And then there were four.
By on Mar 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
And then there were four.
Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH) has become the fourth Republican to call for Alberto Gonzales to resign. Gonzales “has become a lightning rod and has distracted” from the Justice Department’s mission, Gillmor said in a statement.
UPDATE: CBS’s Katie Couric reported tonight that Gonzales is “on his way out,” but White House spokesperson Dana Perino tells CNN that report is “dead wrong.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Then Cheney, then Chimpy.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:23 pm"And then there were four." We could say the same thing about our trolls Jake, Patrick, Flaco, and Firehead.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:24 pmTime to give him a freedom medal.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:25 pmHas anyone else noticed that Rogerx2 and hacker bob won't even touch this issue?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pmAs long as we get every Attorney General in the future to resign if they ever fire U.S. Attorneys who are investigating someone in said future President's party, fine by me.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:29 pmWe don't give a flying fu*k what you are and are not okay with. Go suck a tail pipe. Bat sh!t crazy old fu*kin' traitor.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pmDana Perino is another peice of work.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pmHas anyone else noticed that Rogerx2 and hacker bob won’t even touch this issue?
Comment by erock
Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop. Ah, but we've got Jake on a loop.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pmFIRST GONZO GOES - THEN ROVEREICH GOES.....THEN THE DICK, CHENEY GOES.....THEN DUMBYA HIMSELF. By then, all of his complicit cronnies will be long gone and he will have no one left to protect him. Just desserts!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pmHey Jake - try sticking to the present tense....all we hear from a "blamegamer" like yourself unwilling to deal in the present and be accountable for one's actions is the pointing of the finger into the past (which no longer exists in the present) or the future (which may never come)....get with it bro- get your head out of your big butt and get "real" for a change. Stick to facts & remain in the present because that's all that truly exists......THE NOW!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pmSo, gummitch, your claim that you wanted to debate each thread topic with me was false?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pmOnly when Dana Perino hears it from Rove...it becomes fact.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pmNothing yet ..!!
Atta boy, spudge boy! You've called a spade a spade.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:39 pmJake, why do you hate America, and our constitution?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:39 pm#2 do we know which ones are the "paid trolls"....I think so.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:40 pmAs long as we get every Attorney General in the future to resign if they ever fire U.S. Attorneys who are investigating someone in said future President’s party, fine by me.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Ronald Reagon fired three in the middle of his term (I'm not sure of the circumstances) and George fired eight in the middle of his term because the
March 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pm"White House spokesperson Dana Perino tells CNN that report is 'dead wrong.'"
Translation: You're doing a heckuva job Alfie but what it is all about, Alfie, is don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
Bye Bye Fish!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pmJake,
You're not debating anymore, you're just acting like a 5 year old going "nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh, that's not true, nuh uh, you're lying, nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh, I'm not listening, nuh uh, nuh uh."
March 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmIf Dana Perino says it's dead wrong, Abu G will be out the door by Sunday night.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmSo, gummitch, your claim that you wanted to debate each thread topic with me was false?
Comment by Jake
My "claim"? Trust me, Jake, I have no problem putting my own words in my own mouth. I really don't need you to do it for me.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I do not hate America or our Constitution.
Nat:
We lost part of your transmission; say again.
erock:
I have answered every question posed to me here on these threads (except those seeking personal information in violation of the Terms of Use agreement), so I think I am "listening" -- I've also not accused anyone here of lying -- maybe you are confusing me with someone else?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pmAs long as we get every Attorney General in the future to resign if they ever fire U.S. Attorneys who are investigating someone in said future President’s party, fine by me.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Reagan fired three in the middle of his term (I’m not sure of the circumstances) and Bush fired eight in the middle of his term because he wanted them to be political hacks instead of US attorneys.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I do not hate America or our Constitution.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Sure you do, your statements prove it. That's not even a question anymore. You hate our democracy, our freedom, and our values. You're just another right wing religious nutjob fascist!
Go live in Dubai with Michael Jackson, where you and the rest of your religious freaks belong!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pmfun at the samsedershow:
Gonzo Gone-zo? Place Yer Bets!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pmSen. Charles Schumer has called for Alberto Gonzales to resign. Sen. Alan Specter sounds like he wouldn't mind Gonzales ankling his position. Members of the Sam Seder Juggernaut are using their psychic powers to determine when the attorney general will bow out:
http://www.bluestateblogs.com/data/op-ed/archives/2007/03/gonzo_is_gonezo.php
No Jake,
The differences between these firings and traditional firings have been explained to you time and time and time again. There's really no use in presenting them to you on this thread. I never said you were lying, but I have to assume at this point that either you are incapable of getting the message or just willfully denying it. If you care to do more research and present new arguments as to why these firings were kosher, please do so. But the "it's been done before" argument has long since lost its legs.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pmOh, O.K., Nat -- transmission received -- my point above is if the NEW standard is that no U.S. Attorney can ever be fired (even for biting a stipper) as long as he / she is also investigating a member of the President's party, then why doesn't the Democratic Congress pass the Full Employment for U.S. Attorneys Act of 2007?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pmI have answered every question posed to me here on these threads (except those seeking personal information in violation of the Terms of Use agreement), so I think I am “listening†— I’ve also not accused anyone here of lying — maybe you are confusing me with someone else? Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Responding with b*llsh*t, doesn't answer questions. Your statements of *you're wrong* are accusations that others lie, st*pid old f*rt for brains! As for your personal information, you can post all you want - people do all the time.
Seeking *personal* information in that term, usually refers to things that involve identity theft, and other extraordinary abuses. You're starting to sound like Exley, Valiant Venus and Seixon now. Because you're using a *fake* identity, you're afraid people will rat you out, and expose you for the *fraud* it's clear you are.
You're just a st*pid old man, who needs to get laid (probably by a man based on your homophobia) often enough to get a hobby. Your *obsession* with liberals and spreading known lies, just shows, you're a freaked out old fool that's afraid your naked emperor is going to destroy your CornServative movement. But don't worry, you're doing a fine job of helping to ensure that happens!
Pedantic, lying old *ssholes like you just prove to america what it already knows. The GOP can't be trusted, can't rule, can't manage, and can't lead! You're a party of cowards, hypocrites and fools! And you reflect *all* of those traits nicely, dum bass!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:57 pmAnother running scared as he is also up for re election in '08
March 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pmWhy do we find ourselves trying to educate a misanthrope like Jake when it's clear that he's his own worst enemy. From his rantings and postings, it's clear that he suffers from a severe degree of narcissism in which any kind of attention, albeit negative attention, feeds the monster demon residing within. His posts are inarticulate, inane, and unintelligent so it's clear that he's simply "working the thread" and will continue to do so unless/until we ignore him totally. He has nothing relevant to say on any thread so the concept of debating him on absolutely "nothing with any degree of credibility or any logical grounds" is highly impossible.
Just ignore this infantile troll and he, like the others we ignore routinely, will simply try to find another arena for a misanthropic egomaniac like himself.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
People can be "wrong" short of being "lairs". As an example, you are "wrong" about my real name not being Jake. Now that you know that, however, it would be a "lie" to continue posting such a claim.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pmIgnore Jake's drivel and he'll disappear - POOF!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pmWhen will Waxman talk to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) about their role in this GOP shit-rain? And you thought it was a bitch being a Republican in 2006-- wait until 2008.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pmPeople can be “wrong†short of being “lairsâ€. As an example, you are “wrong†about my real name not being Jake. Now that you know that, however, it would be a “lie†to continue posting such a claim.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
How do I *know* that, you made a claim that could be as false as the rest of your claims are. Your calling me a *liar* for saying I don't believe you however makes you a complete hypocrite and proves my point. St*pid old c*nt!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pmfreeze out the troll before it spins more drivel.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pmveritas is right. The troll that shall not be named hasn't made a new point in 3 days. Engaging him is worthless.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pmveritas:
I'm not going anywhere.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I didn't call you a liar -- re-read my post.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:15 pmYeah, because you are a stupid p[iece of sh!t that thinks that people give a crap what he says.
Speaking of crap, I think I need to take another hot steamy stinky Jake.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:18 pmI didn’t call you a liar — re-read my post.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
BAHAHA, I did re-read your post, you *implied* I was a liar. You know, the kind of *weasel-words* that wimpy cowards like you use, because you don't have the b*lls of a real man to speak what's on your mind. It's why you idiots make such incompetent leaders. You're full of sh*t cowards!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pmOh, O.K., Nat — transmission received — my point above is if the NEW standard is that no U.S. Attorney can ever be fired (even for biting a stipper) as long as he / she is also investigating a member of the President’s party, then why doesn’t the Democratic Congress pass the Full Employment for U.S. Attorneys Act of 2007?
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
-When a new president comes in, I don't think it's a big deal if the attorneys are replaced. In fact in 2008 if the new president doesn't replace all the hacks Bush put in, I'll be making a fuss about that.
-What is the "U.S. Attorneys Act of 2007"?
March 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pmIt's also obvious that our resident, illiterate troll has absolutely nothing better to do with his Friday night than to sit alone in front of his computer and talk nonsense to himself.
I think all of the intelligent posters on TP have pretty well summed up and covered all of the bases so it's time to say ta-ta. I do have more important things to do than to dialogue with an idiot like our resident troll......
Sweet dreams to all!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:20 pmGood night, and good riddence, veritas (not).
March 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pmLater, veritas....thanks for all your contributions today.
We look forward to your return.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pmGood night, and good riddence, veritas (not).
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Riddence? Don't you mean Riddance? Buy a dictionary, a clue, and a brain - you're devoid of any value to society, other than as an example of how not to be st*pid dum sh*t!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:26 pmWhite House spokesperson Dana Perino tells CNN that report is “dead wrong.
Translation: He'll be gone next Friday.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:27 pmNat:
What is the “[Full Employment for] U.S. Attorneys Act of 2007″?
That's what I'm calling this NEW standard being forced onto Bush, without any notice whatsoever, that no President from here on out can fire any U.S. Attorney if he / she is investigating anyone from that President's party -- my first suggestion to all U.S. Attorneys the day after the next Democrat is elected -- hold a press conference announcing said investigation(s).
March 16th, 2007 at 8:31 pmNo, ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, I meant "riddence" as in RODENT!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:32 pmNo, ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, I meant “riddence†as in RODENT! Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Well I'm sure it's a term you're familiar with, considering that's all you are. An annoying useless rodent!
That’s what I’m calling this NEW standard being forced onto Bush, without any notice whatsoever, that no President from here on out can fire any U.S. Attorney if he / she is investigating anyone from that President’s party — my first suggestion to all U.S. Attorneys the day after the next Democrat is elected — hold a press conference announcing said investigation(s). Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
We already have a law that makes this redundant. It's called *Obstruction-Of-Justice*, you st*pid little rodent!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:37 pmNow Jake is getting cranky.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:39 pmThat’s what I’m calling this NEW standard being forced onto Bush, without any notice whatsoever, that no President from here on out can fire any U.S. Attorney if he / she is investigating anyone from that President’s party — my first suggestion to all U.S. Attorneys the day after the next Democrat is elected — hold a press conference announcing said investigation(s).
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
We don't need to pass a law; all we need is the resignation of Gonzales and all others who played a role in the firings of the attorneys who would not investigate enough Democrats [for this administration] and/or investigating too many republicans [for this administration].
March 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pmVVGFU,
Yes, Jake meant 'riddance'...and the fact that he's too proud and stubborn to admit a simple misspelling speaks volumes..doesn't it?
March 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pmLOL! Funny how neither Carter nor Clinton were charged with obstruction of justice then for firing U.S. Attorneys who were investigating Democrats!!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pmNo, ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, I meant “riddence†as in RODENT! Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
And I hate to inform you of this, but "riddence" isn't a word, you still meant "riddance".
Wow, I'm surprised you don't know how to spell that word after 75 years, considering how many times people must have used it in sending you away!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pmLOL! Funny how neither Carter nor Clinton were charged with obstruction of justice then for firing U.S. Attorneys who were investigating Democrats!! Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Actually Carter was investigated for obstruction of justice - a fact you seem to not realize. If he had committed the crime (he was not found to have done so), he should have been held accountable accordingly. Clinton, no obstruction of justice, because he didn't do what you claim.
However, your continuing support for the clear cut case of obstruction of justice is ironic considering your attack on Clinton. It pretty much shows what a st*pid little rodent you are. Too cowardly to even admit you misspelled a word! Let alone that you're supporting criminal behavior, and dismissing it as not relevant - just because you're a party cult loyalist!
You're the very definition of st*pid partisan hack jake! You hate America, you put justice ahead of party! You don't deserve citizenship here - you anti-american coward!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pmYou post a link that Carter was investigated for obstruction of justice for that, and I will post a link for the Old English plural past tense of "riddence".
March 16th, 2007 at 8:51 pmAnd, a negative editorial from Time magazine doesn't count either. I have never heard any duly authorized investigation in the federal government took place and, more to the point, that "he was not found to have done so". I'll wait.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:53 pmWhat kind of 75 year old "independent" says this..
Good night, and good riddence, veritas (not).
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
not?
Did you pick that one up from the kids using the internets, Jake?
Careful now, JackbootJake.
Focus!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pmYou post a link that Carter was investigated for obstruction of justice for that, and I will post a link for the Old English plural past tense of “riddenceâ€. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
I did previously, or did you not read that Time article that discussed the matter as you *lied* and claimed you did?
We're speaking *Old-English*? Is that why you went away for so long, to avoid having to admit you can't spell by trying to *weasel* out through an *Old-English* spelling? You didn't say *Old-English*, you said as in *rodent-riddance*.
Sorry Jake, you can't spell, and now as is typical of the right wing *weasel* species, you can't admit you're wrong. Any more than you can admit your party, Bush or anything *CON* is wrong. You suffer from the same *derangement* that bush does you know. A tiny little ego that's so desperate to be *right*, it makes you continually *wrong*!
You're a coward, a fool, and a liar jake. You're a useless piece of rodent sh*t!
March 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pmNote sure where I picked up "not!" alp3, but I know what veritas means from a Jesuit priest . . .
March 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pmnot?
Did you pick that one up from the kids using the internets, Jake?
Careful now, JackbootJake.
Focus!
Comment by alp3 — March 16, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Yeah, he sounds more like Exley or Seixon than a 75 year old. Although his arguments truly are fossilized!
March 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pm"Note" = not
(Dang spell checker again)
March 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pmLOL! Funny how neither Carter nor Clinton were charged with obstruction of justice then for firing U.S. Attorneys who were investigating Democrats!!
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Which attorneys did Clinton fire for investigating Democrats?
March 16th, 2007 at 9:29 pms*ck it, Jackboot. You're a lie.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:30 pmAs dead as the 3000+ soldiers and over 600,000 civilians or dead as in... HHAAA! HHAAA!
March 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pmNat:
I'll have to look up the name of the U.S. Attorney investigating Rostenkowski (sp?) for you later.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pmNat:
I’ll have to look up the name of the U.S. Attorney investigating Rostenkowski (sp?) for you later.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
This is what I found in Wikipedia:
March 16th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
People like jake are so infatuated with what clinton got in the WH!
What he doesn't get is Clinton did to an intern.
While... HELLO!... Bush is doin you jakie... And what makes me laugh is, at least i understand whats goin on... I see it.
While you! You're bent over the counter takin it up the ass with blinder's on while dragin the milk cart, and smilling at the same time.
You S&M freak!
March 16th, 2007 at 10:00 pmJake
If somebody were to strangle you now it would be justifiable homicide. If not we could plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pmHave you always been the most despised person in any group. Did it start because even your mother couldn't stand to be around you.
Frankly nobody cares what you want, think, need, demand, request, like or don't like.
The rest of us, outside of your troll friends, are interested in making this country a better place.
Your goals are obviously just the opposite.
Don't go away mad - just go away.
Yes, the Off-White House denies right up to the very last minute and then does a 180-degree turn. They're so predictably twisted. What ever are we going to do for entertainment, when they're gone?
March 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pmBush and Cheney must both be impeached ASAP!
March 17th, 2007 at 12:37 amGonzales...Cheney...Rice...Rove...BLASTOFF! CHIMPya in SPACE, ORBITING THE VAST REACHES OF THE UNIVERSE(in his own DELUDED mind)!!!!!
March 17th, 2007 at 1:53 amAMERICAN PRESIDENT IS COMPLICIT IN CHILD ABUSE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER
According to one portion of the transcript made public earlier this week, however, Mohammed told the panel of three unnamed military officers that his children had been held for four months and abused during his incarceration.
DISGUSTING,,,
Maybe you dont get news in America But the world knows whats happening
March 17th, 2007 at 6:57 amNat:
Yes, Rostenkowski FINALLY got charged, no thanks to Clinton who FIRED Jay Stevens -- thanks for including that pardon info too.
wethepeople:
You are comparing actual sex outside the Oval Office (not to mention perjury / obstruction of justice) with figurative anal sex? — March 16, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
shane:
Ouch! Me typing here just a few days has provoked "justifiable homicide"?! I can just imagine how you feel about the person I am defending -- good thing for you (and Raymond Funamoto) it is against the law to threaten harm to the President of the United States ; )
R:
When did they "predictably" change course in Iraq? The broader war against terrorists? Embroyonic stem cell research? Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court? Just for starters.
Jay Randal:
Which one first?
Tobey Tall:
In case you don't see my question in every thread you've posted this allegation in -- do you know how old his children are?
March 17th, 2007 at 8:49 amRe#71 Tobey Tall
Most Americans do not bother to read non-mainstream American media, so they do not hear of the horrific acts that their leaders have done and are doing, like abducting children.
But the really sad part is when someone points them out, they go into denial mode and stick their head in the sand.
Until a person with a conscious gets rich enough to start a big media organization and pushes the disgusting acts of the American government in their faces 24 hours a day 7 days a week, like they do Anna and Brittney, nothing will change.
March 17th, 2007 at 9:07 amMy comment to shane, R, Jay Randal, and Raymond Funamoto did not survive transmission. Oh well. Here's what I asked Tobey Tall (and what I will ask criticalthinker now too):
Do you know how old his children are?
March 17th, 2007 at 9:26 amJake sez:
March 17th, 2007 at 9:45 amNine and seven, Jake.
Thanks for the info, TripMaster Monkey. Now, have you ever seen the American television series 24?
March 17th, 2007 at 11:10 amWhere else would the television series 24 be from, Jake. That's an odd way for a 75 year old "independent" to phrase the question.
Where are you from again, Jake? Did I miss it in another thread?
Cardeful, Jackboot. Focus!
Fake.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pmNow, have you ever seen the American television series 24?
Comment by Jake — March 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Jake has managed to ask two irrelevant questions: The age of Khalil Mohammed's children is absolutely beside the point. Since when is it standard practice to "rendition" the offspring of a suspect in order to extract a confession?
Notice also that, upon learning the ages, Jake's reaction is to quickly change the subject -apparently children abductions are a-ok in his book (why wouldn't they? After all, torture is acceptable nowadays).
The second irrelevant question is about a TV show that depicts torture as a necessary tool against the "baddies", when it is known torture is a very ineffective way of extracting an accurate confession -not to mention illegal , immoral, and inhumane.
But those facts don't bother our newest troll either: let's torture them all! Old, young, men, women! All hail the Leader!!
March 17th, 2007 at 9:22 pmNow, have you ever seen the American television series 24?
Comment by Jake — March 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Yeah, it's called a *television-show*'. In some of them, people can fly, and stop bullets with their skin. When you grow up, twit, you'll be able to learn to tell the difference between television shows - and *reality*. Until then, I'm sure you'll think your video game adventures are *real*, and that you're a *war-hero* because of your game play! Idiot.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:25 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 9:20 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 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pm