It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Muaddip is a true believer who, dispite his self-professed adherence to "facts" (selectively picked if you ask me) compulsively rejects any criticism of Bush or the Republicans...and they refer to us liberals as knee jerking.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
C'mon man, that doesn't add to the topic. Let's discuss it, not each other.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Of course it does...he's posted several times on this thread asserting that it is a false story even though you can find dozens of links to it and most from very reputable sources. He has done this before. Even though it didn't make the evening news (there is alot that doesn't), its all over the web and there has been no attempts to repudiate it...except for known republican collaborators and supporters.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Of course it does...he's posted several times on this thread asserting that it is a false story even though you can find dozens of links to it and most from very reputable sources. He has done this before. Even though it didn't make the evening news (there is alot that doesn't), its all over the web and there has been no attempts to repudiate it...except for known republican collaborators and supporters.


Yes but what has this to do with what SDO said?

BTW, Republican doesn't need to be a bad word. Not to real Republicans.


That's another topic all together.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by grover
Of course it does...he's posted several times on this thread asserting that it is a false story even though you can find dozens of links to it and most from very reputable sources. He has done this before. Even though it didn't make the evening news (there is alot that doesn't), its all over the web and there has been no attempts to repudiate it...except for known republican collaborators and supporters.


Yes but what has this to do with what SDO said?

BTW, Republican doesn't need to be a bad word. Not to real Republicans.


That's another topic all together.


I agree with you Intrepid, there are Republicans I respect, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins of Maine are two, As is Lincoln Chaffe, and even though I rarely agree with a thing he says, ya gotta respect John McCain

...OK what does this have to do with what Sandra Day O'Connor said? Simple...It has become the practice of the hard right to shout down and to obstruct any voice they do not want to hear, and this happens here, in print and on the air, radio or TV. Such obstructionism does not bode well for any democracy...to block out opposition voices is to prevent a fair hearing, and no representive system of government can function well under such circumstance. One of the worst things Reagan did for this country was to repeal equal air time.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
...OK what does this have to do with what Sandra Day O'Connor said? Simple...It has become the practice of the hard right to shout down and to obstruct any voice they do not want to hear, and this happens here, in print and on the air, radio or TV.


Even to the extent of casting off the ones they used to "quote" and/or adhere to. Lame excuses as to how officials "could" be wrong and they are those same officials that they praised in the past.

Some people can't admit it's WRONG, even when their own people are telling them it is.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Sorry Muaddib, I know you dislike me debating you but this was just too much. A Republican appointed now ex-judge says something that doesn't comform to what you think/want and then she is discarded with such a feeble arguement. WHY? Because you don't like what she has to say? Because it goes against this Administration?


I don't dislike you debating me, i questioned some of your decisions and actions in the past. There is a difference.

Going back to the topic, where did I say that my argument for discounting what she is saying is what Boxer said?.... I was talking about Senator Boxer, for the hard headed people out there who seem to believe that just because she was a judge that she must be right....

The argument which I used to debate what she is saying, can be found in my previous post.

Here is a summary anyways.....

SDO wants to discard over 200 years of judiciary in the United States, she wants other judges to keep using the laws from foreign countries to reach decisions in United States Courts, and she is debating that the decision by the House of Representatives that judges in the U.S. must use our own laws and our own experience of over 200 years of judiciary and she uses that as her argument for claiming the U.S. is at the beginning of becoming a dictatorship?......

Let me make it clearer... is the United States an independent country where judges should be using our own laws and our own experience in judiciary, which amounts to more than 200 years, or should the United States become an extension of European countries and United States judges should use European laws to base their decisions on?.....

I am pretty sure the anwser is very clear.




Originally posted by intrepid
"The fact remains that even U.S. officials can be wrong", does that include Bush? I think he was wrong about Iraq, thanks for giving credence to my arguement.


Humm....we are going back to this huh?.... I guess then half of the world was wrong, and every intelligence agency was wrong. From the Spanish government, to the French, the Italians, the Czech Republic, and even the Russian intelligence.

Despite what some want to claim about "president Bush being the only one who was wrong" pretty much everybody was wrong, unless there were reasons for ousting Saddam, and Saddam did have wmd. You don't want to accept the evidence and believe that empty chemical warheads which were in possesion of Saddam with other material, tons of documents dealing with wmd, banned missiles, etc, etc, if you believe that all that is not enough evidence and you wanted to see a nuclear cloud in your own backyard as evidence, that is your problem.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Sandra Day O'Connor has always impressed me with her conviction, clarity and character

regardless of her position, I always find she always brings something to the table

.02



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
...OK what does this have to do with what Sandra Day O'Connor said? Simple...It has become the practice of the hard right to shout down and to obstruct any voice they do not want to hear, and this happens here, in print and on the air, radio or TV.

So, some people shout down other people. So what? That's democracy, that's free speech. When/if the Democrats get back in power, they will do the same. Guaranteed.

From the base article:

O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.

Sounds like she has a special place in her heart for Delay. But does that mean he has to hold his opinions to himself? No, the same as she doesn't have to hold her sarcasm back. Is it "strongarming" the judiciary? No. Maybe. Short of impeachment, there's nothing Delay can do, other than yell and scream. SDO can just say
.

What has this got to do with us? Nothing, except to take note of her reminder to be ever vigilant, as shown by her statement

O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."


She never said we are a dictatorship. People in this thread have, however. They have also said that our First Amendment rights are gone, seized by Bush. That's where I ask for examples, and when I get "hunches and feelings" as supposed proof, I dismiss them. So I get called a shill with tunnel vision. Big deal, that's the only argument that some people have.

The article that spurred all this discussion is an opinion piece on what SDO said, without even a transcript of her speech to fall back upon. So we must rely on the notes of the sole reporter present. And, as the opening statement of the article states,

Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule.

And when you, and others, say that this or that is a right-wing tactic, I have to laugh. Where do you think they learned their dirty tricks from? From being out of power for a long time. Circles go 'round.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
This what I see about the debated issue now of the international laws.



The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark... There is talk today about the "internationalization of legal relations." We are already seeing this in American courts, and should see it increasingly in the future. This does not mean, of course, that our courts can or should abandon their character as domestic institutions. But conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts - what is sometimes called "transjudicialism".


She was just making an observation and voiced her opinion of seen more or increasing trend in our courts when it comes to laws from other countries taken in consideration as references while making decisions in our own courts.

Yes the supreme courts Has used international laws when they deemed necessary as just part of comparing cases that comes to the courts that has been in other courts in other countries to see how the rulings has gone.

But just as references not as to used them.

The whole fuss about this was because conservatives didn’t like what she said and decided to criticize her and to use it as an excuse to pass a resolution.

Trasjudicalism has been used by our supreme court before and nobody have any problem about it until she became public with her opinions.

The issues that the supreme court has taken or used transjudicalism are actually when it comes to

the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights and other coutries


Why because is many instances in which cases has comes to the supreme court that our own constitution doesn’t provided a solution to it.

The judges are not taking international laws and using them here but they are looking at them as references for the cases.

Again that big deal made is as usual for the conservatives that find this practice to liberal for justices to used.

Big deal.

I am very sorry Muadibb but this time you have not clue what you are referring too, and you are falling for the same trash that the conservatives are using because they didn't like what she said about using foreign country laws not to make decisions but for references when our own constitution can not answer certain cases that comes to our supreme court.

Six of the judges agree with that.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, some people shout down other people. So what? That's democracy, that's free speech. When/if the Democrats get back in power, they will do the same. Guaranteed.


Yes is democracy to express disapointment and to want to shout somebody else because we may not agree with what they say.

But when the government is the one doing the suppresion of speech and deeming everything a national security treath and try to pass law to stop the press from taking about the wrong doings of the government then that is not democracy at all.

You are right is not going to stop with the Demcrats because they are just the same with different name.


Dictatorships come with many faces and is not limited to one person or doings it can come slowly like a thief in the night before we the people even realized that our so call freedoms have a prize.



She never said we are a dictatorship.


No she didn't but she did make references as to how easily we can become one, a nice eye opener.

As for the Freedom of speech you better read it carefuly you will be surprise to see that is not actually garantee after all.

What is so wrong to talk about our own country falling into some type or other of dictatorship powers, Bush himself has made coments about dicatorship.



You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Bush was quoted in Governing Magazine in 1998, describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.


"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked on another occasion.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " Bush was quoted in the July 30, 2001, issue of Business Week.



Actually when Bush don't even ask for what he wants, he goes around the congress and get it anyway.

Still the article on SDO has to be disected, chew and hacked because it doesn't match the opinons of some.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
actually I took what she said about the "strong arming" of the justices to be referring to instances such as this:

---------------------------------------------------

"Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., a 1990 George H. W. Bush appointee, in a concurring opinion, rebuked President Bush and Congress : "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."

"Because the special legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush "constitutes legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a 'rule of decision') the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." To hold otherwise, Judge Birch concluded, would be to act in a manner consistent with the label "activist judge." "


en.wikipedia.org...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

which led to I believe it was DeLay making a rather omonous references that those judges responsible would be held accountable for their actions.....

I'm sorry, but I don't see where international law, or the courts desire to use it occasionally as a reference, had anything to do with this case. the judges were upholding our state and federal laws!! some just didn't like those laws, and wanted the justices to ignore them!

so, I don't see where O'Conner's belief that the courts should be free to use international laws occasionally as references to be any more relevant to this discussion as I do Bush's belief that he can sign laws against torture and plain out state he has no intention of obeying those laws he just signed shortly afterwards!!

although, I got to admit, that attitude does seem to validate the idea that we heading in the direction of a dictatorship.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Still the article on SDO has to be disected, chew and hacked because it doesn't match the opinons of some.

That's the way you see it. I see it as it has to be hotly debated because not every agrees with you and others that we are in a dictatorship right now.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
BTW, Republican doesn't need to be a bad word. Not to real Republicans.


That's another topic all together.


A thread that is long overdue, imo.... It's an embarrassment how real conservatives have allowed that term to be hijacked and perverted into nothing more than a cloak for the self-interested agenda of a few Americans who know nothing about real conservatism.




Originally posted by Muaddib
SDO wants to discard over 200 years of judiciary in the United States, she wants other judges to keep using the laws from foreign countries to reach decisions in United States Courts, and she is debating that the decision by the House of Representatives that judges in the U.S. must use our own laws and our own experience of over 200 years of judiciary and she uses that as her argument for claiming the U.S. is at the beginning of becoming a dictatorship?......


Not a single statement in that quote is true.
I wont even waste my time debating it.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me make it clearer... is the United States an independent country where judges should be using our own laws and our own experience in judiciary, which amounts to more than 200 years, or should the United States become an extension of European countries and United States judges should use European laws to base their decisions on?.....

I am pretty sure the anwser is very clear.


What is clear is how your xenophobia has so clearly impaired your judgment and logical reasoning...

The former concept does not lead to the latter. Using foreign judgments as "persuasive authority" (a legal term of art, btw) has been utilized by the English common law for centuries...There is nothing new about it...and there is nothing revolutionary about it.

Incidentally, if you actually knew what you were talking about in this area, you'd find that it isn't really judges who seek the positions of "foreign judgments" to make decisions, but rather the legal counsel of the parties who seek to advance their arguments in the absence of well settled law. No court in this country will have their decision upheld on appeal if their decision is based upon a "foreign judgement" that contradicts well settled domestic law.

I thought you said you stick with the facts???? :shk:


Originally posted by jsobecky
So, some people shout down other people. So what? That's democracy, that's free speech.


No, it's not. ...another intellectual dishonesty....




Originally posted by jsobecky
When/if the Democrats get back in power, they will do the same. Guaranteed.


Sadly, I think you're right....and I will vehemently oppose such nonsense even then.



Originally posted by jsobecky
From the base article:

O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.


Sounds like she has a special place in her heart for Delay. But does that mean he has to hold his opinions to himself? No, the same as she doesn't have to hold her sarcasm back. Is it "strongarming" the judiciary? No. Maybe. Short of impeachment, there's nothing Delay can do, other than yell and scream. SDO can just say
.


You didn't keep reading... She continues:




This, said O’Connor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress’ onetime only statute about Schiavo as it was written. Not, said O’Connor, as the congressman might have wished it were written.



In other words, she was pointing out that the courts were reviewing the legislation as written by the legislators...Delay blamed the courts for something his own body was responsible for. If your interested in the specific Whittmore decision, which is the subject of SDO's and Delay's controversy, you can read it here:

Schiavo V. Schiavo

Moreover, here is an article that describes more fully the "strongarming" you mistakenly assume is only represented by a difference of opinion.




Schiavo case widens divide between Congress and courts

House Republican leader Tom DeLay's threat of retaliation -- even impeachment -- against federal judges for failing to do Congress' bidding in the Terri Schiavo case was just the latest manifestation of hostility from Capitol Hill toward the courts.

In the last year, the House has passed bills to divest federal judges of jurisdiction over legal challenges to the phrase "under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance and to the federal law that allows states to refuse recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states.

A bill has also been proposed to prohibit federal courts from considering suits over government displays of the Ten Commandments, a case recently argued before the Supreme Court.

No such court-stripping measure has become law since at least the 1860s.

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., author of a 2003 law that required judges to be reported to Congress whenever they reduced criminal sentences below federal guidelines, is now sponsoring a resolution that would instruct U.S. judges not to base any rulings on foreign court decisions. The measure is a response to the Supreme Court's references to international laws and viewpoints in recent rulings on the death penalty and same-sex sodomy.

Feeney was one-upped by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who told the National Law Journal in October that the president should simply defy rulings by judges he considers activist.

When Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a judicial conference in Monterey last July that relations between Congress and the federal courts were the worst she'd ever seen, she may not have realized how prophetic she was.

"In the last 20 years we're seeing, I think, erosion of the long-standing confidence folks have in the courts,'' said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and author of the forthcoming book "When Courts and Congress Collide.''

More...



You need to read the entire article to have a more sound perspective on this issues Sandra Day O'Connor is highlighting.



Originally posted by jsobecky
What has this got to do with us? Nothing, except to take note of her reminder to be ever vigilant, as shown by her statement


O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."


She never said we are a dictatorship.


Thank you for being honest about that.


Originally posted by jsobecky
People in this thread have, however. They have also said that our First Amendment rights are gone, seized by Bush. That's where I ask for examples, and when I get "hunches and feelings" as supposed proof, I dismiss them. So I get called a shill with tunnel vision. Big deal, that's the only argument that some people have.


I'm not sure where in this thread someone said that, but there is no harm discussing whether we have arrived at the "beginnings" Sandra Day O'Connor mentions.


Originally posted by jsobecky
The article that spurred all this discussion is an opinion piece on what SDO said, without even a transcript of her speech to fall back upon.


This thread isn't about the article, but about Sandra Day O'Conner's comments. Why does the one invalidate the other?


Originally posted by jsobecky
So we must rely on the notes of the sole reporter present.


Again, are you suggesting that Nina Totenberg got it wrong???
As I pointed out earlier, she is hardly a novice:




Totenberg has been honored seven times by the American Bar Association for continued excellence in legal reporting and has received a number of honorary degrees.



Without evidence to the contrary, I think the reasonable presumption falls in her favor.




[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Well done loam. Of course I expect nothing less from you.





You have voted loam for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
The United States' legal system is, quite simply, a (now distant) extension of the British legal system. We inherited all of their common law. While 99% of it is no longer valid, having been replaced by our own rulings in that time, lawyers and judges still frequently refer back to British law for explanations and guidance of concepts which are not touched upon frequently. (Interestingly, Japan is like the opposite of the US in this regard- the US is Japan's 'Britain' for common law purposes, because the Americans wrote Japan's constitution.) British cases are legal precedent where no other law is on key in the US legal system.

Legal practitioners, including judges, will also look at foreign law as being indicative of global norms or trends in the law, and thus as being, as loam said, persuasive in any arguments or decisions. While foreign law is clearly not binding, it may lend weight to a decision just as judges can look to, for example, the Bible, scientific studies, witness testimony, or any of 1,000 other factors when reaching a decision. Foreign law is particularly useful in this regard because the legal experience of foreign countries may differ from in the US and so provide some indication of what will work and what will not work over here where our own laws are out of date, nonexistant, or inadequate. You will not find one single decision, however, where foreign law was considered binding in the US (except for British law, as mentioned above)- only where it was, perhaps, highly persuasive.

International law- different from foreign law- is a part of US law. This dates back not just to recognized international custom, but to specific Supreme Court rulings from the 1800s. I think the Paquete Habana and the Charming Betsy Canon are the two seminal cases in this regard. Further, as regards treaties, they are considered part of the "supreme law of the land" on par with the Constitution. By association, many treaties the US has signed and ratified make reference to international law, so this could be considered another way the US recognizes international law in its own legal system.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Yes, officials can be wrong. But help me understand the relevancy of the point... Under your logic, I might as well not wear a life vest until AFTER I've drowned. There is no room for planning in your world view. That makes no sense to me.


WTH is it with your allegories?.... Can you not find a suitable allegory to try to make your case?.... You are trying to compare apples and oranges...

My whole point is that just because she was a judge doesn't mean she must be right, can you not understand that?....

WTH does "not leaving room for planning in the future" have to do with not taking anyone's word as gospel until I find all the facts?.......



Originally posted by loam
What are you in grade-school? Do I strike you as the kind of individual easily impressed by titles???
If I do, you'd be wrong.


I see, you can't debate my argument so you resort to ad hominem attacks... Good job loam....



Originally posted by loam
The simple fact is I have read her legal opinions extensively.... Have you?


If you did then why did you not mention what she was really refering to?.... Your lack of knowledge shows me the contrary to what you are claiming.


Originally posted by loam
Yes. But my two year old son has no world experience or judgment...


I hope your son is doing great, but I don't know what he has to do with this discussion.


Originally posted by loam
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn’t help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with.


I'd like to comment, but I have no idea what you are talking about...


It has to do with the fact that she is trying to use an excuse as part of her argument that the reason why she is recieving death threats, according to her, is because some Republican politicians are making it easier for what she calls "the fringes of society" to make these threats.....



Originally posted by loam

Yes....She stood at a podium...in front of a full audience of people...with a reporter present...at Georgetown University. Did you think these comments were made in her living room to a friend?


She spoke in a closed meeting, and if my memory is right her conversation could not be recorded. Why is it that this reporter only has transcripts of the meeting and she doesn't have a recording? Why wasn't this done in front of a camera?......



Originally posted by loam
By all means, do so. And when you have, please draw the connection between those examples and Sandra Day O'Connor's comments.


If you don't want to understand that just because a person had some important job, doesn't mean she/he must be right, and we better agree with her/him right now without questioning her remarks and the context in which she/he makes those remarks.... If you can't understand this, then I can't help you try to understand anymore....



Originally posted by loam
No. As I tried to explain before, YOU are wrong. This would be an example of you making a statement of complete ignorance... Find any competent lawyer and ask.


Complete ignorance?.... really?.... I guess one has to think that the United States is an extension of Europe, in order for that person not to be ignorant... What is it with you and the word "ignorance/ignorant"? Do you dream about it every night?



Originally posted by loam
It is...and has ALWAYS been...how our legal system works.


I was how it worked....because we did not have any judiciary experience...some judges continue to decide to use it because they are too lazy to think what the Constitution is all about....

After over two hundred years of experience, and having our own laws, decisions should be made by what the laws in the United States say, not what the laws in Europe "persuasively" say.


Originally posted by loam
Yes, and you will not find anywhere that O'Connor says otherwise...or any other judge for that matter... Foreign judgments are used persuasively, not determinatively. Get it? Or is the idea too complex for you?


Perhaps loam should enlighten us on how much did the founders of the United States aspired to emulate "persuasively" the Europeans?....

Perhaps according to loam, the forefathers, when writting the Constitution, wanted us to "persuasively" listen to the decisions reached by European courts, and by this manner American judges should make their decision...instead of interpreting the law according to the American Constitution....

After all, the Constitution of the United States and it's laws, were written to "persuasively" emulate the European courts....isn't that right loam?.....

Hey, who cares if O'Connors says that the "persuasive authority" of foreign laws in judicial decisions in the United States should continue to increase...

After all, the forefathers wanted the United States not to be an Independent country, but rather to "persuasively" rely on the decisions from European courts forevermore....

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Muaddib:

Refer to my last post.... I can't help you any further than that...

*sigh*



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Muaddib:

Refer to my last post.... I can't help you any further than that...

*sigh*


Loam:

.....refer to my questions, or you can't anwser them?....

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Read what I have already posted...they answer them all...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join