ROBERTS DAY 2: 25 Ways To Not Answer The Question
ROBERTS DAY 2: 25 Ways To Not Answer The Question
UPDATE: The Roberts Dodge is even more telling when you hear it out loud. Heard this morning on the Bill Press Show (With Christy Harvey), here is a montage of Roberts’ sound and fury which signified absolutely nothing. Listen to it here.
Some highlights from today’s dodging and weaving:
1. “I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of specific cases.â€
2. “So while I’m happy to talk about stare decisis and the importance of precedent, I don’t think I should get into the application of those principles in a particular area.”
3. “I do feel compelled to point out that I should not…agree or disagree with particular decisions. And I’m reluctant to do that. That’s one of the areas where I think prior nominees have drawn the line when it comes to, Do you agree with this case or do you agree with that case? And that’s something that I’m going to have to draw the line in the sand.â€
4. “Well, I think that gets to the application of the principles in a particular case. And based on my review of the prior transcripts of every nominee sitting on the court today, that’s where they’ve generally declined to answer: when it gets to the application of legal principles to particular cases.â€
5. “Well, again, I think I should stay away from discussions of particular issues that are likely to come before the court again. “
6. “What I’m saying is that that issue or issues related to that could well come before the court, and that’s why I have to resist answering a particular hypothetical question.â€
7. “Senator, that’s a question that I don’t think can be answered in the abstract. You need to know the particular circumstances and exactly what the facts are and what the legislation would be like, because the argument on the other side — and as a judge, I would obviously be in a position of considering both arguments, the argument for the legislature and the argument for the executive.â€
8. “Again, I don’t want to express conclusions on hypothetical questions, whether as applied in a particular case, where there would be a challenge in that respect. Those cases come up all the time and I do need to avoid expressing an opinion on those issues.â€
9. “And I don’t know what arguments parties will be raising in those cases. So an abstract question you need to know, obviously, what’s the claim, what’s the issue, and decide it according to the rule of law.â€
10. “And since those questions might well come before the court, I do need to exercise caution on that.â€
11. “Well, that is in an area where I think I should not respond…â€
12. “Let me explain very briefly why. It’s because if these questions come before me either on the court on which I now sit or if I am confirmed on the Supreme Court, I need to decide those questions with an open mind, on the basis of the arguments presented, on the basis of the record presented in the case and on the basis of the rule of law, including the precedents of the court — not on the basis of any commitments during the confirmation process.â€
13. “Senator, my answer is that the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court requires that nominees before this committee for a position on that court not forecast, give predictions, give hints about how they might rule in cases…â€
14. “Well, I don’t want to comment on any particular case but I think I can speak more generally about the approach.â€
15. “I think nominees have to draw the line where they’re comfortable.â€
16. “While I’m happy to talk about stare decisis and the importance of precedent, I don’t think I should get into the application of those principles in a particular area.â€
17. “I’d have to consider all those before reaching a conclusion in any of those particular areas.â€
18. “And so that’s an area that I do not feel it appropriate for me to comment on.â€
19. “Well, again — and of course, without getting into the particulars…â€
20. “…and I don’t think that I should go further to elaborate upon whether or not it applies in those particular situations.â€
21. “But in terms of a separate determination on my part whether this decision is correct or that decision is correct, my review of what other nominees have done is that that’s where they draw the line and that’s where I’ve drawn the line.â€
22. “But I don’t think it’s appropriate for me, given the fact that cases arise on both of those questions, to go further.â€
23. “Those are issues that come up again and again before the court. And, consistent with what I understand the approach to have been of other nominees, I don’t think I should express a view on that.â€
24. “Well, Senator, that is exactly one of the questions that is before the court. And I cannot answer that in the abstract….An abstract opinion that would prejudge that case would be inappropriate for a nominee to express.â€
25.“Well, that’s an issue that is before the court in particular cases, and I can’t comment on a case that’s coming before the court.â€
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bobbin’ and weavin’, Wevin’ and bobbin’.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:23 pmYep, sounds just like a former lawyer. Blah, blah, blah. 50 words to say, nope, not gonna answer.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:33 pmGinsburg standard in full effect. Democrats will lose whatever political capital they think they had in these two confirmation hearings.
Republicans are so much smarter than Democrats. It’s almost too easy.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:34 pmmaybe if our Senators made the case that they would refuse to vote FOR a nominee, the nominee’s might be more forthcomming.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:35 pmKindness – that is what we call litmus tests and neither side is going to take the bait. AND constitutionally, they should NOT.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:38 pm#393. Did you have discussions with representatives of a defendant (Bush) in a case that was before you at the time about the possibility of a supreme court nomination (known as the Nobel Proze in Judgedom) ?
September 13th, 2005 at 5:43 pm#3
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
Now, can you prove your statement “Republicans are so much smarter than Democrats. It’s almost too easy.”
Z.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:53 pm#7 Touche’
September 13th, 2005 at 5:58 pmFact: most high school graduates voted for Bush in 04
Fact: most college grads voted for Kerry in 04
A little education goes a long way.
Don’t feed that troll.
He is useless and won’t ever agree, even if we tell him cold hard facts that he knows are right. He is a waste of oxygen and nitrogen.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:00 pmHere is another way:
“I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” – Supreme Court Nominee Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (subsequently confirmed by a vot of 96-3).
September 13th, 2005 at 6:02 pmDon’t feed the new troll either.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:03 pmWhat did we learn today?
1. Even a wimpy nerd like Roberts can flip the bird to Democratic wimps.
2. Biden did not think it was worth preparing for the session. What did he think Roberts would do? Why was he caught off guard?
3. The democrats can be forced to back down by telling them to be polite.
The real horror will be revealed when we count how many democrats not only don’t fight the guy but actually vote for him.
As they said in Deliverance… can you squeal like pig?
September 13th, 2005 at 6:06 pmI’d like to be able to converse w/ conservatives, but ned, you start off with crap & that’s all you’re gonna get back.
At one point, you used to try to talk. You don’t do that anymore, so really I think you’re just a waste of bandwidth.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:07 pm#7 Perhaps I should have pointed to
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm
A less controversial, but still interesting site… Out of the top 16 states (12.5 is 1/4) 9 went for Kerry and 7 for Bush. Out of the top 2 average IQ Scores, all four states went for Kerry.
Out of the bottom 16 (to keep it fair) 3 went for Kerry and 13 for Bush. Out of the bottom 2 average IQ Scores, 2 states went for Bush and one for Kerry.
My comment still stands. Prove your assertion that Rebuplicans are smarter than Democrats.
Z.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:11 pmYou can talk about the trolls, just don’t talk to the trolls.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:12 pmSpudge Boy – interesting, I feed you with facts and you don’t agree either. Blue State Red made a good point that lying liberals love to overlook.
As for IQ, is that the best you got? I am from the Northeast jerk, so that can’t be right !! (or I can’t be a conservative)
Maybe what I meant to say is conservatives have common sense that liberals do not.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:13 pm#15 – Democrats continue to lose on the platform of the “sky is falling.” Yet, that platform hasn’t changed. It keeps getting worse.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:15 pmNote to Dems: When your questions are stupid to begin with, and the nominee is demonstrably smarter than you, and then you interrupt his answers, he looks great, and you look like morons. Keep up the good work.
Note to the Rest: Pay close attention to what Judge Roberts is saying, especially on stare decisis and separation of powers. This is the best seminar on the U.S. Constitution we have seen in the television age. The man is brilliant, and he going to be Chief Justice for a long, long time.
Note to Everyone: Doesn’t Chuck Schumer remind you of a former U.S. President who once was famous for his nose, his dirty tricks, and his five o’clock shadow? Maybe we should call him Charles Milhouse Schumer!
September 13th, 2005 at 6:35 pmWow, I could’ve sworn I heard my name. Oh wait, it is a troll. I didn’t know there was a troll farm in the Northeast. He probably escaped from the Southern troll farm. I sure hope they catch him and put him back.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:39 pm“I’m only going to call balls and strikes” BALK
Yeah, but where’s your strike zone.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:54 pmNonious answerus..or “I wouldn’t want to say I would,but I wouldn’t want to say I wouldn’t”.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:56 pmNixon statement while under the gun.
Twenty-five ways of saying one thing. And it’s one thing that all S.Ct. nominees in recent times has answered for purposes both ethical and political.
He did manage to discuss some issues in between thde routine denials. Any substantive comments about what he actually said? I’m a liberal and I thought better of Roberts after watching todays testimony that I did yesterday. Point out some real issues to think about?
September 13th, 2005 at 6:58 pmWe can only take a moral stand on Roberts. What will it gets us? He will be confirmed by these skels, moral stance withstanding. I really hate to see these f**king holes take our beautiful country in a direction of constitutional malaise, but it has been done, the vote is there. God help the weak. We MUST FORM UP AND FIGHT WHAT IS WINABLE, CONGRESS IN 2006. Let us all become progressive warriors for the next year. Take no quarter and give no mercy.
A painful political death in 2006 to the republican skels in congress!
September 13th, 2005 at 7:03 pmWhat is it with the jaw tension in Robert’s face; Constantly clenching his teeth behind firmly closed lips when not speaking.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:11 pmMy guess at his body language? Something along the lines of, “Just wait, I’ll show you”. A patient determination to eventually lash out or prove something.
I’ve noticed when Roberts gets angry his eyes start to buldge and they look artificial. He’s looking increasingly like a gay Max Headroom.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:16 pmGet angry, get f**king very angry. The latest skel abomination is this: (god help you if you skip this!)
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/FEMA_outsources_Katrina_body_count_to_firm_implicated_in_bodydumping_scan_0913.html
The skels must be met with totally resistance, death to the skel GOP!!!
September 13th, 2005 at 7:22 pmThe show the ignorance of the far right, they have former Enron employee and RNC boy and the TV actor from Tenn. coaching Roberts.
That should tell you a lot if you have a mind that can be told anything.
But NED, there ae farm animals in the northeast to terrorize arent there? I think you have been screwing around with too many sheep, cows, hogs and dogs.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:30 pmNot quite a blog roundup
There is some interesting commentary on the Roberts hearing, though, oddly enough, I’ve seen very little in the way of the “responsibility” taking quote from earlier today. Is the liberal blogosphere avoiding it? Did they just not watch CNN? I
September 13th, 2005 at 7:31 pmThe MSM are pointing out how Roberts is skillfully non-committal and that the senators are too hard on him. Have the MSM gone back to being Bushie-boys again? Roberts’ views are going to affect the country for the next 30 years or more. If he doesn’t believe in the right to privacy, or the right to Congress to begin OR END HOSTILITIES, or rights for women and minorities, these are things that must be pried out of him before he is approved.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:33 pmIf Republicans think this is split between Libs. and Cons. they should think again. These matters will affect everyone.
Roberts is well spoken and nice looking, but I believe he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I will keep posting this until it is driven into the brain.
We can only take a moral stand on Roberts. What will it gets us? He will be confirmed by these skels, moral stance withstanding. I really hate to see these f**king holes take our beautiful country in a direction of constitutional malaise, but it has been done, the vote is there. God help the weak. WE MUST FORM UP AND FIGHT WHAT IS WINABLE, CONGRESS IN 2006. Let us all become progressive warriors for the next year. Take no quarter and give no mercy.
A painful political death in 2006 to the republican skels in congress!
September 13th, 2005 at 7:39 pmCitizen, I complain as we all do, but you are exactly right when you say we MUST fight for control of congress in 200g. We must write congress weekly, if not daily. We must pressure the MSM to report the news accurately. It is the right move and the best move, and the one we can accomplish.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:49 pmI propose we take it further than writing. The time is for DISRUPTION. We who have been quiet, need to start taking our future in action. I propose disruption of these skels at local press conferences. I have been a moderate, no more, I have been radicalized by the current one party rule of corruption. We need strong action in the coming year. COME ON PEOPLE, LET US DISCUSS PROPOSALS OF ACTION. WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS ON ACTIONS OF DISRUPTION? LIST THEM!!!
Death to the GOP, end the corrupt congress!!!
September 13th, 2005 at 8:00 pmThe biggest dodge of all is that he says the right to privacy is rooted in the 14th Amendment. We should all be very afraid. The 14th Amendment provides that a State shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What that means is that privacy may be deprived as long as the Court believes there has been “due process”. The courts have traditionaly found the right of privacy in the 4th and 9th amendments. If it is a fundamental right, the legislature can’t screw with it. If it’s subect to “due process” analysis, we’re screwed.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:12 pmTime to step up folks. Most of us are comfortable middle class, as such, we are the backbone in our country. I can only speak for myself, but I have been giving money but have remained largely on the sidelines. To my shame. I have lived through my current malaise, with outrage burning inside, yet have taken only token action. This malaise is over, action is a verb that I tend to take to heart in the next year. God f**king damn it, I am angry, I am going to action.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:27 pmHey, Blue State Red, #19. Being a rightwinger like you, I chuckled at that pop at Dems and the statement that Judge Roberts is “smarter” and “brilliant” and all that. You are so gleefull I bet you couldn’t control yourself. (As one conservative to another, you might want to tone it down some, Red,: you sound like you have a homosexual thing for him, if you know what I mean).
But correct me if I’m wrong, that shot at Charles Schumer was just a little off, comparing him to our man, “Tricky Dick” Nixon. I mean, Schumer won reelection in NY in 2004 with 71% of the vote, even running against the Republican darling, Marilyn O’Grady, who lost her ass bigtime and Schumer won with the largest margin of victory of any Senator in New York state history. Is that the Schumer you are talking about, who the Republicans hope won’t run in 2008 for president? Keep up the good attacks, but lay off some of the stuff about Roberts or the demorcrats here will think you want to give him a bl*w job, OK?
September 13th, 2005 at 8:45 pmJoe
Keep punching your rhetoric of “the right”. God bless the freaks on “our” right. You bring a smile to an otherwise sh*ty day as always!
September 13th, 2005 at 8:51 pm“We met in the springtime when blossoms unfold the pastures where green and the meadows where gold…Alone and forsaken by fate and man”
Hank Williams Sr.
On the lament of George W. Bush.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:07 pmWell, 80203, #36, you liberals have too damned much to smile about as it is. Myself, being a redneck kind of conservative, just want the rightwingers to keep their facts straight. So far, those that post here seem to have their head were their asses are and their asses were their facts are, if you can follow that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the right wing better be the ones worrying about Roberts. So far the Republican conservatives have nominated 8 of the last 10 surpreme court justices, and they haven’t gotten it correct yet. I’m optimistic Roberts might just turn out to be just another one of the long list of Bush’s failures, which would really continue to piss off us republicans.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:19 pmJoe,
First of all, what is your fascination with homosexuality? Maybe its time you actually came out of the closet or switch sites. Secondly, you are correct, Republican presidents have appointed 8 out of the last 10 justices. But in the past, we had to deal with a democratic senate and we could only have a Thomas or Scalia every once in a while. Now, that we control the Senate, why shouldn’t Bush nominate someone whom America wants to see on the bench. Roberts will be confirmed and by 70-80 votes. Don’t squeal too loud!
September 13th, 2005 at 9:30 pm#33 What are your ideas for disruption of the skels.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:55 pmHey, Sucks, how you doin? I thought I told you you really ought to shed that moniker. Makes us conservatives pissed to think of homo’s, like you pointed out in your posting above. Being a redneck myself, I don’t care for them much. And, yeah, I guess I have a fascination with them. By the way, what’s your take on Pat Robertson? I mean, talk about squatting to pee and all.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but while I agree with you that Roberts will be confirmed, what makes you think he is all piss and no vinegar? I can think of a few others on the bench you and other conservatives were so sure of (they passed Roe VS. Wade, heh pal?).
By the way, you kind of hurt my feelings with the “don’t squeal too loud” remark. Sucks, maybe you and Red want to do that redneck thing to someone but, please, leave me out of all that nasty crap.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:14 pm“I believe that a baby is definitely a fetus, until it becomes an embryo…or, under the right conditions, a zygote. I believe that a soul is assigned at the moment of mitosis, or metastasis, or Mishawaka, Indiania. I believe for every drop of rain that falls, an angel gets its wings.
“I believe a baby becomes a voting Republican at the exact moment it takes its first extra-vehicular poop (EVP). I hope that answers your question, Senator.”
September 13th, 2005 at 10:29 pmWhen ’scientists’ discuss this issue, the use brain wave patterns to distinguish a human life and brain death. These are generally accepted standards as they show cognitive reason and consciousness. The same standard is/should be a reasonably accepted standard for when a fetus is a viable child. This doesn’t happen until after 6 months, and at the point it happens the fetus is able to be ‘born’ prematurely. Nature has a very consistent timing on all of this, and frankly you have to disconnect your own alpha waves not to see the science of this.
You can talk all sorts of relative moralism about whether you think a ‘possible’ life is a viable life, but then you get into discussions of should we freeze every egg and sperm because they also are ‘possible’ lives with the same kind of technogical intervention that it takes to keep a pre-premy alive. Then there’s the fact that women for millenium in various cultures have used ‘herbal’ and other means of abortion quite readily – and in fact early christian/jews treated children as slaves and they weren’t ‘valued’ after birth. Girls were ’sold’ to their husbands, and abraham was going to sacrifice his son on an alter.
Anyone who believes religion has a fixed dogma on either abortion or childrens rights is either ignorant of history or they choose to ignore those facts to prejudice their perspective intentionally.
September 13th, 2005 at 11:21 pmActually Biden was pretty cool. When roberts was bloviating & Biden tried to get him back on track, he (biden) was admonished by a nazi. Biden said ok, let him continue not to answer the question.
More than likely this was too smooth to be caught by the repugnicans.
September 13th, 2005 at 11:57 pm#15, I found a website that showed state by state IQ averages and how the votes fell. As you might imagine, the lower the I.Q., the more for dumbya. The highest average I.Q.’s went to Kerry.
It was the same for 2000 election also.
Moral of the story: Beware of stupid people. And a little education goes a long way. (take the last one anyway you wish)
September 14th, 2005 at 12:00 amNext time you have a job interview, don’t answer any questions, just dance around all the issues. I’m sure you’ll get hired. (if you are going into government)
September 14th, 2005 at 12:04 amReading this post is so much faster when you scan past the trolls and skels.
September 14th, 2005 at 12:08 amHas anyone heard of more stories that the levees were blown up after the hurricane?
bushwatch.com
Sept. 13, 2005
September 14th, 2005 at 2:24 amRoberts looks like the ultimate snake oil salesman. Isn’t it odd that every job he gets is, just by accident, one that tries to promote the Republicans at the expense of the poor, the middle class, the enlightened, the educated, and the non-white and the male. Isn’t that the oddest of coincidences? Why do you think these groups hire this fair and unbiased man? Could it be that he has an agenda which supports the wacky views of the Opus Dei and the Federalst society? COULD IT BE?
September 14th, 2005 at 7:55 amWhen he testified that he did not have an agenda, BUZZZZZZZZZ He perjured himself. He lied. Find me a man who is in the Federalist Society that doesn’t have an “agenda”. Find me a man in the Federalist Society who has a wife active in the pro-life movement that doesn’t have an agenda. Won’t happen. This man is a liar and a deceiver.
the other thing that should disqualify him is the fact, I repeat, the fact that he did not recuse himself when hearing a case put forth by this corrupt administration after he was interviewed be the White House for position on SCOTUS. The fact that he did not recuse himself means he has an agenda and is not fair and honest. He lies for this White House. What is worse than that?
Has this White House ever appointed anyone who does not have an agenda?
Dodging and weaving is right. When will Senate Democrats exercise their constitutional duty and shelve Roberts’ nomination until he answers their questions. Please direct any Senate Democrats and legislative aides to these stories below so they have the facts about the Senate’s constitutional right to have their question’s answered:
Any Question is Fair Game: Has John Roberts Read the Advice and Consent Clause
Radicals in Robes: Is John Roberts a Stealth Nominee
Will the media keep giving this guy a free pass or will they look past nice suits and theatrics and see a judge shamelessly trying to circumvent the Senate’s constitutionally conferred powers?
And will concerned Senators cut through the White House rhetoric and clarify that these questions are fair game and must be answered if Roberts wants to get confirmed?
September 14th, 2005 at 8:32 amGet on these stories and get the Senate Democrats and sympathetic Republicans to articulate the right standard and get their questions answered.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:34 amAnyone that junior supports HAS to be a lieing, party serving douche-bag.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:44 amAnd will concerned Senators cut through the White House rhetoric and clarify that these questions are fair game and must be answered if Roberts wants to get confirmed?
Just how many times did Ginsberg refuse to answer the question posed to her? Democrats have brought this upon themselves. They have destroyed this process, the Republicans.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:28 amJohn Roberts’ Bald Spot
The justices already on the Supreme Court have no qualms about spouting their opinions, especially on abortion, but it’s always a cat and mouse game before confirmation, as if John Roberts hasn’t formed an opinion on anything in 50 years, but was sim…
September 14th, 2005 at 9:51 amRandy – Stop trotting out the Ginsburg line; it’s not true. Get the transcript. It’s a hoax and a lie. Why don’t you get facts straight before posting/speaking (or stop lying).
September 14th, 2005 at 11:35 amcrying, crying, and more crying. Tis true reliant.
September 14th, 2005 at 11:47 amI have said since day one, anyone dumbya supports must be has to be is indeed the wrong wrong man for the job.
If dumbya likes him, that’s enough information to turn him back to the private sector.
Some people have made an effort to correct the sins of the shrubs, do a google on Bertha Champagne.
September 14th, 2005 at 12:04 pm[...] Think Progress counteracts Roberts’ claim about being forthcoming with this gem: 25 Ways To Not Answer The Question [...]
September 14th, 2005 at 7:01 pmRoberts is going to bite the Repugnantcans in the ass big time! He lets them think he’s a lapdog, but he’s just been playing the game. He’s worked his entire life with a singular focus – to get to SCOTUS, and those Repug FOOLS just handed him more than he even expected – Chief Justice!!
September 14th, 2005 at 7:36 pmHe’s bitten the bullet, touted the party line, whorishly laid down with dogs, but now his EGO will have to answer to NO ONE!!
Roberts has whacked eyes. And those “Please don’t hurt me” knit eyebrows? Oy.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:36 pmRoberts is all about the law’s letter, and nothing about its spirit.
THAT is why he will NEVER vote for the human side of any issue.
That is also why Republicans have nothing to fear.
The way Roberts speaks of what the SCOTUS can and should do—review trial papers and see if errors were made—you’d have to conclude that a computer program could be written to perform that paint-by-numbers task.
#48, the only story that I heard was that Louis Farrakhan was circulating that theory. That should tell you as much as you need to know about that story.
When the flood levels stabilized, the Corps of Engineers did drill some holes in places to facilitate the draining of water.
Q: What is the Most Dangerous Place in Washington?
A: Anywhere between Sen. Shumer and a camera or microphone.
September 16th, 2005 at 12:37 am[...] Coupled with her previous support for a constitutional ban on abortion, Miers’ silence on the matter is notable. Even John Roberts, who refused to discuss his position on virtually any past cases during his hearings, did state his support for Griswold: I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. [...]
October 18th, 2005 at 1:32 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pmPayday Loans No Faxing
Spendid payday loans that was immediate and also effortless to apply for before you absolutely are in drought of cash.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 4:49 amTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pmMcLovin
I declare war on thee.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pmBurt Reynolds
Are you sure this is correct?
April 9th, 2008 at 12:06 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm