Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers
Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers
Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove gave his “insights” into the Supreme Court nomination process. Rove talked about how prepared Bush administration officials were when they nominated their two justices and counseled the Obama administration to follow their example. He warned that “they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems”:
ROVE: I was part of a five party committee that spent years at the White House under President Bush preparing for the moment of the Supreme Court vacancy. We had thick notebooks on all prospects. We had everything from all of their writings and opinions to college transcripts to tax returns to, you know, charity dinner speeches, you name it. We had it. We studied those. It was why it was possible three months after a vacancy occurred to have Chief Justice John Roberts confirm to the Supreme Court. [...]
So I thought it was smart when President Obama said, you know, this is going to take at least six months. Because they do — they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems. They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.
Watch it:
Rove left out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers. Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t Bush’s first choice to fill the vacancy left by Sandra Day O’Connor. Bush chose Miers, saying that her “talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans.”
However, Miers’s thin resume beyond being Bush’s loyal friend (she was head of the Texas lottery and a member of the Dallas City Council) generated opposition not only from liberals, but also from conservatives who were embarrassed by the pick. Less than a month after she was nominated, Miers was forced to withdraw her name from consideration.
Heckuva job, Rove.
Transcript:
O’REILLY: I only have two minutes left and want to get your view. You are expecting a liberal Supreme Court justice, of course, coming down the road.
ROVE: Absolutely.
O’REILLY: Any insights into that?
ROVE: Well, just this. I was part of a five party committee that spent years at the White House under President Bush preparing for the moment of the Supreme Court vacancy. We had thick notebooks on all prospects. We had everything from all of their writings and opinions to college transcripts to tax returns to, you know, charity dinner speeches, you name it. We had it.
We studied those. It was why it was possible three months after a vacancy occurred to have Chief Justice John Roberts confirm to the Supreme Court. The Obama administration, having come in 100-some odd days ago, has probably not had the time to do that kind of exhaustive research.
So I thought it was smart when President Obama said, you know, this is going to take at least six months. Because they do — they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems. They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.
But to me, there are a couple of interesting points. Barack Obama has a problem in that he voted against two highly qualified nominees of President George W. Bush to the Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito. He did he so, after he Senator Obama said they were qualified, had the right temperament. Had the respect for presidents. Were — had great passion for the law. It was very laudatory of him. But yet, he voted against them.
So having voted against qualified mainstream conservative recommendations, nominees of a conservative president, he can’t turn around now as president and say a well-qualified liberal nominee ought to be given the same benefit of the doubt. Because he didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt. He also voted for a filibuster of Sam Alito. So he cannot say my nominee automatically deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate because he himself refused to give an up or down vote on Sam Alito.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If you were always wrong wouldn’t you at some point just ST-FU.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:00 amSTFU, Rove. Obama doesn’t need your advice, nor your opinion.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:02 amYou didn’t do such a bang-up job when you had your turn. Despite your lock-step congress, you still nominated Meiers and criminals and your supportive cabal endorsed them.
they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake … They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.
– - Souter told the Obama Transition Team shortly after Obama won the election he was going to step down. They’ve had plenty of time, Karl.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:04 amIt’s a bad party
May 6th, 2009 at 10:05 amOne dork won’t leave and holds his
Mr. Microphone
….and here’s another chapter from the Lying Rove Report. This sack of shit Rove is the last person to give any kind of advice.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:05 amIt has been pretty embarassing that his nominees dont seem to pay their taxes
May 6th, 2009 at 10:05 amRove has no credibility. I want to know about the missing emails and his dealings in Alabama, not his armchair quarterbacking about Supreme Court Justices.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:08 amHow many emails are missing? How many emails went thru the RNC webserver instead of the White House?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:12 amThe guy can’t even sing and dance so why the hell should I care what he has to say??
May 6th, 2009 at 10:21 amrove: To wander about at random, especially over a wide area; roam.
Yes, he does.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:21 amRove is right that Obama cannot afford a vetting mistake here… the Miers nomination was a huge mistake for Bush… Obama should avoid that after the tax problem of his previous appointments.
Rove is an idiot to imply that Miers was thoughtfully and thoroughly vetted… she was obviously a crony appointment.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:22 amIt’s nice to know Karl Rove holds President Obama to a much higher standard than he did George W. Bush.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:23 amRove is right. When a black man takes the job…he’d d*mn well better NOT make a mistake.
And he d*mn well better work five times as hard. Cleaning up the Ultimate White Man’s mess, while he’s at it.
Grrrrrr! Up against the wall, Karl. Your time has come. Don’t worry; the sh*tstains won’t show when you’re lying in your coffin.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:25 amI’m getting pissed. Karl Rove is a nobody. Why Faux News and CNN interview him is a mystery to me. Perhaps MSM is owned by Big Business? I’m pretty sure MSM doesn’t mind whitewashing Georgie Boy’s pathetic tenure. After all, they made obscene amounts of money during Bush’s reign.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:25 amNo, I’m sure she was thoughtfully vetted. They were looking for a crony appointment.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:25 amI’m not exactly sure what will count as a “vetting mistake”. If anything, I’m expecting the conservative sector to blow up about smaller details than those drummed up during the vetting process for the administrative positions.
It does seem pretty convenient that Rove failed to bring up the Miers process, but that’s not O’Reilly’s job. Besides, they had two minutes left! No time! They’ll do it live!
May 6th, 2009 at 10:26 amPurpleState says:
They’ll do it live!
ha ha
May 6th, 2009 at 10:28 amThat’s some pretty funny shit Karl. Talking about the Bush Administration and vetting shall we take a look at the (illegal) job that Karl Rove had a huge hand in vetting Justice Department judges?
Take one:
Justice Dept interviewer-Are you or have you ever been a member of the Democrat Party?
Prospective Justice employee-Yes, but..
Justice Dept interviewer-NEXT!
Take two:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:30 amJustice Dept interviewer-So, I see on your application that you have no actual law experience, graduated in the 48th percentile from Regent University, have organized protests against liberal activist judges, ACORN, the NAACP and are a charter member in both the Ku Klux Klan and the NRA…when can you start?
Maybe something dicovering that the nominee’s only qualification was stealing money from the Texas Lottery.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:32 amDidn’t the shrub finally let Rove go? And why isn’t Rove wearing orange in some prison?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:35 amTracy__5 Says:
——————————————————————————–
“Rove leaves out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers.”
So the score in vetting is 5 mistakes Obama and 1 for Bush?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am=========================================================
Not exactly true. If you went back over the appontments of the Shrub over eight years, he failed in more than one vetting. He hired crooks to be AG and pollution masters to oversee the environment and then there was Brownie and Harriett.
Tracy__5 Says:
“”Rove leaves out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers.”
So the score in vetting is 5 mistakes Obama and 1 for Bush?”
Comparing apples to oranges again Tracy. President Obama is the first President to ask prospectives for such details as tax records. If the Bush appointees were to face as stringent a vetting process as Obama’s prospectives have, I’d gladly place a wager with you on who would have the higher number of tax cheats. Oh and by the way, exactly how many Bush appointees had actual experience in the positions that they were hired for? Practically none, in fact most were appointed because they were Bush cronies (heckuva job Brownie). The rest were put there to undermine the agency in which they worked(EPA, NASA etc). So the next time you want to talk about Presidential appointments maybe you should just STFU because you are either woefully uninformed or intentionally misleading. I bet the former but either way who asked you?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:41 amI think that it’s awfully nice of FoxSnooze to provide a venue for washed-up republican officials like RoverBoy, Newtie the Grinch, John (”Got Milk?”) Bolton and Darth Cheney.
Really, now. Just think how much money could be saved here. GDumbya doesn’t have to build his library. FoxSnooze is providing a “video zoo” to remind us daily of his “legacy”.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:45 amNo, everyone who ever worked for Bush was a disaster. That is why they started a disasterous war, committed war crimes, politicized the Justice Department, and caused and economic depression. Where the fu(k have you been for the last 8 years.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:46 amshoeless Says:
“Where the fu(k have you been for the last 8 years.”
Living in denial.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:47 amTracy is a pathological liar. He even continues to lie after he has been caught in a lie. He’s sick.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:48 amRove, a key thug in the Bush Crime Family, is the last person on earth who should have anything to say about Obama’s SCOTUS nominee.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:52 amIs Rove a pathological liar, or is he just getting Alzheimer’s?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:55 amTracy__5 Says
May 6th, 2009 at 10:34 am
“Rove leaves out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers.”
So the score in vetting is 5 mistakes Obama and 1 for Bush?
_________________________________________________________
Um…no. One botched vetting for a Supreme Court nominee doesn’t equal one botched vetting for a cabinet position.
Supreme Court appointments are for life, and the only way to get rid of one (unless they die or step down voluntarily) is through impeachment.
A cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the President and the President can ask for his/her resignation at any time. Plus, they generally lose their jobs when their boss does.
There’s also a difference between being a qualified candidate for an appointment with a history of tax problems, and being an unqualified crony appointment. You would think the unqualified candidate’s qualifications would have shown up in the vetting process a little quicker than another candidate’s tax history.
I am not excusing people who don’t pay their taxes for whatever reason (although I would be willing to bet that if every member of Congress, every political pundit, and every sanctimonious talking head underwent a thorough IRS audit right now, the results would be interesting), and I’m hoping that the focus on paying one’s taxes will deter people with designs on a political career from being sloppy about it.
However, I’d like to point out that for a number of Obama appointments, his political opponents made a special effort to dig deep into tax records until they found something they could exploit. I don’t recall the Democrats doing that to any of Bush appointments — not even Harriet Miers.
So your “scoreboard” isn’t really comparing apples to apples.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:57 amRove has always been a pathological liar. Bush discovered that fact when he vetted Rove a long time ago in Texas. That’s why Bush hired him as his right hand man.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:57 amTracy thinks that approval of Bush’s nominees by his corrupt, rubber stamp, Republican Congress means his nominees were OK. I guess it doesn’t matter that they practically destroyed the country.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:59 amIt is obvious that all the rethugs have left in that 21% are morons like Tracy.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:00 amNo, they didn’t even bring up her corrupt activities as head of the Texas Lottery.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:02 amAnd how many of the GOP Senators who approved various Bush appointments were voted out of office in 2006 and 2008?
Tracy__5 Says:
“He hired crooks to be AG and pollution masters to oversee the environment and then there was Brownie and Harriett.”
That’s not the way the U.S. Senate saw it.
and, furthermore, says:
Wrong. Condi was mistake, Rummy, Gonzales, KKKarl, Cheney, Alito, Roberts, Ashcroft, Evans, Chertoff, Ridge…”
But are you in the U.S. Senate and do you actually have influence there? No, so therefore not wrong.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:03 amI don’t know about anybody else, but, I’m pretty fed up with Karl Rove offering his personal “insights” of his upper colon. He’s got his head so far up his ass that he needs a window in his stomach just so he can see where he’s going.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:03 amTracy_5, let’s not argue over who was the most qualified of various presidential nominations. Your boy Bush will always come up the loser, hands down. One of his very first choices was John Ashcroft. What a choice! Here’s a guy who lost his Senatorial race in Missouri to a dead guy!!, and what was his number one priority as Attorney General? Covering up the boob on a statue. And this was the person recommended by Karl Rove. Yessir, there’s some sharp thinkin’ for you.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:15 amTracy, what’s your opinion of Rove? Do you value his opinion? Is he credible in your eyes? Is he still a respectable voice of the GOP?
May 6th, 2009 at 11:19 amMay I cut in? Use spellcheck you cretinous troll.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:20 amThen why did you vote for Bush, TWICE?
God, Tracy do you ever tell the truth? What a sick bastard.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:21 amTracy__5 Says:
“I was just pointing out the facts. If Obama wants to have that type of vetting process in the mist of financial crisis that his own stupid mistake.”
Oh so now you admit the fact that the vetting processes between Bush and Obama are quite different when just a few posts back you compared them as equal. Take your meds Tracy, your usual circular logic is spinning off into the ether today.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:25 amYes, my favorite Tracy circular logic of the day was his “proof” that Bush’s right-wing extremist Republican nominees were all good because the right-wing extremist Republicans in Congress approved them.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:29 amTracy wanted Bush replaced but now he’s defending Rove that is too bizarre.
But no Tracy Repubes do not have ALL the money just all the BLOOD MONEY.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:33 amIf only Tracy’s biggest deficiency was his spelling.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:34 amAnd like a fart in the wind, Tracy stinks up the place and then he’s gone.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:37 amOh come on. You love Karl. Admit it. You sound just like him.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:55 amTracy__5 Says
May 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“Um…no. One botched vetting for a Supreme Court nominee doesn’t equal one botched vetting for a cabinet position.”
How many would it take?
___________________________________________________________
I dunno — how many apples equals one giraffe? President Obama’s vetting process and President Bush’s vetting process are so different from each other they really can’t be compared.
I see that the “Clinton did it, too!” crowd has now become the “let’s measure Bush against Obama — after we move the goalposts!” crowd. I guess this is what you’re going to throw at us for the next eight years.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:57 amRuck Fove!
May 6th, 2009 at 11:59 amTracy__5 sez:
“But we still have all the money…damn that sinks!”
Oh, really? In your wettest dreams. Sure, your ‘team’ has all the money…but I doubt they let you have much of it until you can show you know how to use English.
It IS your official language, right?
ha ha
What a simp.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pmRove didnt make much off his book… Did you read it Tea5?
May 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pmSome of Bush appointees may not have had tax problems but boy did they perform badly..Right Brownie or AG AG?
May 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pmTracy makes his money by using unskilled labor and substandard materials to construct poorly designed buildings.
He is a typical Republican. He has no ethics, and will screw anyone for a buck.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pmWhy Bush had to fire Rpve because he became such a problem
May 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pmWe don’t know if Bush’s appointees had tax problems. Republicans consider illegal tax avoidance to be a virtue.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pmTracy, changes his story yet again.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pmRove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush,
Rove’s a bigger jerk than Rush.
Can’t anyone see that he’s just trying to gain some political traction so everyone will understand how brilliant he is? Problem is that he believes he can say anything a few times and everyone will believe it’s true. History and truth aren’t things he cares about or believes in.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pmTracy says he couldn’t wait for George W. Bush to leave, then later admits that he voted for Dubya. He comes here specifically to defend Bush’s nominees, then later denies it.
What a lying sack of crap you are.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pmYou should be ashamed. It is mindless drones like you, who voted in all the Republicans who destroyed the country. This is all your fault, so STFU.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWhy don’t you “go Galt” on us Tracy, and just stop posting altogether.
Deny us the “benefit” of your ubermenschen insights.
That’ll show us, for sure.
Then you can hang out exclusively with other enlightened objectivists and fully maximize your narcissistic potential.
It will be awesome.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pmAll you’ve done, aside from attacking President Obama’s nominees, is defend Bush’s nominees on the grounds that the Republicans said they were good.
Tracy, if you don’t want to get caught lying, you have to stop doing it so much. you can’t keep all those balls in the air at once.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pmYes, you lying Republicans are all chanting that huge whopping lie these days. I’ve got news for you chump, it’s your fault. You Republicans ruined our country all by yourselves.
Just as you do in your business, you have to shift the blame for your fu(kups onto someone else. What a weasle.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pmAs much as I hate the lying, cheating, opportunistic scoundrel; I have to say on his behalf this time:
Vetting errors are and will be, intuitively, extremely embarassing to the Obama administration.
I also see this as an early shot across the bow: as opposed to the kid glove treatment given Bush nominees, the repubs will fight tooth and nail. They won’t let the nominee get off with lying their face off (like the Bush nominees did).
May 6th, 2009 at 1:26 pmSo Tracy, you’re actually sticking up for Karl Rove’s POV here, the SAME Rove who was short on logic and stuck on stupid when he claimed that the GOP would be a permanent political majority AND that the GOP would INCREASE their Congressional seats in the 2006 elections?
Guess that says as much about your “logic” as it does about Rove’s.
You also claimed the Repubs have all the money.
And how did having all that lucre work for the Repubs in the 2006 & 2008 elections?
But, here’s an easy way you can actually play the bipartisan card and put everyone else to shame.
#84
tombaker Says:
Why don’t you “go Galt” on us Tracy, and just stop posting altogether.
Deny us the “benefit” of your ubermenschen insights.
That’ll show us, for sure.
Then you can hang out exclusively with other enlightened objectivists and fully maximize your narcissistic potential.
It will be awesome.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
In other words Tracy, you can do what Alegre did at DKos last year.
Who knew the rightwingers could use a former DKos diarist as their inspiration to “go Galt”?
Bipartisanship rules, indeed!
May 6th, 2009 at 1:29 pmThe prosecution rests it’s case.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:33 pmPoor Tracy is so addled by his own lies that he doesn’t even know when he indicts himself.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pmNice language Tracy #66.
But from somebody stupid enough to believe that the quality of union labor is worse than non-union I don’t expect any better.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pmSTFU turd-of-lard. With decisions chimpy made the US are the pits in the pits.
Go eat some more pizza at one of your teabaggers’ yelling tours.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pmrocks911 Says:
It has been pretty embarassing that his nominees dont seem to pay their taxes
Not to me. Embarrassing is the desperate teabagger club.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pmWaltB
While I certainly agree that Limbaugh is a jerk and Rove is a jerk as well – Rush is overtly so and proud of it –
I think Rove is more akin to Macchiavelli or Rasputin – the conniving, evil influence.
(I also suspect that the Obama group is giving Rove a few sleepless nights.)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pmMeanwhile the waste of our blood and treasure of the Bush/now Obamas crimes of war continue on as a result of the US government covert 9-11 demolitions. The rich get richer and the poor get smaller. When will we bring the insanity to an end.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pmTracy had to find someone to blame for his leaky building, so he got the union workers fired, and hired unskilled labor to finish his leaky building. Apparentley the owner believed his lie and paid him, even though the building leaks. Now, Tracy can crow about all the money he got through fraudulent business dealings.
Likewise, he tries to shift blame for the current disasterous state of our country away from Republicans like himself.
It all very sad.
Tracy is very immature. No one ever taught him to take responsibility for his own actions.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:24 pmSure T5, you can’t be responsible for anything, that’s why you’re a Repube. But it sure looks like you were blaming “union labor” implying that non-union would have done better. Or were you just mad because you couldn’t go to Home Depot and hire some illegals and pocket more profit?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
That is probably what he did. What did he care? He had already laid the blame on the union workers. After the fraud was perpetrated, why not go as cheap as possible. He only cares about money, not responsibility or ethics.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pmT5 building another house of cards.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pmI find it an amazing display of arrogance that repugs won’t recognize that it was their party that put the country into its current state. When they can’t push the blame to Obama or Democrats, they change the subject to something they can twist to their favor. They’re so predictable in their selfishness.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:52 pmMarie, it is a sign of their immaturity. Tracy is a poster child for them. So much for the party of personal responsibility.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pmAnd Tracy proves our point with every post he writes.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pmWill somebody please shoot this idiot and put us all out of our misery?!?!?!?!?!?
May 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pmTracy__5 Says:
You’re spinning away, trying to derail this thread, which means you’re sticking up for still stuck-on-stupid Rove.
Also, so sad that my question…..
“And how did having all that lucre work for the Repubs in the 2006 & 2008 elections?”
…..went right over your head, especially since you’re the one who decided to pull the snark card earlier in this very thread about the GOP having all the money.
You DO remember making that comment, in this very thread, don’t you?
If not, then it’s obvious that showing up unarmed to a battle of wits is a less productive use of your efforts, than, say, perhaps working on your memory so it’s got more than a five second retention.
All that money doesn’t appear to help the GOP push it’s agenda at the national level anymore, unlike the Bush Jr years.
“Sinks” indeed!
May 6th, 2009 at 7:44 pmTo Tracy 5,
When you make comments like
“That’s not the way the U.S. Senate saw it.”
and
“But are you in the U.S. Senate and do you actually have influence there? No, so therefore not wrong”
you can hardly blame #86 (if that’s still the poster’s number; you still don’t get it that the numbers here occasionally changed due to deletions) for surmising that you agreed with Bush’s nominations/appointments becuase the Republicans in the Senate voted for them.
In any case, you still haven’t answered my question: “And how many of the GOP Senators who approved various Bush appointments were voted out of office in 2006 and 2008?”
Tracy__5 Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm#86
“is defend Bush’s nominees on the grounds that the Republicans said they were good.”
Post your evidence liar.
The blossom has fallen from the vine. Flush him and be done with it!
May 6th, 2009 at 9:20 pmTracy 5,
May 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pmTypical of you to reply when a thread is almost dead and on a back page
You could have looked up the number, just as you could have looked up correct spelling of “Carvel”(SIC), “critizism”(SIC), and “in the mist”(SIC). “Mist” means something like a fog; “in the midst” means in the “middle of” something.
Anyway, the number is 14. Moreover, while it is true that how Senators have voted on Presidential appointments may not be the only criterion for voters to elect them or not, it certainly can be one of them, though maybe not for you. BTW, you are not in the position to speak for all voters, so don’t bother. And don’t expect further replies to your lame arguments here; this thread is now old hat.
One final thing, Tracy, your claim of having all the “money in the bank” is like a pissing contest. I, too, have money in several banks and completely own homes in two cities; and though I can’t speak for all the other posters here, I wouldn’t doubt that many of them also have money in the bank and/or own property. I see no need to compare the actual amount, so don’t bother asking me.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pmseslichat
May 10th, 2009 at 8:26 pmsesli sohbet
sesli chat
seslisohbet