Fillibuster vote tomorrow

CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

CAGiversary!
Feedback
131 (100%)
anyone else really scared at this? All it is doing is concentrating power in the hands of the president and the senate majority. The will of the majority can always be over-turned, but with something like a life time appointment, I do not personally think that it should be majority say in order to pass the matter. This was designed to not let those seen too non-mainstream to not hold power in the courts.

I also don't understand how one group blocked over 60 judges during Clinton's term and yet less than 10 people appointed during the Bush presidency do not get approved and the Republicans throw a fit (I think I remember hearing 93 percent were approved).

Overall, the Senate could should have settled this matter a long time ago. They let it drag on, and instead of focusing on more important matters, they focus on 7 people. It just seems like the time spent by the Senate should have been spent on things like the war and other matters like National Security

What are yall's opinion on what is going to happen tomorrow?
 
If I remember correctly it's supposed to be close, with some republicans already saying they'd cross party lines. Though I think it's one of those things that, in the end, just enough will come to their senses and vote against it.
 
I am pissed. I've been on my Senator's ass all last week about this HUGE mistake being presented.

It is short-sighted and un-American. Initially the house and senate had no limits on debate. The filibuster is the last vestige of that tradition.

The solution is simple. Nominate different people. The judges presented couldn't make it through the process not because they were conservative (as the Senate has already approved many many conservatives ), but because they are dangerous.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Un-American: Liberalspeak for losing the hearts and minds of America after a decade or more of losing elections.[/QUOTE]

Un-American: Supporting a non-democratic process for approving judges of the highest US court.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Un-American: Liberalspeak for losing the hearts and minds of America after a decade or more of losing elections.[/QUOTE]

Um.. well clinton must have been republican, and I guess all those people shouting about how liberals are unamerican and unpatriotic traitors must be liberals too, at least that would be required for what you said to make sense.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Un-American: Liberalspeak for losing the hearts and minds of America after a decade or more of losing elections.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I can't defend that statement.

To argue that a provision to lawfully end debate is not un-American is simple stupidity.

Debate is at the core of the Senate.
 
[quote name='fanskad']I'm sorry, I can't defend that statement.

To argue that a provision to lawfully end debate is not un-American is simple stupidity.

Debate is at the core of the Senate.[/QUOTE]

Filibustering isn't real debate, it's just a bitch move made by the desperate.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Filibustering isn't real debate, it's just a bitch move made by the desperate.[/QUOTE]

Would you rather have racists and religious fanatics fill up the supreme court?
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Filibustering isn't real debate, it's just a bitch move made by the desperate.[/QUOTE]

When time limits for debate have expired.

If you honestly believe that someone will get up and filibuster if they don't supremely believe in what it is that they are doing, then you're naive.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Would you rather have racists and religious fanatics fill up the supreme court?[/QUOTE]

You should never focus on a law's immediate effects. Focus on the reason for it, and the long term goals.

Likewise, you should never enact a law as a knee-jerk reaction. "They're going to fight this tooth and nail, quick, make a rule against it."
 
apparently PAD doesn't know the different between our distinctly American system and other parliamentary systems...

Look it and and get back to me..mmm kay?
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']anyone else really scared at this? All it is doing is concentrating power in the hands of the president and the senate majority. The will of the majority can always be over-turned, but with something like a life time appointment, I do not personally think that it should be majority say in order to pass the matter.[/QUOTE]

I'm confused. If the majority is not supposed to rule, who is? The 'but it's a life time appointment' argument holds no water for me. It's always been that way. Why is it such a big issue now? They have always been selected by the majority in the past. That's part of the perks of being the majority.

With the filibustering done now, it essentially requires a supermajority for confirmation of the nominee WITHOUT writing law to that effect.

Then you have the fact that the filibuster had never before been used by a minority party to block the confirmation of a judicial nominee who had the support of the majority party. (BTW, this is NOT the first time ever that a judicial nominee has been blocked by filibuster, but the one other occassion it happened involved Abe Fortas, who was...not liked by either party)

Obstruction of this sort is just wrong. Give them an up or down vote, regardless of who is in office, and do it in a reasonable time period.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']I'm confused. If the majority is not supposed to rule, who is?[/QUOTE]

But you also don't want a 51% majority running roughshod over the other 49%. Bush is pretending that these judges are the only ones qualified and stamping his feet until he gets his way. If he was really worried about filling all the vacant seats, he would nominate judges similar to the ones that have already been approved. But no, he has to play to his base and since these are lifetime appointments, they are more important than cabinet positions. The GOP is overreaching with the nuclear option and there will be a backlash if they use it. This is just a power grab and all the polls I've seen have the public against it by a good margin. I just hope the voters keep track and vote accordingly in 2006.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']I'm confused. If the majority is not supposed to rule, who is? The 'but it's a life time appointment' argument holds no water for me. It's always been that way. Why is it such a big issue now? They have always been selected by the majority in the past. That's part of the perks of being the majority.

.[/QUOTE]

No America is not a parliamentary system. Minority has always been given a voice in the Senate. The constitution is the "advice and consent of the Senate" not "advice and consent of the Majority party". The point is, when necessary, the minority party is supposed to be obstructionists..they is the way the system is designed.

Also the "up or down vote" arguement doesn't hold water because all judges still have to go through committee. Now are committees obstructionist?
Also the filibuster isn't the only way to prevent a vote..blue slipping and holding them up in committee was used heavily by the GOP with Clintion. No one was screaming about an up or down vote then.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Un-American: Liberalspeak for losing the hearts and minds of America after a decade or more of losing elections.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad to see that your arguments are consistently within the realm of the type of intellect seen on bumper stickers.

myke.
...scared to death of the filibuster vote; evidently, a 95%+ confirmation rate for Republican-nominated judges just *reeks* of liberals' inability to play bipartisan. :roll:
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Un-American: Supporting a non-democratic process for approving judges of the highest US court.[/QUOTE]

Sort of like a judge striking down state constitution provisions despite majority of the state voting in favor of the provision with over 70% approval regarding same sex marriage in Nebraska?

Or the California judge who overturned the law in Glendale to PERMIT illegals to solicitate work on curbsides.

These are just two that come to mind, but this shit happens all the time, against the will of the people.
 
[quote name='Rich']Sort of like a judge striking down state constitution provisions despite majority of the state voting in favor of the provision with over 70% approval regarding same sex marriage in Nebraska?

Or the California judge who overturned the law in Glendale to PERMIT illegals to solicitate work on curbsides.

These are just two that come to mind, but this shit happens all the time, against the will of the people.[/QUOTE]

I don't recall "constitutional" being a permutation of "for the will of the people" at any point in time. The responsibility of judges is the former, and the elected representatives the latter.

Abortion is an issue that consistently remains ambiguous in terms of approval (although, according to Pew Research - http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=88 - most people oppose further restrictions on abortion). Despite that finding, I won't say that most people either favor or oppose abortion (I think it is too close to tell). It remains constitutionally legal, regardless of approval.

myke.
 
You know that out of the 7 nominees you have a Hispanic, a couple women, one black woman on the California Supreme Court who has been re-elected with 70%+ of the population voting for her? I mean if you can win 70% of the vote in California as a black woman who is racist and extreme.... wait.... you can't win 70% of the vote in California if you're racist or extreme.

Next argument.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know that out of the 7 nominees you have a Hispanic, a couple women, one black woman on the California Supreme Court who has been re-elected with 70%+ of the population voting for her? I mean if you can win 70% of the vote in California as a black woman who is racist and extreme.... wait.... you can't win 70% of the vote in California if you're racist or extreme.

Next argument.[/QUOTE]

What supreme court is voted on by the public?

Furthermore, it's good to see that you're talking about the *substantive* qualities of these candidates, rather than doing something silly like race-baiting.

Let's see who opposes Janice Brown, tex:

(the list is long; go to http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50 to see).

Egads. Such support.

myke.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know that out of the 7 nominees you have a Hispanic, a couple women, one black woman on the California Supreme Court who has been re-elected with 70%+ of the population voting for her? I mean if you can win 70% of the vote in California as a black woman who is racist and extreme.... wait.... you can't win 70% of the vote in California if you're racist or extreme.

Next argument.[/QUOTE]

Oh, jeez. Oh, fuck.

(from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/1stDistrict/retention.htm)

[quote name=' The fucking Government']"Every four years, more than a third of California’s 99 court of appeal justices face California voters for retention. In addition, several of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court face retention elections every four years. These are not contested elections; no one may run against the justices. Instead, the voters simply decide whether the justice shall continue to serve. If a majority of voters cast "yes" votes for a particular justice, that justice remains for another term."[/quote]

So, she got 70% running against *nobody*? Why, oh why, didn't you point that out? Also, why did you fail to point out that she ran for retention in 1998, 6 years before Kerry's race, and thus completely fucking irrelevant?

myke.
...allow me to pat myself on the back and say P'fuckINGWNED!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, jeez. Oh, fuck.

(from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/1stDistrict/retention.htm)



So, she got 70% running against *nobody*? Why, oh why, didn't you point that out? Also, why did you fail to point out that she ran for retention in 1998, 6 years before Kerry's race, and thus completely fucking irrelevant?

myke.
...allow me to pat myself on the back and say P'fuckINGWNED![/QUOTE]

Hey, if the public has the opportunity to remove a justice you have a vote. If there is a opportunity for an organized effort to give her a thumbs down orchestrated as a political campaign it counts.

So a yay/nay vote counts just as much as if she ran against an oppenent. Are you going to use your same extension of logic and condemn ballot initiatives because they too are yay/nay votes and don't involve head to head competition?

I guess so. Then again, ballot initiatives don't count much to liberals and Democrats. If they don't like them the find a judge in the state or federal court system to overturn them, even if approved by 70% or more of the population and state constitutional ammendments.

I look forward to the outcry on this when judicial fillibusters are removed from senatorial procedure. The statements are going to be worthy of framing.
 
Democrats are idiots. If they want to rule they should get their butts in gear and get elected so that they can have the majority. The American people have spoken and chosen a majority of republican representatives, but apparently democrats don't give a shit what the people want in spite of their credo.

The only other thing I would add is that the supreme court has become too powerful and the judges should have set terms and be able to have their decisions vetoed by the other branches of government - which I think can already happen but just doesn't for some reason. The point is they get the final say, but who's to say that their say is right like with abortion.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'] The point is they get the final say, but who's to say that their say is right like with abortion.[/QUOTE]

Not the people, I can tell you that.
 
[quote name='Rich']Not the people, I can tell you that.[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned before, judges determine what is constitutional, not what people approve or disapprove of; they are not always consistent concepts.

myke.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Hey, if the public has the opportunity to remove a justice you have a vote. If there is a opportunity for an organized effort to give her a thumbs down orchestrated as a political campaign it counts.

So a yay/nay vote counts just as much as if she ran against an oppenent. Are you going to use your same extension of logic and condemn ballot initiatives because they too are yay/nay votes and don't involve head to head competition?

I guess so. Then again, ballot initiatives don't count much to liberals and Democrats. If they don't like them the find a judge in the state or federal court system to overturn them, even if approved by 70% or more of the population and state constitutional ammendments.

I look forward to the outcry on this when judicial fillibusters are removed from senatorial procedure. The statements are going to be worthy of framing.[/QUOTE]

Yay or nay votes on issues (such as the well-known issue 3 this past November in Cincinnati) have clear-cut implications of a yes or no vote; you simply cannot say that it is comparable to approving or disapproving of one person's position.

Let me put it this way: a ballot initiative can, in many cases, be decided upon by the voter on the spot. If you ballot says something akin to "Issue 4: Would provide state subsidies to the adult film industry," you have an idea what the measure is about (and can thus glean what your opinions are on it).

On the other hand, a measure of approval or disapproval of a person's performance is typically listed on a ballot by the person's name. A name alone is indicative of absolutely nothing; thus, a well-informed vote is contingent upon a well-informed electorate (something that I think we can all agree is very much lacking). If I place a retention article on the same ballot on my adult film bill that asks for approval or disapproval of Judge Harold H. Horkenblatt, what can you decide, on the spot, about that person? Would you dare tell me that most voters have a fucking clue what their supreme court does?

myke.
...frame those quotes; if the filibuster is removed, it *will* come back to bite you and yours in the ass.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As I mentioned before, judges determine what is constitutional, not what people approve or disapprove of; they are not always consistent concepts.

myke.[/QUOTE]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

--Declaration of Independence

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
Click to expand...
--Abraham Lincoln
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Democrats are idiots. If they want to rule they should get their butts in gear and get elected so that they can have the majority. The American people have spoken and chosen a majority of republican representatives, but apparently democrats don't give a shit what the people want in spite of their credo.

The only other thing I would add is that the supreme court has become too powerful and the judges should have set terms and be able to have their decisions vetoed by the other branches of government - which I think can already happen but just doesn't for some reason. The point is they get the final say, but who's to say that their say is right like with abortion.[/QUOTE]

As I said before, is there something about 95%+ of the Republican-nominated judicial nominees passing (197 out of 207, for those keeping score) that just screams partisan hackery? Or, would you prefer that Republicans have unchecked power?

EDIT to point out that I do agree with your first point; we/they need to recognize that simply being the "not republicans" is not good enough. We need to emphasize that Democrats work to make sure that a middle class is safe from corporate theivery and exploitation; that upward social mobility is possible; that good citizens pay taxes; that minorities deserve to be respected and treated equally in our society; and that health care is a right, and not a privelege. We don't say that often enough.

myke.
...give me examples of the supreme court's extensive power. I'll start! I remember when the supreme court halted election recounts in 2000! That was pretty egregious! Your turn!
 
[quote name='Rich']--Declaration of Independence


--Abraham Lincoln[/QUOTE]

So, should we eliminate all judges, and, by virtue, courts?

myke.
...man, didn't you people take any civics classes? What is the purpose of the court if not to determine constitutionality?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, should we eliminate all judges, and, by virtue, courts?

myke.
...man, didn't you people take any civics classes? What is the purpose of the court if not to determine constitutionality?[/QUOTE]

If all of the judges are overturning the will of the people, then yes, we should and replace them all.

(read: 55+%)
 
[quote name='Rich']If all of the judges are overturning the will of the people, then yes, we should and replace them all.

(read: 55+%)[/QUOTE]

All of the judges? Show me proof of that. You listed one or two examples earlier, which is a far cry from "all." Who are these activist judges, and what are they doing, because I think all this "activist judges" talk is nothing more than horseshit. What are you planning on doing to replace "activist judges," but replace them with "activist judges" of another type? C'mon, that's pure silliness.

will of the people? That fluctuates so wildly in many cases (see war, support for Iraq for more evidence) that it's impossible for a judge to go against something that is inconsistently approved of to begin with.

Word problem time! One judge votes to keep abortion legal, and one votes to ban abortion in all forms. Who is going against the will of the people?

myke.
 
[quote name='Rich']Sort of like a judge striking down state constitution provisions despite majority of the state voting in favor of the provision with over 70% approval regarding same sex marriage in Nebraska?

Or the California judge who overturned the law in Glendale to PERMIT illegals to solicitate work on curbsides.

These are just two that come to mind, but this shit happens all the time, against the will of the people.[/QUOTE]

Well, civil rights issues aren't normally up to the voting pubic, I don't think, in hindsight, many would want something such as brown vs the board of education to be voted on.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']All of the judges? Show me proof of that. You listed one or two examples earlier, which is a far cry from "all." Who are these activist judges, and what are they doing, because I think all this "activist judges" talk is nothing more than horseshit. What are you planning on doing to replace "activist judges," but replace them with "activist judges" of another type? C'mon, that's pure silliness.

will of the people? That fluctuates so wildly in many cases (see war, support for Iraq for more evidence) that it's impossible for a judge to go against something that is inconsistently approved of to begin with.

Word problem time! One judge votes to keep abortion legal, and one votes to ban abortion in all forms. Who is going against the will of the people?

myke.[/QUOTE]

Your exact words were "all."

I'd respond in full, but 24 is on
 
im with rich here. todays america is not what it was intended to be AT ALL. this country is a joke. the founding fathers should be glad their dead.
 
[quote name='punqsux']im with rich here. todays america is not what it was intended to be AT ALL. this country is a joke. the founding fathers should be glad their dead.[/QUOTE]

if we listened to our forefathers like Thomas Jefferson, this country would be a rural society dominated by whites through slavery.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']if we listened to our forefathers like Thomas Jefferson, this country would be a rural society dominated by whites through slavery.[/QUOTE]

maybe i should have clarified, i meant what they said and scripted, not what they practiced ^^
 
[quote name='punqsux']maybe i should have clarified, i meant what they said and scripted, not what they practiced ^^[/QUOTE]

I should have clarified. When stated what his vision for America was, he felt this was the direction America should take. I am sorry that came out wrong, I was watching 24.

and if we are to follow the unammended constitution and look at how America would be, all the freedoms as far as who we vote for would not be given to us. The forefathers wanted the people to have limited power because they felt them too dumb. I personally do not want to live in a society where the people have limited power, but with that said, there should be a body that should not sway with the will of the people. If everything is viewed in a political manner, this would make things such as judicial impartiality a thing of the past. Considering the president's stance on reviewing cases of people on death row, I would not want to be brought in front of one of these appointments where my political life was on the line. Innocent people who were convicted would never get out in a society like this.
 
[quote name='punqsux']maybe i should have clarified, i meant what they said and scripted, not what they practiced ^^[/QUOTE]

Do as I say, not as I do, huh? Talk about shitty parenting from the forefathers. :lol:
 
[quote name='Rich']Your exact words were "all."

I'd respond in full, but 24 is on[/QUOTE]

Then, if all judges ought to be replaced, yet all judges are wrong, how exactly do we replace them? Won't the next judges, by your logic, be necessary to replace eventually (since they don't represent the "will of the people" regardless of their stance)?

It appears you've put yourself into a corner, but let me know if I'm missing something you've not elaborated upon.

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Then, if all judges ought to be replaced, yet all judges are wrong, how exactly do we replace them? Won't the next judges, by your logic, be necessary to replace eventually (since they don't represent the "will of the people" regardless of their stance)?

It appears you've put yourself into a corner, but let me know if I'm missing something you've not elaborated upon.

myke.[/QUOTE]

Again, YOU said all and you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not falling for your little jedi mind tricks. Go reread the thread.

Judges that go against the will of the supermajority deserve to be removed from office. "all" judges do not go against the will of the supermajority. Most judges, in fact, don't.
 
Well it's over. Frist lost. The Senate remains as the founding fathers intended...a body of compromise.

I don't know what is worse in this whole thing. The GOPs attempt as changing the role of the Senate over a hissy fit that Dems are actually doing their job, the hate towards the third pillar of government( judicial) or the fact that so many conservatives think it's ok for the majority to run roughshod over the constitution simply because they are the majority.

It is basic civics people. We are a republic.
 
[quote name='Rich']Again, YOU said all and you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not falling for your little jedi mind tricks. Go reread the thread.

Judges that go against the will of the supermajority deserve to be removed from office. "all" judges do not go against the will of the supermajority. Most judges, in fact, don't.[/QUOTE]

Alright, then. How about my word problem? One votes for abortion, one against; which one would you remove?

myke.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Well it's over. Frist lost. The Senate remains as the founding fathers intended...a body of compromise.

I don't know what is worse in this whole thing. The GOPs attempt as changing the role of the Senate over a hissy fit that Dems are actually doing their job, the hate towards the third pillar of government( judicial) or the fact that so many conservatives think it's ok for the majority to run roughshod over the constitution simply because they are the majority.

It is basic civics people. We are a republic.[/QUOTE]

If Frist lost, how is it that some of these nominees are going to face a vote?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Alright, then. How about my word problem? One votes for abortion, one against; which one would you remove?

myke.[/QUOTE]

Put it up for a vote with the people, get back to me with the results, and get rid of the judge who knowingly voted against a supermajority. If there is no supermajority, both stay. This isn't complicated.

Votes to ban gay marriages completely were received with supermajorities around the country. Judges overturned these.
 
[quote name='Rich']Put it up for a vote with the people, get back to me with the results, and get rid of the judge who knowingly voted against a supermajority. If there is no supermajority, both stay. This isn't complicated.

Votes to ban gay marriages completely were received with supermajorities around the country. Judges overturned these.[/QUOTE]

Since you have no data one way or another, you would retroactively be punishing a judge for going against a public attitude that wasn't known yet (although data suggest, by a sliver of a margin, that people are in favor of keeping abortion legally available). You'd remove a person for passing judgement that didn't exist yet? That's pretty harsh.

Here's another hypothetical; suppose "the people" wanted to legalize slave ownership again (it's a long stretch, to greatly understate it, but it's *my* hypothetical). The "will of the people," in your verbage, is to return to treating human beings as property. Suppose a judge overturned that, saying that slavery was not constitutional. If you want to remain consistent with your logic, you'd remove the "activist judge" who claimed that slavery was unconstitutional.

I agree that it isn't complicated; judges don't face elections, and are (mostly) given long or life terms for a reason. They sometimes make difficult descisions, that go against the will of the people. Again, it isn't complicated - judges interpret the constitution. Can you at least admit that the concepts of "constitutionality" and the "will of the people" are two separate concepts?

myke.
...if we agree that "all men are created equal" being a premise for this country, it would stand that allowing these equal people to benefit equally from our society is in perfect harmony with our national ideals; to prevent them from doing so is discriminatory and contradictory to the idea that "all men are created equal" by placing one classification as inherently better than the other. With that in mind, I *would* argue that preventing gay marriage is unconstitutional.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Since you have no data one way or another, you would retroactively be punishing a judge for going against a public attitude that wasn't known yet (although data suggest, by a sliver of a margin, that people are in favor of keeping abortion legally available). You'd remove a person for passing judgement that didn't exist yet? That's pretty harsh.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, you're one of those guys that don't read what I write, eh?

"and get rid of the judge who knowingly voted against a supermajority."

As for your other "hypothetical," I refuse to answer, as it insults mine, and everyone who agrues with you's, intelligence. We both know it's not plausible. Had this been a century ago, and slavery was still prevalent all over the world, perhaps I would agree that slavery should stay institutionalized.
 
[quote name='Rich']Oh, you're one of those guys that don't read what I write, eh?

"and get rid of the judge who knowingly voted against a supermajority."

As for your other "hypothetical," I refuse to answer, as it insults mine, and everyone who agrues with you's, intelligence. We both know it's not plausible. Had this been a century ago, and slavery was still prevalent all over the world, perhaps I would agree that slavery should stay institutionalized.[/QUOTE]

Please, I called you out on a scenario that complicates the overly simplistic view you've presented, and you pull some "I'm too good for this" nonsense. I see right through that.

If you don't like slavery, take the vote against gay marriage. Are you positive that enacting a vote that actively discriminates against a class of people is constitutional?

Also, for the third time (although I'll avoid the pretentious fonts and such), can you at least acknowledge a difference between the concepts of "constitutionality" and "the will of the people." If yes, to which do judges rely upon more as a rule of judgment, based upon your civics lessons?

myke.
..."meh, I'm too good to take on slavery as a hypothetical." Give me a break, you know you couldn't answer it without contradicting yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top