Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Filibuster Averted, Senators Have Agreement  
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1138 times:

This news just posted 18 min ago.

Apparently, moderate/centrist senators, including John McCain (R-AZ), have come to an agreement on the Judicial nominations . . . I didn't see the names of the other senators involved in this Yahoo blurb or the one on AOL. Yahoo is posted here, AOL needs a sign in.

Hopefully these "gentlemen" will get this over and done, and quit this elementary school bigger penis contest and get on with their business.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/filibuster_fight

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

"Under the terms, Democrats would agree to oppose any attempt to filibuster — and thus block final votes — on the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservative nominees, Henry Saad and William Myers."

I assume the two gentlemen from Michigan (not sure about the state) would get an up or down vote too, thus letting Saad and Myers nominations as the only ones effectively blocked.

IMHO, it's a good deal.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

Well...its good to see them actually agreeing to get something done.

Maybe they can figure out how they did it and do it again.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

Also involved in this are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

I congratulate these 14 Senators on averting what would have been a very nasty situation.

I have found myself very dissapointed with Minority Leader Reid (D-NV), who I thought would be a centrist willing to comprimise but has turned out as rabid and unreasonable are Nancy Pelosi and her bretheren.

Senator Reid was quoted as saying this: "We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message....the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

I have a number of questions for the Senator.

Who the hell is "we"? You weren't involved in this.
What the hell kind of message does a compromise send?
Why is your party acting as though it won this fight? No one won, it was a compromise. You're giving us the floor votes we asked for!


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7414 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Hopefully these "gentlemen" will get this over and done, and quit this elementary school bigger penis contest and get on with their business.

Quoting Dingy Harry Reid "We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message....the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

Well, class is not something Harry Reid has.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 3):
Senator Reid was quoted as saying this: "We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message....the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

He's an idiot. Moderate democrats had to do his job and now he is trying to score some cheap political points.

[Edited 2005-05-24 02:52:51]

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1083 times:

As usual the RINOs (aka Democrat lites) sell out the party and their supporters all to get the praise from other RINOs, the Democrats, and the media. Hell will come to them in the next election cycle.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1072 times:

B757300, if you can't see that these "RINO's" as you call them-who are, in fact, more the real Republican than you or your right wing extremists friends-may have just saved 7 to 8 of those 10 nominations for the President. It was their common sense-which the extremes of either party seem to lack-that led to this compromise, and will keep the Senate from becoming so polarized that it might never get fixed.

What we need is MORE, not LESS, of these so-called RINO's in the Senate and in the GOP, who aren't so beholden to extremist views, and treating the minority as a slave.

Congrats to these 14 Senators, from both parties, who had enough fortitude and common sense to overide the confrontationalists of both sides.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

At some point the Senators have to figure out how to move the business of the American people forward....

calling them RINOs and the dems whatever their hardliners call their moderates will accomplish nothing but piss everyone off and create more hard feelings.

I'd call getting the 7 or so nominations to the up or down vote a definite improvement over the situation this morning.

They were headed for idiocy and this headed that off.

I still blame the Democrats for the problem there. The abuse of the filibuster action in the truly unprecedented way, and I'm talking the systematic effort....not isolated incidents over a hundred year period.....caused this situation. It has been an effort to embarrass the president, and is sure to cause major problems down the road.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
I still blame the Democrats for the problem there. The abuse of the filibuster action in the truly unprecedented way, and I'm talking the systematic effort....not isolated incidents over a hundred year period.....caused this situation. It has been an effort to embarrass the president, and is sure to cause major problems down the road.

There's where we differ. I blame the GOP and Bush, for their thirst for absolute, uncontrolled power in dominating this government, and their disregard for the minority. It's easy to see that in the fact that Bush as put forth very far right-wing nominees for these posts, because he feels his party can simply dismiss Democratic opposition. Well, he found out otherwise, didn't he?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
still blame the Democrats for the problem there. The



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
There's where we differ. I blame the GOP and Bush, for their thirst for absolute, uncontrolled power in dominating this government

I agree/disagree with both of you, my esteemed friends . . . I blame both sides of the aisle - and not just the members in recent history . . . but for the last decade or so . . . more so in very recent history and definitely during this judicial nomination/confirmation debacle.

I am totally frustrated with the partisan politics in DC. The country is not moving forward on issues that are of equal or greater importance than these judicial posting because damn near every politician in DC is trying to show who has the bigger muscle! It's almost to ridiculous proportions my friends. Our own Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) returned to DC today, and has yet to make comment on where she stands . . . .not so amazing given she's a junior senator and not worth a shit from the get go; couldn't find her ass with both hands and a squad of Cav Scouts. Our other Senator, Mr. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has stated his position - pretty moderate one - but has continued to tow the party line . . . . very disappointing.

Falcon, DL021 . . . both parties are to blame here gents. Both parties tried to trump the other. Both parties tried to out-politic and out-maneuver the other, at the expense of their constituency. It's a shame. It's preposterous that our government has become so petty in this vein.


I'm glad the 14 or so Senators were able to get the job done. But I'll make this wager - I bet I can name names of the Senators that were NOT involved in this negotiation . . . and the names would come from both sides of the aisle. They will be the usual crowd of Extremist Partisan Politicians that hold the Senate and thus the country's momentum virtually hostage playing their childish games.

OK, my friends . . . Rant Concluded . . . for now   

[Edited 2005-05-24 05:44:47]

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the Republicans wanted in the first place?

Unless I understood it, the deal basically said "If you don't use the fillibuster, we won't get rid of it." Now Owens gets her vote, which she will clearly win. Democrats aren't allowed to use the fillibuster against future judges or supreme court nominees, and if they do then Frist will call a vote to eliminate the fillibuster. This was the deal. This is downright scary!

Am I missing something here? The Republicans have basically eliminated the fillibuster and gotten their judge through.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 11):
Democrats aren't allowed to use the fillibuster against future judges or supreme court nominees,

The fillibuter is still a go . . . in an Extreme Circumstance . . . . I believe that's how it was worded . . .

And the "nuclear option" is no longer on the table . . . so the way I see it both sides "won" if you can call the outcome of this "biggest penis" contest a victory . . .

The country can move forward - I hope. The nominees get the vote in the Senate. The Fillibuster is safe for the moment - as it should be - and a bunch of senators, Frist, Kennedy and others look like asses (still) and some look like heroes - McCain and Lieberman et al.

The whole situation Tbar is bullshit. As I mentioned in my post to Falcon and DL021 above - so much time spent on this rather than equally as important issues. I mean, damn, we have a budget to pass, a war in progress on two fronts, airlines tanking, gas prices in orbit . . . and these "gentlemen" (and ladies) are going to guns over some judges! Give me a break . . . . .

Now, I'll be the first to acknowledge we will be picking a Chief Justice within the next 2-3 years . . . now, that is a time when a fillibuster and all of this politicing would be necessary . . . it will be interesting to see how that pans out. I have to think, behind the closed doors, everyone acknowledged that one must pick their battles . . . and this shouldn't be one of them . . . .wait until we have a really big fight to handle - the Chief Justice will be that fight . . . .


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1022 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
the Chief Justice will be that fight . . . .

Yes, especially if Bush has the gonads-which I think he will-to nominate Antonin Scalia, who is a lunatic.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1005 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
the Chief Justice will be that fight . . . .

I disagree, the only fights will be when a liberal justice steps down. The democrats know that replacing a conservative with a conservative is a zero sum game. They're going to save their bullets for a fight when it really matter - that is, when a justice that can shift the court's position on controversial issues steps down.

I'll even come out right now and predict that the justices may pair up and resign together or in close proximity - one lib / one conservative. That will allow the President to appoint two justices and not tip the scales.

As for the Chief stepping down in 2 - 3 years that's crazy. The chief has 2 or 3 months left. I'm 99% certain that the Chief won't be their come the first Monday in October 2005.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1003 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
I disagree, the only fights will be when a liberal justice steps down.

Wrong. IF Bush tries to put Scalia as CJ, there'll be a fight, big-time. "Liberals" were willing to go along with his choice as a member of the court-the vote was 100-0 for his confirmation, but I think, now seeing how really far out the guy is as a Justice, the democrats will rightly try to fight his nomination to the head of the court. He's a lunatic of the first degree, and has no business being CJ.

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
I'll even come out right now and predict that the justices may pair up and resign together or in close proximity - one lib / one conservative. That will allow the President to appoint two justices and not tip the scales.

Are you saying Bush would nominate one judge who is conservative and one who is liberal, to balance the scales? ROTFL! Dream on, man! This man and his minions in Congress want to pack the court with ideological Republican judges, nothing else! He wants to end the political neutrality of the court and make it another rubber stamp for ultra-conservatism.

If you believe that, you're very, very naive.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 994 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
If you believe that, you're very, very naive.

Falcon84 -

I find it ironic that you are calling anyone naive give your past history of predictions on this forum. Your poor record of predicting anything political even caused you to abandon your previous username to escape the laughable record that it contained.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
He's a lunatic of the first degree, and has no business being CJ.

I challange you to pick any of his opinions and debate the Constitutional argument he makes. Again it is easy to call a man a lunatic but then refuse to provide specific details of what creates his lunacy. I bet you haven't read a single one of his decisions that you could debate intelligently. Instead, in typical liberal fashion, you disagree with his position on the matter and therefore try to marginalize the man. Put up or shut up.

What you don't appreciate is that the job of a US Supreme Court Justice is to determine the Constitutionality of a piece of legislation with respect to our Constitution - not with respect to a desired policy outcome (or the rule of law in South Africa as other justices have started to cite in recent decision).

In typical liberal fashion you support a court that creates law to achieve your policy goals because the American electorate has repeatedly refused to support your agenda. It's been 10 years now that the GOP has been kicking democratic ass across the board in elections.

So please Alphafalcon, please list one opinion written by Justice Scalia and let's debate it. If you can't I think it will be clear to all who is the lunatic who so obsesses with the electoral successes of right that it consumes his existence.

What are you going to say on Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 21, 2013 can't come fast enough? Are you going to have to change your username a third time to escape what you've written. Please, please, please let's debate the facts, because Scalia's opinions are brilliant and your track record speaks for itself.


User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3303 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 991 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
And the "nuclear option" is no longer on the table

Almost...

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules — a pledge that Sen. Mike DeWine (search), R-Ohio said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157431,00.html

CliffsNotes:

Democrats: We'll give you Owen, Brown, and Pryor if you don't take away our right to fillibuster, and we won't use it on future nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.

Republicans: We promise not to execute the Option as long as you don't fillibuster our future nominees under the "extraordinary circumstances" cloak.

I am going to have to agree with Tbar here. This seems like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats, because the Deal essentially gives the Republicans their judges that are currently on the table AND the option of the Option down the road.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 987 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
I find it ironic that you are calling anyone naive give your past history of predictions on this forum. Your poor record of predicting anything political even caused you to abandon your previous username to escape the laughable record that it contained.

ROTFL. What does that have to do with anything. If YOU honestly think Bush is going to nominate a moderate or a liberal to join The Supremes, you're just nuts. He won't. He's the last person who would nomiante somene who doesn't agree with his narrow, limited view of law, Pope!

He will nominate just what he's nominated now-right wing judges, who would rubber stamp anything a conservative does, and would block anything anyone less conservative would do. He is NOT going to "balance" the court by nominating a liberal judge. He may not nominate an ultra-conservative, like Prisclla Owen, but he certainly won't nominate anyone who is pro-abortion, pro-workers' rights, etc.

Again, I hold my comment-you're incredibly naive in that belief.

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
In typical liberal fashion

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

God, it gets boring hearing right wing loonies say "typical liberal fashion". You don't even know what that means anymore, man. Pitiful.

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
What are you going to say on Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 21, 2013 can't come fast enough?

No, because I cannot conceive of anyone being a worse president than the one we currently have, so I'll stand by it. And what the hell is it to you anyway? You don't like it, Pope, you can lump it on your ultra-conservative head.  Smile


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 985 times:

And in typical Alphafalcon fashion he refused to rise to the challange. Come on man if Scalia is such a lunatic you should be able to find just one opinion that you believe you could use to show this lunacy.

My assumption that you've never read a single opinion seems to be right on target.

The clock is ticking to the next alphafalcon name change.

Just one opinion falcon, just one . . . . Put up or shut up.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 984 times:

Pope, I'm flattered by the attention you give me, friend. I've told you what I think of Scalia, Pope. He's anti-worker, he's anti-choice. He is in my mind out of the mainstream of this country-just like you are. I'll hold my opinion, friend, and I have NOTHING to prove to a nutcase like yourself.

So, you can keep up your obsession with me, or accept what I have said. Agian, if you don't like what I've said, that's too bad, Pope. I'm not wasting any further time on a fantast of the right like yourself. You are not worth it.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 976 times:

Just one opinion Alphafalcon. Put up or shut up. You keep ducking the challange. You called Scalia a lunatic - but can't seem to cite a single opinion that you believe is wrong.

It's easy to make ridiculous unsubstantiated statements when nobody calls you to the mat. It's much harder to make those statements when you've got to prove them.

Come on, it shouldn't be that hard to find a single opinion written by the "lunatic" in over 20 years on the bench. I've bet you've never read a single opinion.

You are just a lemming following the other liberal lemmings off the cliff. Try thinking for yourself instead of mindlessly repeating the talking points of your fellow libs. Look up the opinions. Research them. Think about whether or not the arguments are justified. Then form a conclusion.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 973 times:

Where's that bottle of Obsession Captoveur keeps around here.....

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 971 times:

And again the challange is ducked.

Just one opinion Alphafalcon; just one . . .


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 970 times:

I know I had it up on the shelf last week......

25 Logan22L : It's been this way for a long, long time, and I'm wondering of the embarrassment of this situation will have any effect on the attitudes of both side
26 Pope : Just one example of the lunacy Alphafalcon. Just one . . .
27 Tbar220 : Falcon, I think he's right, you should back up your opinion with a little research and facts. Why don't you look up some of Scalia's opinions and base
28 SFOMEX : Mr. Reid once said that he may disagree with Justice Scalia on many issues, but he has to acknowledge his intellectual capacity and that he may suppo
29 KyleLosAngeles : As soon as they reached their 'agreement' they quickly stood before the cameras, smiling and congratulating each other. They created the crisis in the
30 Dvk : I love how the conservatives bash Reid, but say nothing about Frist, who dissapointedly pronounced that the compromise "falls short". Shouldn't Frist
31 Pope : Frist got ripped on today's Rush Limbaugh show.
32 Jaysit : The upshot is that 2 incredibly heinous and stupid judges - Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown - will be appointed to the Appellate courts. Justice Brown i
33 ANCFlyer : I agree, and essentially said this when I was ranting early on in this thread to Falcon and DL021 . . . see this . . . . As long as we continue to ha
34 Post contains links KFLLCFII : Show me the name "Harry Reid" on this list, and I'll promise to vote for him in '08: We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditio
35 SFOMEX : Why? Care to elaborate?
36 ANCFlyer : Hadn't seen this list until now . . . First, let me say I'm disappointed that Ted Stevens (R-AK) isn't on the list . . . he and Inouye (D-HI) are frie
37 Jaysit : Chaffee, Collins and Snowe are the few real moderates left. I admire Collins in particular. Where would the nation be without those few centrist New E
38 SFOMEX : About Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, I think that reading part of her dissenting opinion is better than throwing nutjob-like adjectives: As Justi
39 Jaysit : don't agree with her, but I think she makes some interesting points. She is far, very far of being a nutjob. Fine. Think what you want. Her following
40 SFOMEX : Maybe when you read in Hindi, but I don't see that skill regarding her dissenting opinion. Otherwise, you wouldn't twist her words in order to accomm
41 KFLLCFII : She took an oath to uphold the Constitution itself, not to uphold her predecessors' cases. She clearly stated that here: The Constitution (First Amen
42 Jaysit : Maybe when you read in Hindi, but I don't see that skill regarding her dissenting opinion. Otherwise, you wouldn't twist her words in order to accommo
43 KFLLCFII : Just heard on the Sean Hannity Show: Frist, on a live phone interview, pledged to implement the Option if ANY future nominees are deemed an "extraordi
44 ANCFlyer : I simply don't understand . . . He becomes the MFIC in the Senate and loses his mind? Now, most on this board know I'm conservative - usually - in my
45 Falcon84 : Anyone else get the feeling this guy WANTS to use the nuclear option? That he WANTS to shut down the Senate, as some sort of political ploy? If this
46 ANCFlyer : Well . . . Falcon my friend . . . Listening to and reading the above . . . . I would have to tentatively agree . . . I think Frist is out for a power
47 Falcon84 : I look at it this way: a "mere" Senate Majority Leader doesn't just do this on his own, without the approval, tacit or overt, of the Big Man on Campu
48 DL021 : Now that I have seen that it is only three rather than 7 I am not quite so satisfied with the results as I was this morning when I was still misinform
49 ANCFlyer : OK, perhaps I'll rephrase - you're saying the same thing as I, just different wording. I don't think Frist has the balls to go to the mat with the De
50 Falcon84 : Not denying either, but I don't think Frist is going to risk so much political backlash-and political windfall-without having his flanks and ass cove
51 KFLLCFII : He had also mentioned in the interview that the Deal was not his idea to begin with (nor was he involved in the talks at all), and was very displease
52 ANCFlyer : Might be interesting to see Frist go toe to toe with McCain . . . . I'm afraid the Doctor from Tennessee would be sent packing his ass back to Nashvi
53 Falcon84 : Perhaps a foreshadowing of the GOP showdown for the nomination beginning in '07? Frist vs. McCain? Think about it: McCain will appeal to the moderate
54 ANCFlyer : Well, it would be a simple choice for me, same one I made in a past election . . . McCain or bust. Interesting theory . . . That said, why start all t
55 Falcon84 : Simple: because this time next year, Bush will be in full Duck gear, my man, and the power vacuum in the GOP will have begun. That's the reason.
56 KFLLCFII : If you're talking about the '08 primaries, I would have guaranteed it if he hadn't just washed up his chances with the hardline base over this issue.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Companies Have Cut Positions posted Sun Aug 16 2009 16:21:02 by MCOflyer
Senators To Ban Speculators From Cap 'n Trade posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:52:02 by MaverickM11
How Long Have You Been Using A Computer? posted Mon Aug 10 2009 19:37:42 by Falstaff
Puerto Rico....First Time....I Have Questions posted Thu Aug 6 2009 03:01:39 by HALFA
Have You "madmened" Yourself? posted Fri Jul 31 2009 12:48:18 by Iflyatldl
Will Australia Ever Have Nationwide Freeways? posted Wed Jul 29 2009 10:43:31 by Travelin man
What Is Life Like If You Don't Have A Family posted Sun Jul 26 2009 17:01:26 by AAden
EU To Have 1-size-fits-all Mobile Charger By 2010 posted Tue Jun 30 2009 15:03:21 by L410Turbolet
If You Could Have One Dream... posted Mon Jun 29 2009 15:06:24 by 7324ever
Self Gloss: I Have A New Tomato Plant posted Tue Jun 23 2009 10:05:37 by Comorin