after the way Kerry was attacked in 2004 for "flip flopping". Romney has basically made a political career of it.

10/27/2011 1:19:40 PM

Quote :

"Reminder that Obama campaigned for single payer healthcare"

except that he didn't. What part of "If you like your plan, you can keep it" makes you think "single payer"? I mean, do I need to do a god damned you-tube search for you so you can see the Messiah speaking those very words? Is your memory THAT fucking bad?

Quote :

"Iraq was a was criminal, expensive, and mismanaged endeavor that diverted resources away from going after the real threats to American security. He would draw down our forces there and eventually end that war."

And he did it using the exact plan that Dubya proposed. Why does Obama get credit for doing what Dubya was gonna do? riiiiiiiiiiight.

Quote :

"Afghanistan , while initially a good idea, was horribly mismanaged and the situation on the ground was far worse in 2008 than it was in 2002. He would do what he could to improve the situation and then eventually get out of there too."

And his plan there was to do what Dubya did in Iraq: a surge. A surge that kind of worked. Again, Obama does what Dubya did or would do, and you give him credit for that?

Quote :

"He would ramp up air strikes, CIA drone activity, and special forces operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all over the Middle East. Instead of wasting money and American lives in Iraq, he would go after and attempt to capture/kill the real culprits behind 9/11."

And this is the most dubious. He did those strikes because he didn't have the fucking balls or ability to close Gitmo. he knew if he captured them, they'd have to go to Gitmo. His own fucking words about wanting to close down Gitmo came back to bight him in the ass when he actually got into position to do it. So, he ordered the people to be killed, instead, without having to go through the expense and difficulty of living up to his naive ideals.



^ that is precisely why most Republicans don't really like Romney. He's a god damned flip-flopper from Massachusetts that most of them don't trust. However, he's the most electable of the bunch running.

10/27/2011 8:00:15 PM

Can you spot the difference?

10/28/2011 12:36:58 AM

lmao destroyer can you at least try to post something that isn't blatantly concocted propaganda? I mean the guy who made that could have at least pretended to be even-handed by including something like "Women's rights" or "post 19th century monetary policy"

10/28/2011 9:52:01 AM

Quote :

" except that he didn't. What part of "If you like your plan, you can keep it" makes you think "single payer"? I mean, do I need to do a god damned you-tube search for you so you can see the Messiah speaking those very words? Is your memory THAT fucking bad? "

Actually, yes. Youtube search it. You will find that wasn't during his campaigning, but in the Summer of 2009.

Quote :

"And he did it using the exact plan that Dubya proposed. Why does Obama get credit for doing what Dubya was gonna do? riiiiiiiiiiight."

Dubya didn't propose it, the Iraqi government did. Dubya wanted to stay indefinitely and give total legal immunity to troops. Iraqi government said "no, out by 2012."

Quote :

"And his plan there was to do what Dubya did in Iraq: a surge. A surge that kind of worked. Again, Obama does what Dubya did or would do, and you give him credit for that? "

Lmao, the only reason a surge was necessary in Afghanistan was because shithead Dubya prematurely withdrew forces to try and drive his poll numbers up.


I mean really, aaronburro, you could please make some posts that consist of stuff like "2+2=4" just so I can make sure that your incredible ability to invariably post counter-factual material isn't just a bug in my browser?

10/28/2011 9:57:27 AM

Quote :

"He did those strikes because he didn't have the fucking balls or ability to close Gitmo."

Are you fucking serious? He ordered the raid on on bin Laden's compound because he "didn't have balls?". That was the single ballsiest call made by any President in modern history. From a pure political standpoint, you could argue that it was actually insane. No one had mentioned bin Laden's name for almost 3 years. Yet he went ahead and bet his entire Presidency on a combat operation, based on unconfirmed intelligence, to kill him going absolutely perfectly. There is no way in hell you could argue he did it for political reasons, the risks far outweighed the potential reward (see: Jimmy Carter), but he made the call anyway because it was the right thing to do. That's called leadership, something the current crop of GOP candidates don't have.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/60minutes/main20062368.shtml

Quote :

""I worked for a lot of these guys. And this is one of the most courageous calls, decisions that I think I've ever seen a president make. For all of the concerns that I've just been talking about. The uncertainty of the intelligence. The consequences of it going bad. The risk to the lives of the Americans involved. It was a very gutsy call," Gates said."

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM. Reason : :]

10/28/2011 1:42:34 PM