posted
Two liberal leaning Times columnists (at least how I read them), Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman, are starting to have second thoughts:
It appears that "Libby" New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggests that "Obama is on the ropes" and simply no longer wants the job (time to start cashing in on the surely $300M former presidency):
I heard much the same expressed in, if I may say, "high Republican circles" during 1992 (my Father's second wife's Memorial service in Greenwich) that GHW Bush "didn't want the job anymore'. So indicative of that was when "Poppy" was caught on national TV looking at his watch during a debate with Clinton. Obama's lack of preparedness and seemingly lack of interest was again there for 70M viewers to see, and it will be hard to reverse that sentiment even if the next two debates are more of a "draw". That Obama has a "day job' requiring his attention matters not to the viewership that I think is comprised in great part of undecided independent voters like myself.
But again, just my thoughts.
Amtrak and Big Bird should not be very high on an incoming Administration's horizon, but defunding both are campaign promises, and I don't think would take much political capital to "do something about them". When does any incoming Administration have so much "capital in the bank" than on January 21?
Here's another "libby leaning" Times columnist, Tom Friedman, who last Sunday certainly implied it's "time for a second look". I know that this particular undecided independent voter is doing just that (disclaimer: Amtrak is simply a non-issue with me; if it's there, it's there and I'll ride it if and when convenient, but if it ain't, it ain't; Big Bird? I'm too old to have grown up with him):
The first, and the most dangerous threat to Obama’s re-election, is a critical mass of voters saying this: “Barack Obama, nice man, good father, great that we finally elected an African-American. He tried hard. But you know what? I just want to try something new, even if I don’t know it will work.”
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Gilbert, you are usually better at your research. If the federal government quit funding PBS, they lose about 12% of their annual income. That will not cause PBS to fold.
The Romney administration does not "have to" deliver on their promise of "we'll cut Amtrak". There is nothing forcing them to focus on such a small amount of money and it would never get through Congress.
And perception is everything. You see Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman as left leaning. I see them as far-left-wing, ultra-liberal whack-jobs.
And I think Obama is just being his usual self. He is not living up to the media hype.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, I realize Maureen and Tom are on the "libby top twenty five pop chart" (I guess they should be on the wall down at the Post Office; right??), but they are intelligent and insightful and I look forward to their Times columns. They are a definite reason why I pay my $800/yr to hear that thump on the porch. I also look forward to my Sister's college classmate, Peggy Noonan, in Saturday's Journal. Peggy is a definite reason I pay $350/yr for that "second thump".
Mr. Ortega (newscarrier) is my alarm clock; I've told him so in the past.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your perception of "intelligent and insightful" is considerably different than my perception.
And you cannot be wasting $1150 a year on tree killing newspapers! You need to give that money to the government so it can help the poor!!!
Whoops... never mind... I was channeling my deeply buried, former democrat persona, and forgot that the $1150 belongs to you, and not our government...
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dowd and Friedman left-leaning? Heh heh..they're about as far left as the come.
IMHO, it's not that Obama does not want the job any more. We are simply seeing what happens when "kids" are allowed to hold positions of power. Obama is a complete empty suit, and is always the least qualified person in any room he walks into. His staff is made up of university-type leftists, equal in character to that of President Clinton (recall all of the "W" keys being removed from all of the computers when Clinton left and Bush came in?). Or one of the most powerful and sensitive jobs in the country (Chief of White House security) was given to "Bubba'---a limo driver from Arkansas who was a buddy of Clinton. To read the full story about the atrocious and outlandish things that happened inside the Clinton White House with his staff, read, "Unlimited Access" by FBI agent Gary Aldrich. It'll knock your socks off. I am also willing to bet that once Obama is out, we will see similar books coming out that detail how aloof and detached Obama truly is.
I don't understand how, at this point, anyone can be an undecided voter. Why don't I understand it? Simple....we now have a record to look at with Obama. Whereas in 2008, he had absolutely no record, and people could individually project whatever image they wanted to onto Obama and they could think he was the greatest human being to ever walk the planet. But now we have almost four years of evidence at how incompetent he is, how his foreign policy is a disaster and puts this nation at risk, how he has added six trillion dollars to the debt, how he is CLEARLY a Marxist (and was surrounded by America-hating Marxists his entire life as he grew and matured). I've said it before and I'll say it again---this election is not about Romney. It is ALL about Obama. I would vote for a can of orange juice over Obama. A can of orange juice would not do the destruction that Obama will do with four more years of unrestricted power. We have NEVER had a man like this as president---not even close. How anyone can vote for him is mind boggling to me. If you're a liberal Democrat, that's fine---but Obama is not a liberal Democrat. He is a pure Marxist through and through, and is highly incapable of holding this office. America DESERVES better than this---much better.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last evening, I think Obama "slowed the hemorrhage" from Round One, but I have to question if it were enough to reverse the Romney tide.
I remain undecided (unlike others here, Amtrak and Big Bird are simply non-issues with me), and could well continue to be after the final debate. Hopefully, after reading The Times coming out for Obama AND The Journal coming out for Romney, I'll decide; quite simply, I'm not walking into the Schoolhouse and flipping a coin as admittedly I do with a number of Local issues.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But is it really any surprise that the Times and WSJ came out for who they did? That's not "news"---it would have been news if they had come out for someone other than who they selected.
I still see a Romney landslide coming. Honest to God, I just can't see how anyone can be undecided at this point. Obama is such an aloof, arrogant, inexperienced, dangerous guy who has done so much harm to our Republic....how can there be any question as to who to vote for?? My vote is not FOR Romney---it's AGAINST Obama, as most all conservatives will say. This whole election is about Obama, and has very little to do with Romney.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had been undecided (which I wasn't) last night's debate would have ended it. What Obama said was so disconnected from what he has done it would take a page or two just to list the differences. One of the peaks had to have been that gasoline costs so much more now than it did four years ago is because the economy is so much better now than it was then. Huh? Hadn't noticed. Without calling the name, it was just another of Obama's, "It's all George Bush's fault."
Like Smitty, my choice is not so much pro-Romney as it is anti-Obama. Not that I think Romney is that bad. He looks better to me now than he did earlier. What I am looking for is some big dirty politics attack on Romney times for maximum impact on the vote. I am sure that there is a dig up the dirt group working furiously to find something on him. Just that if Romney is the true practicing Mormon that he appears to be it will be hard to find any dirt.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually gasped out loud when Obama said that about gasoline prices. There he was, on FULL DISPLAY in front of the world, demonstrating what a complete idiot he is. Nobody to back him up, and no pre-written words on a teleprompter. That is the REAL Barack Obama---utterly clueless. I wish I could get inside the head of an Obama supporter so that I could see for myself what it is SPECIFICALLY that they like about him. I'm talking about liking him as far as his performance goes---not liking him in a personal sense. Because in the professional sense, there's nothing there to like--absolutely nothing. He is always the most unqualified person to walk into any room, every time.
From what I understand from Mormon friends who know about Romney and his past, there is absolutely nothing in his past that could come out as a bombshell surprise about his character. The guy actually is pure and clean as the wind-driven snow. But that won't stop team Obama---right now they are extremely desperate, and I know desperation when I see it. He, Michelle, and Michelle's mother ALL want to keep Air Force One, the celeb parties, the Secret Service detail, and all of the perks that come with being Prez. He will do anything to hang onto those things---I guarantee it. Sometime within the next 19 days, we will see just how desperate they are---we will see something come out. I don't know what, but something--and it will be nasty, ugly, and very disrespectful. That's a promise.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may disagree Smitty. He can collect $400,000 a year for doing nothing, He can make major bucks spreading his BS thoughts in front of people that are dumb enough to listen to him, and he has no responsibilities. (Yea, I know... He doesn't have any responsibilities right now)
He may be all for throwing this election. Why else would he bring up assault weapons and handgun bans this late in the game?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I see him differently. If you are right, that's fine with me though. Whatever it takes to get him out is perfectly okay on my end! We can not survive four more years of this guy.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: But is it really any surprise that the Times and WSJ came out for who they did? That's not "news"---it would have been news if they had come out for someone other than who they selected.
Mr. Smith, please pardon my parsing of your material, but there are several points you've made that I would like to address.
Obviously, the Mayan "end of the world" will occur if anything other than "The Times comes out for Obama" Oct 28) and "The Journal comes out for Romney" is the case, but I want to review WHY, in their respective Editorials, these two influential, nationally circulated, publications hold their respective views; not in some Jerry Springer setting, i.e Debate II, but rather from my easy chair and at my own choosing.
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: I still see a....landslide coming.
I wish I could agree such will be the case - it certainly would mean I'd get a normal night's sleep come "that Tuesday", but I'm fearful that nothing will be decided as of "the day after". I foresee numerous challenges (only thing I do not foresee is a 269 vote tie) and think the US Supreme Court will end up selecting the President, or otherwise a rerun of "Gorebushoff".
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: I just can't see how anyone can be undecided at this point.
I'm such; and, with my lifetime Presidential voting record of 6R 5D 1I, independent.
Finally to Messrs. Smith & Smith, you, like my Sister, are what I would characterize as ABO's - Anyone But Obama.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlikely scenario, Mr Norman. (And you are accurate; I am an ABO voter.) If Wile E Coyote and Yosemite Sam were the nominees, I would vote for them.
posted
The poll you note, Mr. Smith, presumes Romney will take ALL the swing states. I know that is what "the base" would like to believe, but I believe quite doubtful.
How does a "raw 267 all" sound and New Hampshire (4) in contest sound, that's me.
I'm fearful, not just for my lost night of sleep (when you get to my age, you'll find that to be a scarce commodity), but for "the good of our Republic" and our electoral system.
There are good points and bad for the retention of the electoral college. Residing in a "safe (Romney in your case) state", don't you feel your vote is for naught? I know I do also residing in a "safe (Obama) state". But it is my vote; and it's all I got; be assured I'll be over at Prospect School mid-morning.
Finally, the positive for the electoral college is that it makes "squeakers" less so. "Gorebushoff", when all was done, was 271-266
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with the electoral college. IT was designed to give the small states a voice in our government. Houston is larger than all of the 3-vote and 4-vote states and half of the 5-vote states. Would it be right for Houston to cancel out their votes? No. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college vote.
The poll I posted was based on the 2010 voting pattern, not the 2008 voting pattern or the skewed polls designed to give the democrats an advantage and a boost to their fragile mental condition. Most unbiased polls are showing Romney over 300 electoral votes.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As of right now at the time of this posting, this is where things stand:
Gallup: Romney 52%, Obama 45%
Real Clear Politics: Romney in the lead in the electoral college
PA poll: Romney 49%, Obama 45%
VA poll: Romney 50%, Obama 47%
FL poll: Romney 51%, Obama 46%
Lifetime Democrat Lee Iacocca just endorsed Romney.
Florida paper that endorsed Obama in 2008 has switched to endorsing Romney.
This is just a sampling of what is going on right now. The polls have been lying all along, and now they are finally starting to turn in the direction that they should have been all along. There won't be a repeat of Bush v Gore on November 7th; we will have a clear winner. Does anyone on here know ANYBODY that voted for McCain in 2008 and has switched their vote to Obama? I have never heard of such a person. On the other hand, does anyone on here know of anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 and is voting for Romney this time? Yes--the list of people is endless.
Obama is gone---thank God.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN: I'm very curious. You are one of many people who, at this point, say that you are "undecided". I can not grasp that concept in my mind. What I would like to know is, what is it specifically that you either expect or do not expect to learn about either candidate in the next 19 days? I don't see how there could possibly be anything else to learn in that time period, thus, my confusion as to how someone could be an undecided voter. The country is a mess, we have ample evidence how inept and dangerous Obama is, and I'm not sure what you and others are waiting for? Can you enlighten me?
PS: Yes, I am "ABO" for certain. I would support a can of orange juice over Obama, because the orange juice would not cause the damage that Obama will with four years of unchecked power.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wishful thinking Smitty. I choose to rely on sources that are more scientific than a selection of polls that are chosen to re-enforce the desired result. According to the statistician who has picked the most correct outcomes over the last 4 years (538.com):
"One of the risks in focusing too much on the results of any one poll, like the Gallup national tracking poll, is that you may lose sight of the bigger picture. On Thursday (yesterday), that story was one of President Obama continuing to hold leads in most polls of critical states. Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them."
Averages of all polls have shown Obama gaining ground in both electoral and popular vote since October 11. Statistically Obama has a 70% chance of winning as of today.
Romney has pulled his advertising in PA (no hope of winning?). The Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed Obama. In states with early voting (34% of Iowa voters have already voted), Obama leads 2 to 1.
Things can change, but I wouldn't say Obama is gone yet.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the good thing about this is that we will see who is right in very short order. I'm extremely confident in my opinion.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
With a careful analysis of the information available, I'm extremely confident, too.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Susquehanna has traditionally shown a much tighter race between Obama and Romney than other polls, in part because it weights its results by party registration. Firms that don't do this tend to over-sample Democrats.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: GBN: I'm very curious. You are one of many people who, at this point, say that you are "undecided". I can not grasp that concept in my mind. What I would like to know is, what is it specifically that you either expect or do not expect to learn about either candidate in the next 19 days?
One more debate to centered around foreign policy; two endorsements from major nationally circulated and respected publications.
The Times will come out Sunday Oct 28; The Journal not certain when as that is my "newbie read" - only forty years (Times is over 60 years).
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smitty: "Does anyone on here know ANYBODY that voted for McCain in 2008 and has switched their vote to Obama? I have never heard of such a person. On the other hand, does anyone on here know of anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 and is voting for Romney this time? Yes--the list of people is endless."
"Nine percent of 2008 Obama voters have switched to supporting Romney this year, while 5% of McCain voters have switched to Obama."
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, for bonus points TSR, google "2008 obama voters staying home in 2012".
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
While it would appear that this report largely rebuts Gallup, and of course read the deatils for yourself, let's focus together upon this quite pertinent Brief Passage:
To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context.
The context is that its most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around.
Finally though, lest we forget what the pollsters. i.e. any of 'em, have brought us in the past.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Norman, it seems the NYT is up to its usual substandard publication tactics. The poor, ignorant NYT employees do not know about oversampling democrats, or they believe the oversampling is OK, in order to give the false impression that obama is doing OK in the polling.
This is another excellent example of why journalism has devolved into the dumbest profession on our planet.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Smitty: "Does anyone on here know ANYBODY that voted for McCain in 2008 and has switched their vote to Obama? I have never heard of such a person. On the other hand, does anyone on here know of anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 and is voting for Romney this time? Yes--the list of people is endless."
"Nine percent of 2008 Obama voters have switched to supporting Romney this year, while 5% of McCain voters have switched to Obama."
Thanks for finding that. I have to wonder how accurate this stuff really is. I mean, right off the bat, this is what the fine print says:
"For results based on the total sample of 1,055 2008 McCain voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
So if I am understanding this right (and to be blatantly honest, math and numbers are my weakest point--I'm a bumbling fool with anything number related), then the true number could really be just 1% of people said that they switched from McCain to Obama. And then if you read further into the fine print, it's based on random digit-dialing of registered voters. Well, I know people who purposely give screwy answers to people who call and ask political questions just to mess with the caller. I know that lots of people do this, so I have to wonder if this number really has any meaning? I don't know anybody who fits into this category---and I've never heard of one. Does anyone on here know anybody who switched to Obama today after McCain in 2008? I keep getting a "Does not compute!" out of my brain when I think about that concept. It's so......non-sensical.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the debates are over; and now all that remains for this undecided, independent, voter to make up his mind are the endorsements from the two most influential news organizations on this planet - The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
I think it is no secret whatever that The Times is coming out for Obama and The Journal for Romney. But I want to evaluate their reasoning WHY they are making their respective calls. Hopefully from the two opposite editorial viewpoints, I will find some consensus, for along with any other voter out there, this is my "solemn duty", and I will be doing society a disservice to walk into Prospect School come two weeks and go "eenie, meenie, miney, moe....".
I realize some here are more influenced by thoughts conveyed in alternative news sources; that is your right and prerogative as last time I checked, we have a "free press" (and compared with much of the world, we do). But I'm from a school of thought where during eleventh grade the Current Events teacher walked into class and simply said "Gentlemen, The Times has come out for Kennedy...." and the remainder of the class was spent analyzing their editorial viewpoint.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The New York Times is an alternate news source. They appear to be on the payroll of obama's re-election committee.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still am at a loss to know why anyone, aside from wanting the job in the first place, would want a second term, but that is what they all seem to want (possible exception: Truman) . Seems like I recently saw a TV interview with Jimmy Carter: "there was still work to do during the second term....and the American people were deprived of seeing our plans come to fruition".
But when I think of the financial collapse, the White House tawdriness and impeachment, the do-nothingness and Iran contra, Watergate and resignation in the face of certain impeachment, conviction, and removal from office, the genial old man more interested in "golfing and goofing", and one so sick and feeble that "Uncle Joe's a great guy", why not just stop when you're ahead with one term?
Remember, the title and Secret Service protection are yours and your immediate family's for life and there is estimated $300M awaiting you "down the road" from the book, speeches, lobbying, and whatever else. Air Force One? sorry 'bout that.
I was really inclined to believe pundit John McLaughlin (PBS) when during 2011, he predicted Obama would not run and would step aside for Hillary (she would have "whupped" any Republican). I even thought there was some chance, albeit slight, that when Bill got up there at the DNC and started in with 'now I have someone in mind to be President....."
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, "Uncle Joe's a great guy," came late in the man's third term or early in his fourth term. There was a lot of what went on in the Soviet Union that was either unknown or ignored by those around Rooseveldt. He could well have been of the same opinion much earlier. There was a lot of thought among intellectuals at least that the Soviet system was the wave of the future throughout the 30's, if not earlier.
The lifetime secret service protection is a fairly recent event if I understand correctly. I had heard that after Eisenhower's inauguration the Truman's went down to Washinton Union Station and took a train back to Missouri without any escort of any kind. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong here.
Not sure about Hillary whupping anybody, but maybe that is just me, and I didn't vote for Bill, either. As was said jokingly, She cant't run for president. She has already held the office for eight years. I always felt that he was the face and she was the brain.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The lifetime secret service protection is a fairly recent event if I understand correctly. I had heard that after Eisenhower's inauguration the Truman's went down to Washinton Union Station and took a train back to Missouri without any escort of any kind. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong here.
Mr. Harris, not only did HST go down to Union Station without any security detail, he traveled in LINE SPACE aboard B&O's National Limited to St Louis. However, friends chartered a Business Car (that's a railroad "PV") for him to ride on the MP to Independence.
Likely the very last to "have served my country to the best of my ability and now it's time to go home'. No $300M former presidency; doubt if HST would have known what to do with it all.
posted
I certainly agree Mr. Mike Smith; but it is simply the fact that it could - and the consequences that could potentially arise could only be devastating - "OB" or "RR" supporter notwithstanding.
But there is simply all too great the possibility that one of these seven (apparently that's the number now; looks like Nevada and North Carolina are considered "safe" for one or the other) "swingers" will end up with some kind of challenge. Will such challenge rise to the level of "Gorebushoff"? let's hope not, but it all too likely that we can go to bed at normal hours and awake morning of Nov 7 with nothing decided.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The only problem is, when he starts doubling images to make his crowds look bigger, his name is now spelled ROMNMNEY (on the banners above that face the crowd). This is from Mitt's own site, honestly.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Well the debates are over; and now all that remains for this undecided, independent, voter to make up his mind are the endorsements from the two most influential news organizations on this planet - The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
posted
Yup, that's a shocker alright. The last time the NYT endorsed a Republican was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.
Their reasons for the endorsement are absolutely laughable. I think an 8th grader in debate class could easily slam-dunk their editorial board.
But fortunately, their endorsement is moot. Hardly anybody pays attention that that paper any more. They have fallen from their once mighty perch, and have become a laughing stock. Besides, Romney is going to win this election very easily. Don't believe me? That's fine----I will be vindicated in 9 days.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
