October 04, 2010
— Ace "None of us are perfect."
After a long harsh dehumanizing campaign by her opponents and critics, she needs something like this to start the ball rolling, to at least get back to zero.
Effective? Not bad. She has a useful amount of sadness in her, of whippedness, that pushes the right emotional button. She was beaten up -- hard not feel sympathetic for someone beaten up.
More at Hot Air, including, alas, the next oddball quote that's come up.
Posted by: Ace at
05:34 PM
| Comments (185)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at October 04, 2010 05:38 PM (xMKKV)
Posted by: Editor at October 04, 2010 05:38 PM (YX6i/)
Posted by: steevy at October 04, 2010 05:39 PM (8z1vu)
Posted by: 18-1 at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (bgcml)
Posted by: CAC at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (Gr1V1)
Really, I'm *heartin'* the shit out of her right now.
THAT is exactly the way she needs to advertise from now until No-fucking-vember 2!
Posted by: Robert at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (jYQ2v)
Posted by: Ombudsman at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (c1oyg)
*removes bubblegum surprise temporary pentagram tattoo.*
Dammit. I was just starting to find her hawt.
Posted by: jcjimi at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (dVArr)
Posted by: The Creepy Ewok at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (XDeui)
Posted by: Dan at October 04, 2010 05:40 PM (1jzSs)
Posted by: CAC at October 04, 2010 05:41 PM (Gr1V1)
Aw. Minus the black backdrop it looks like an Ivory Dove commercial. She's fresh faced and seemingly sincere.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 04, 2010 05:41 PM (3Wf5t)
At the very least, it's a vindication for those of us who were arguing that a quasi-RINO was better than a thoroughly unelectable conservative.
But whatever. I'm still riding the Crazy Train, at least until Beau Biden decides to indict her for murder one or something.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 04, 2010 05:42 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: maddogg at October 04, 2010 05:42 PM (KGaxE)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 04, 2010 05:43 PM (U5btG)
Posted by: Ombudsman at October 04, 2010 05:43 PM (c1oyg)
Posted by: maddogg at October 04, 2010 09:42 PM (KGaxE)
Why not? Obama is a President.
Posted by: Editor at October 04, 2010 05:44 PM (YX6i/)
I love it.
I just hate the first few seconds. What advertising genius let "witch" even enter the copy?
Really?
Why doesn't she just tell us she doesn't beat her wife as well?
That would be hot
Posted by: jcjimi at October 04, 2010 05:45 PM (dVArr)
Posted by: steevy at October 04, 2010 05:45 PM (8z1vu)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 04, 2010 05:46 PM (U5btG)
Posted by: maddogg at October 04, 2010 05:46 PM (KGaxE)
Posted by: Waterhouse at October 04, 2010 09:42 PM
So this really is the end?
Posted by: Dr. Dorian at October 04, 2010 05:46 PM (dVArr)
Posted by: FilmLadd at October 04, 2010 05:46 PM (0NyMf)
Posted by: Jack Hammer at October 04, 2010 05:47 PM (c1oyg)
Posted by: larry king at October 04, 2010 05:48 PM (EsWC3)
Touche'
There's an up and down side to everything.
Posted by: Dr. Dorian at October 04, 2010 05:48 PM (dVArr)
Posted by: eman at October 04, 2010 05:49 PM (Zi5DB)
You ain't me. Seriously.
Posted by: guy who likes to jerk off at October 04, 2010 05:49 PM (EsWC3)
Of course if she could squeeze the witchy thing and masturbation into one video that would be most excellent indeed.
Posted by: The Chewbacca Defense at October 04, 2010 05:50 PM (YMZjg)
I'm totally with her on that whole "less spending" deal.
However, I really like to jerk off.
At this point, I just don't know what to do. Perhaps I'll masturbate for a while before I come to a decision.
Posted by: undecided voter at October 04, 2010 05:53 PM (EsWC3)
Posted by: steevy at October 04, 2010 05:54 PM (8z1vu)
Posted by: Rachel Maddow at October 04, 2010 09:51 PM (zxrQh)
Why the HELL is that so hot? I must need years of therapy
Posted by: Jack Hammer at October 04, 2010 05:55 PM (c1oyg)
Posted by: ANDRY GRIFFITH MEAT-PUPPET FOR OBAMACARE at October 04, 2010 05:56 PM (w9BEi)
Posted by: hannibal lecter at October 04, 2010 05:57 PM (U5btG)
Is it it OK if I beat off to her? I am so confused.
Posted by: jcjimi at October 04, 2010 05:57 PM (dVArr)
I really hope the GOP doesn't lose control of the senate because we nominated this chick.
Not a big fan of squishy moderates, but I'm REALLY not a big fan of having a communist named Coons as a Senator.
In 2012, let's nominate a slate of war veterans from IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, and pass on the anti-masturbation, pro-witchcraft candidates.
Posted by: stickety at October 04, 2010 05:57 PM (EsWC3)
Okay, on the exceedingly remote chance that you're REALLY Ladd Ehrlinger, Jr. let me just say that, a la Wayne's World, "WE'RE NOT WORTHY! WE'RE NOT WORTHY!"
And even if you're not (which, let's face it, is 99.99999% likely), your assessment is correct IMO.
Good god does the GOP ever need more Ehrlingers in their fold...it's guys like that who will make the post-ironic/new-sincerity connection btw. the GOP and the younger generation *work*.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 04, 2010 05:58 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 04, 2010 05:58 PM (U5btG)
Posted by: rdbrewer at October 04, 2010 06:00 PM (dQPW4)
Posted by: David Lynch at October 04, 2010 06:00 PM (23kaI)
Next time, could we get a candidate who takes a stand against pizza, beer, and football?
I'm thinking those three things are significantly LESS popular than masturbation.
Masturbation is the fourth rail in politics.
Sure, you can control my health care, tax me into poverty, and indoctrinate my children.
JUST DON'T TELL ME NOT TO JERK OFF!!!!
Posted by: stickety at October 04, 2010 06:02 PM (EsWC3)
Posted by: Waterhouse
Yes, they'll be no last mysterious years at Hogwarts for the two of you.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 06:02 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: The Chewbacca Defense at October 04, 2010 09:50 PM (YMZjg)
She can emphasize the O in O'Donnell.
Christine "Big O" O'Donnell - Totally not a witch. Loves touching herself.
Posted by: Robert at October 04, 2010 06:02 PM (jYQ2v)
Posted by: Jack Hammer at October 04, 2010 06:03 PM (c1oyg)
I feel that the party is leaving me.
I am a perverted conservative and have no home. Will she welcome me in her tent?
'Cause, like, I'm totally cool with that.
Posted by: jcjimi at October 04, 2010 06:03 PM (dVArr)
I really hope the GOP doesn't lose control of the senate because we nominated this chick.
Not a big fan of squishy moderates, but I'm REALLY not a big fan of having a communist named Coons as a Senator.
In 2012, let's nominate a slate of war veterans from IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, and pass on the anti-masturbation, pro-witchcraft candidates.
Posted by: stickety
Does this shit really need to start again? First, we're not "losing control of the Senate". We may have lost an opportunity to regain control.
Second. The powers that be are still downplaying talk of regaining the House.
Third. CASTLE WAS NOT A FRICKIN' MODERATE. He was a liberal Republican.
Jeez; people keep saying that like they were bewitched or something.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 06:07 PM (1O93r)
It's like Joe Biden running an ad saying "Hey, I'm not as dumb as you've heard."
I see what she's trying to do, and who can blame her after being unfairly savaged in the media from both sides, but I don't think it's going to work.
Posted by: OregonMuse at October 04, 2010 06:11 PM (Id5+U)
Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at October 04, 2010 06:13 PM (pyL8m)
Nah, I didn't have the heart to say it outright, but...yeah, I completely agree.
Ummm...let's go Linda McMahon! Let's go Dino Rossi! Let's go Carly Fiorina!
(That's all I've got...I wrote off DE-SEN on primary night.)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 04, 2010 06:14 PM (NjYDy)
Really, I'm *heartin'* the shit out of her right now.
THAT is exactly the way she needs to advertise from now until No-fucking-vember 2!
I agree completely. She comes off as very much a regular person, as opposed to a politician, and it's very effective.
Posted by: Laura Castellano at October 04, 2010 06:18 PM (fuw6p)
Posted by: Mike Castle's Yoga Class for RINOs at October 04, 2010 06:20 PM (Snu7z)
I'm happy we're winning in WV and Wisconsin. Glen Urquhart might be within 3.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 06:22 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: Love Jesus but in a gay way at October 04, 2010 06:23 PM (nuqRC)
Posted by: jewells45 at October 04, 2010 06:24 PM (Z71Vg)
I'm happy we're winning in WV and Wisconsin. Glen Urquhart might be within 3.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
He should for pity sakes. He's running against a jerk who was Lt. Govenor for Ruth Ann no-neck Minner for eight years. And now he's suddenly an independent. Fuck him. And he paraded around announcing how he's such a great Catholic, member of the Parish Council. So John; you pro-life? Hell no, bring on the abortions. Thanks for playing John. I told him to fuck off at the Polish festival about four years ago. He's Catholic when he needs votes. Then it goes in a closet.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 06:27 PM (1O93r)
Remember, this is a 2 year seat, right? So there's not a lot of downside to her candidacy.
Had Castle won, and won, we'd never be rid of him...another "entitled" pol. Not what we need given the dire straights.
Posted by: The Hammer at October 04, 2010 06:30 PM (32ubA)
Castle was a liberal republican but he was a moderate overall.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
Which begs the question; moderate overall what? If the answer is place holding hack, then I'm with you. Otherwise, he's a Liberal Republican. If you're suggesting that he's a moderate in keeping with the 'center' of America, you are way off base. America is far more pro-gun ownership, to name one example.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 06:31 PM (1O93r)
Why would we cheer for that loser? She's down like 9 or 10 points. That's impossible to make up, or so I'm told.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 06:31 PM (Ot6Au)
I remember when Arlen Specter was a 'moderate' Republican. Then he switched parties and, without changing any positions, he was a liberal Democrat. Funny how that works.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 06:35 PM (Ot6Au)
Posted by: The Hammer at October 04, 2010 10:30 PM (32ubA)
Four years, not two
Posted by: ya2daup at October 04, 2010 06:36 PM (yRrAd)
She sounds to much like a chipmunk to be sincere.
OTOH, I'd hit it like Shane Lee hit the fifth octave.
Posted by: mr.frakypants at October 04, 2010 06:38 PM (pffBj)
Posted by: Deanna at October 04, 2010 06:39 PM (7QtOC)
You guys sound like the Kossacks dreaming about the death of the republican party after Obama was elected. Politics in cyclical. Neither party is holier than the other. We've had corrupt and inept senators before. So have the democrats. We'll have corrupt and inept senators in the future. So will the democrats. Unless there are significant demographic changes or catastropic-game changing events in our future the likelihood of electing politicians whose views are completely disparate from the voters of their states is minimal at best. It makes no sense to poo poo the easy victories, regardless of how marginal the benefit is.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 06:42 PM (RC7LR)
Yes, politicians are also opportunistic. We're all shocked. With the exception of the occasional Jeffords or Shelby, the letter next to their name does influence their voting. We can be scornful of that, or we can use it our advantage.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 06:44 PM (RC7LR)
So I wish with O'Donnell that there was some there there.
I'd still pull the level for her--IYKWIMAITYD.
Posted by: Drinky Crow at October 04, 2010 06:48 PM (5+Fvb)
Posted by: TimothyCapwell at October 04, 2010 06:49 PM (/7m2e)
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
I'm not even sure what this means. Her views aren't completely disparate from her state. They are farther to the right than any candidate fielded recently. And this Calvinist outlook on politics is simplistic, in that it omits several factors. In this case, Castle didn't show the FUCK UP until the last week. You remember that Chris Christie endorsement? Nice, huh? Pity that Christie did more work to get Castle through the primary than Castle did. All of this crap about 'vindication' and Kossacks would be so much compost about now. But he didn't show. She did. And yes, the opportunity to flip this seat may be lost. But I wouldn't go so far as to employ such technical jargon as 'poo poo'.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 06:51 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: dr. lizardo at October 04, 2010 06:57 PM (bz+co)
Posted by: Mike Castle's Yoga Class for RINOs at October 04, 2010 06:58 PM (Snu7z)
Delaware is a very blue state. She is a very red candidate.
Obviously, the idea that you have to nominate candidates strategically is simplistic, but the factor that a party would irrationally overreach in the name of anger at the expense of electoral gains isn't a relevant factor.
We are losing this seat right now. Pretty heavily. Castle didn't think we'd shoot ourselves in the foot like that. Unfortunately he underestimated our stupidity.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 06:59 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: Mike Castle's Yoga Class for RINOs at October 04, 2010 07:00 PM (Snu7z)
Hey what were you saying about O'Donnell making this race closer?
It's fucking depressing that Castle announcing he wouldn't run as a right in probably killed our only chance of having her win.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:01 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: Mike Castle's Yoga Class for RINOs at October 04, 2010 07:02 PM (Snu7z)
Obviously, the idea that you have to nominate candidates strategically is simplistic, but the factor that a party would irrationally overreach in the name of anger at the expense of electoral gains isn't a relevant factor.
We are losing this seat right now. Pretty heavily. Castle didn't think we'd shoot ourselves in the foot like that. Unfortunately he underestimated our stupidity.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
Life's easy when you ignore everyone else.
Castle didn't even bother to put up freaking signs until that last week. All we saw here in Delaware were negative ads. And his defense of cap and trade, after all the media outlets derided her and defended him didn't help.
As for the anger bullshit, cite polling that proves this to be the motivation. I can cite observations on the ground here, and noted that people were not happy with the attack ads.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:04 PM (1O93r)
What 'screaming'?
If you mean dreaming than your dumbass should look up maybe a couple dozen posts to the guy saying its ok if we lose delaware too coons for only 2 years (its actually 4) because otherwise castle would get entrenched (never mind that coons would be entrenched in a state where they elected mentally disable joe biden over and over) or to the guy saying it wasn't worth it to elect a guy like Castle because he was *gasp* moderate or opportunistic.
Than again, reading comprehension and logic was never your strong point.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:05 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: dr. lizardo
This.
P.S. I thank you sir.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:06 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: YRM on iPod Touch At School at October 04, 2010 07:07 PM (xQuuU)
We can lube up each other's dicks with that courage when Chris Coons casts the 50th vote (+Biden) for Justice Diane Wood.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:07 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: Mike Castle's Yoga Class for RINOs at October 04, 2010 07:09 PM (Snu7z)
We can lube up each other's dicks with that courage when Chris Coons casts the 50th vote (+Biden) for Justice Diane Wood.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
What happened to politics is cyclical, what's up is down, what's in is out? We went from your Calvinist school of politics to 'gee whiz, we definitely had the majority but for her.'
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:10 PM (1O93r)
If you don't think anger was why Castle was kicked out you've got to be joking. O'Donnell made anger at washington and the establishment Castle the central part of her campaign. The RNC reaction to her win was a boon to her and helped her raise money. Your own response to me is implicit evidence of that anger. Oh dear, local paper dared to DEFEND Castle? Well shit, we know we hate them so O'Donnell must be the correct choice.
I do agree one of Castle's faults was being too lax. He was running for the general because he underestimated the voters stupidity. However, the many legitimate criticisms he made were tossed aside as illegitimate because primary voters were fixated on 'RINO hunting'. Now we have to tout campaign videos like this while details of witchcraft and claims of secret knowledge of impending chinese invasions are unveiled.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:11 PM (RC7LR)
Really?
You do understand that while politics is cyclical that legislation/nominations are stochastic right? Politics being cyclical doesn't mean we should take unexpected marginal advantages when they're available. Diane Wood might be nominated for a RBG or for a Scalia (please god no) in the near future. Lets say the peak for republicans rebound occurs 6 yrs from now. At that point its too late to get that nomination back. We're left replacing thomas or hopefully a breyer. Or when increased cafe standards gets passed now and becomes entrenched it'll become harder to take it off in teh future even if we do have a majority (see the bush tax cuts).
Shit, its fucking embarassing when you act smug about something you clearly don't understand.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:15 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at October 04, 2010 07:15 PM (QBQcg)
Posted by: British Villager during the middle ages at October 04, 2010 07:15 PM (slOv8)
That'll matter a whole lot when McCain's gang of 10 or so votes for her because "elections have consequences."
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 07:16 PM (Ot6Au)
We can hate on the gang of 14, but without it we wouldn't have JRB on the DC appellate court. I'm also glad we have Owen and Pryor as opposed to nothing.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:18 PM (RC7LR)
FIFY. Again.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 07:18 PM (Ot6Au)
I do agree one of Castle's faults was being too lax. He was running for the general because he underestimated the voters stupidity. However, the many legitimate criticisms he made were tossed aside as illegitimate because primary voters were fixated on 'RINO hunting'. Now we have to tout campaign videos like this while details of witchcraft and claims of secret knowledge of impending chinese invasions are unveiled.
That second paragraph was a priceless piece of bullshit. "I agree with what you said and now shall proceed to make shit up because it fits with the crap I've been spewing."
He didn't show up for the primary. What he did was very negative, which usually doesn't play well here. Dumbass. I and several other Delawareans gave warnings about this before the primary. Look back at the threads. People I knew here to be apolitical became resentful of the ads. And I see that now the charge has been expanded to include 'stupidity' and 'RINO-hunting'.
As for the 'anger at Washington', does the term Tea Party mean anything to you?
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:19 PM (1O93r)
The fact that elementary game theory apparently constitutes 'the whimsy of the aristocracy' is sad as hell. Who know what else will becomes the whimsy of the aristocracy tomorrow? Vaccines, breakthroughs from genome research based upon evolution, not being a perpetual minority?
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:20 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 11:15 PM (RC7LR)
Best in thread, Irony.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 07:21 PM (Ot6Au)
Shit, its fucking embarassing when you act smug about something you clearly don't understand.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
Speaking of stupid: One word. Ginsburg. Appointed to the Supreme Court by Bubba. And she was confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate. Republicans do not destroy nominees. Dems do. Biden (from Delaware Scranton, take your pick) does this crap.
And no one is acting smug. You've been told what happened here, and you've chosen to ignore it.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:23 PM (1O93r)
I'm not sure how to get through to you. You can't even understand what cyclical means and can't seem to connect that your specific post is an explicit exemplification of anger. Cap and trade and newpaper defenses that were resented by your ilk are anger.
If the fact that Castle was complacent because he was thinking logically is his greatest downfall then be glad that you've won the right to be down 15. And please don't give me the bullshit that negative shit doesn't work in delaware. You don't think the news about cruella deville's secret line to china are going to hurt her in this race? If not, why the hell is she still down significantly as people begin to know her?
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:25 PM (RC7LR)
If only someone smart would tell me how to vote, what to eat, what to believe, and what doctor I should see. Life's just too hard.
Here's a hint, dumbass. If you're the one complaining about the stupidity of voters, you're the problem. We the People are the solution.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 07:26 PM (Ot6Au)
trying to backpedal now
in that comment you specifically claimed by that my point that politics is cyclical was an example of cognitive dissonance when i claimed we shouldn't take a guaranteed Castle win and throw it away. Besides the fact that there's no logical connection between the other two, it completely ignores that Castle victory in an unexpected place raises the baselines for that cyclical action over whatever period he's in office. He'd be like a bonus +0.5 the entire time regardless of whether we had 44, 49, 50, or 55 senators and in some of those cases that would be significant.
And please, republicans will destroy nominations. It will happen. Right now we don't have the numbers, but I guarantee you we'll fuck people over like they did with Estrada, McKeague and others. We're already blue slipping people like they did with Saad. Which is another thing having an even nominally republican senator from a region where appellate nominees are usually liberal would have been a bonus.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:29 PM (RC7LR)
If the fact that Castle was complacent because he was thinking logically is his greatest downfall
Ignoring the fact that he was in a primary is evidence of thinking logically? Well then, those idiot Delaware Republicans should have realized that this was an imposition. Do you realize how asinine this sounds?
Cap and trade and newpaper defenses that were resented by your ilk are anger.
So disagreeing with a vote that could destroy our economy is automatically 'anger'? It's not possible that one might hear of the vote and the claim for courage and conclude that this guy isn't what I want more of? Naah; it's easier to label this as 'stupid', and anger' and 'RINO-hunting'. Heave labels around and be dismissive and demeaning. That's the way to avoid permanent minority status.
Hey guys! I have 'ilk'.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:31 PM (1O93r)
Nobody's mandating how you do any of those things. When somebody's pointing out the logic behind things then it isn't making an action compulsory. In Castle's case the reasons for kicking him out were either:
1 - think O'Donnell actually had a chance
2 - sending republicans a message
The first looks pathetic right now. The second is a potentially costly message to send.
Look, you can make 'illogical' decisions based upon impulses. Don't cry when your house burns down because of the 75 bucks you decided you didn't want to pay and don't cry when card check, a carbon tax and kathleen sullivan pass.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:33 PM (RC7LR)
Ignoring that he might be unseated in a primary was logical because of the history of the state, his strength as a candidate, the resume of his opponent, and the failure of delaware to send strong conservatives to national stages.
Disagreeing with a vote and consequences isn't anger by itself. Deciding that that's the one vote with which you're going to define a guy despite the fact that voting against him would probably result in the same outcome and worse (enjoy Chris Coons voting for a carbon tax and a 63 mpg limit), and that it was evidence that he wasn't even a republican or was a RINO is evidence of it. And please don't try to rewrite history on this. O'Donnell herself was claiming he wasn't a republican or 'man' enough.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:37 PM (RC7LR)
That's some fantasy you've got there. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we already had the argument over whether we'd be trusting RINOs in this cycle to be with us when it mattered, in sufficient quantities to matter. You lost. No amounting of bombast on your part now is going to change that.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 07:38 PM (Ot6Au)
trying to backpedal now
Fuck you in the heart.
in that comment you specifically claimed by that my point that politics is cyclical was an example of cognitive dissonance when i claimed we shouldn't take a guaranteed Castle win and throw it away.
So now Castle winning was guaranteed? Really? there are such things in politics?
Who knew? I pointed out that Castle managed to fuck up a one car funeral that he prbably should have been able to do walking away. He did not. I pointed out that your bloviating about cycles discounted factors and variables that can (and did) affect the outcome. The fact that you are displeased at the outcome is beginning to shine through.
Besides the fact that there's no logical connection between the other two, it completely ignores that Castle victory in an unexpected place raises the baselines for that cyclical action over whatever period he's in office. He'd be like a bonus +0.5 the entire time regardless of whether we had 44, 49, 50, or 55 senators and in some of those cases that would be significant.
No one debated this except you, idiot.
And please, republicans will destroy nominations. It will happen. Right now we don't have the numbers, but I guarantee you we'll fuck people over like they did with Estrada, McKeague and others.
Oh joy. More guarantees. I cited an example where a Republican Senate rubber stamped a card carrying honest-to-entropy ACLU activist to the Supreme Court, and you respond with: it'll happen one day.
We're already blue slipping people like they did with Saad. Which is another thing having an even nominally republican senator from a region where appellate nominees are usually liberal would have been a bonus.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
Would he have been of some use in the Senate? Probably. Did he turn out to be a petulant jerk (though not nearly to the degree of Crist or Moocowski) yup.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:44 PM (1O93r)
You don't understand how judicial nominations can be obstructed but thats ok, its not a simple topic. If we had 51 votes we'd have the majority on the judiciary committee. That means slowing appellate court nominations to a halt (which despite BO's lagging on district court nominations, he's actually kept up with) just by scheduling procedures. That means having repub senators from a delaware blue slipping a particularly egregious nominee. That means an extra person dems have to peel off in a potential gang of 14 situation.
And the 'you lost' shit. Spare me. I want to maximize the number of repubs elected and minimize the number of dems. You've won nothing. You've won teh opportunity to compete in general elections. You've almost guaranteed lost delaware and have thrown a senate race against soldier killer Harry Reid into a tossup. Ken Buck has run away from the tea party, Rubio has done the same and Paul has made his race closer than he should. Some of those cases are acceptable to (Rubio/Paul). Reid and potentially Coons sitting in the next senate aren't.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:48 PM (RC7LR)
Disagreeing with a vote and consequences isn't anger by itself. Deciding that that's the one vote with which you're going to define a guy
Who said that that was the sole reason? And no, once again, you're constructing some idiotic fantasy that reinforces your desires. 'I wanted Castle to win, and Castle fucked up the primary. Either I blame Castle, which might reflect poorly on my choice, or I blame the voters and pretend that ignoring the pesky primary was a reasonable thing to do'. And important people have more important things to do than wipe their ass, but hopefully they do it anyway.
Gee, do we know of any politicians anywhere that have had to strive to satisfy their base to win a primary, then 'pivot/moderate/adjust/run like Hell to win the general? Here's a hint; it doesn't happen that often here. Which maybe yet another factor you overlooked.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 07:51 PM (1O93r)
Castle was up by 15. For a delaware resident you certainly aren't connected with your state. Unless he was caught in bed with a dead girl he wasn't losing.
O'Donnell is down 15 and the central issue in her race right now is how strict her adherence to the fucking Book of Shadows is. Large scale cycles in party dominance are too macroscopic to be effected by the moronic case of one Delaware race. If you don't think this race was a guarantee I strongly suggest you place some bets on initrade against Crapo, Thune and Schumer.
Again, one race doesn't change the cyclical nature of partisan composition in the senate. Over small time scales though, that shouldn't mean that a potential gain of say one seat shoudl be kicked to the curb in the name of purity, because of the potential that extra seat has in influencing legislation that is constricted in time.
And please, your ignorance of how the judiciary committee works or how senators play politics with nominations without explicitly voting for filibusters doesn't all of a sudden make the confirmation of a liberal by a republican senate a point of anything. Nominations were more collegial at that point than they are now (and you can bet repubs are waiitng to get some payback for estrada, etc) even with the Thomas hearing but in the realm of legal philosophy RBG wasn't considered a fire breathing liberal lion like Brennan or Marshall were. The republicans have already done a good job in framing the debate enough that dems are too afraid to nominate a Liu or Sullivan to the court.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 07:59 PM (RC7LR)
It's a simple enough observation that Graham/McCain/Snowe/whomever will take turns hearing the call of history and vote with the Dems to keep the DC agenda moving. Castle would, and unfortunately Kirk will, just add more bodies for musical chairs.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 08:00 PM (Ot6Au)
Yeah, I'm getting out of this. Good luck to O'Donnell and the shitheads who thought she could win. I hope her 'I turned him into a newt but he got better' videos work. Maybe she can bring out those secret chinese informants to help her out. I"m guessing they hate commies, and Chris Coons sure as fuck has draped himself in the Mao flag.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 08:00 PM (RC7LR)
This just isn't true, you're underestimating how against the nuke option most senators are. You also don't appreciate how important it was to get people like Owen, Pryor and JRB on the appellate courts. These are your future Thomas and Scalia replacements and they're goign to be stars.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 08:02 PM (RC7LR)
Pretty much. Ace puts up a reasonably conciliatory post, and one of the folks who's still butthurt over DE voters rejecting their candidate shows up looking for a fight. And finds it, though I'm kind of amused that he's getting it mostly from Blue Hen, who voted for Castle.
Posted by: Methos at October 04, 2010 08:05 PM (Ot6Au)
I'm more connected than Castle was. I showed up for the primary; he didn't. For a troll you're about as connected as can be expected.
O'Donnell is down 15 and the central issue in her race right now is how strict her adherence to the fucking Book of Shadows is.
Yup; it ain't pretty. That's why Ace, Drew and others including myself advocated voting for Castle. Which you would have known had you spent less time with the glue and more time reading posts.
Large scale cycles in party dominance are too macroscopic to be effected by the moronic case of one Delaware race. If you don't think this race was a guarantee I strongly suggest you place some bets on initrade against Crapo, Thune and Schumer.
Again with the cycles. Who here is arguing this besides you? And no, I do not think that any race is guaranteed. I do know a few fools that thought that Castle was a guaranteed winner in the primary. I was one of them. Funny how that worked out.
Again, one race doesn't change the cyclical nature of partisan composition in the senate. Over small time scales though, that shouldn't mean that a potential gain of say one seat shoudl be kicked to the curb in the name of purity, because of the potential that extra seat has in influencing legislation that is constricted in time.
Ah, purity. Keep spinning. Better yet, prove that Delaware republican primary voters used this term. If not, shove it.
And please, your ignorance of how the judiciary committee works or how senators play politics with nominations without explicitly voting for filibusters doesn't all of a sudden make the confirmation of a liberal by a republican senate a point of anything.
So Ginsberg wasn't confirmed by a Republican majority Senate? So one vote from the minority on the Judiciary committee doesn't send the nomination to the floor?
Nominations were more collegial at that point than they are now
You have beclowned yourself. Biden created 'borking' well before Ginsberg was appointed.
(and you can bet repubs are waiitng to get some payback for estrada, etc) even with the Thomas hearing but in the realm of legal philosophy RBG wasn't considered a fire breathing liberal lion like Brennan or Marshall were. The republicans have already done a good job in framing the debate enough that dems are too afraid to nominate a Liu or Sullivan to the court.
And so we're back to bets and guarantees. If you had been smart enough to note that the Majority Leader decides if spending bills live or die, then you would have made a good point, though its one that Ace made weeks ago. Many here have already pointed out that judicial nominations are the weakest argument, due to the nature of the rules and the Party.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:11 PM (1O93r)
I'm not butthurt that they rejected Castle. I'm angry that they replaced him with a partially labotomized Sharon Angle and now have to cheerlead on absurd ads.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 08:11 PM (RC7LR)
Pretty much. Ace puts up a reasonably conciliatory post, and one of the folks who's still butthurt over DE voters rejecting their candidate shows up looking for a fight. And finds it, though I'm kind of amused that he's getting it mostly from Blue Hen, who voted for Castle.
Posted by: Methos
Wacky world we live in, ain't it?
The rantings I've been seeing underscore just how limited our viewpoints can be. Depending upon one's TV habits, and what appears on the web, people across the country might see an ad for a politician in Delaware for example, before I. And the world view framed by intelligent professional and amateur observers made great sense at one level, and missed some factors that are best seen locally. For a Poli Sci experiment, this can't be beat.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:16 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: Spitz512 at October 04, 2010 08:16 PM (XUIJ5)
You're relaly a fucking idiot - a person can be guaranteed to win in a general and can be voted out by an angry minority in their primary. That's what happened here. It's amazing you're having so much trouble decoupling two completely separate races.
Then again you don't think any races are guaranteed. We better get that GOTV operation out to South Dakota then!
I love the response of keep spinning, hwen you have to no response to the vapid dribble you put in that first comment claiming cyclical partisan composition of the senate was somehow at odds with an unexpected result in one race in a particular term.
And please don't use beclowned when you have no idea what you're fucking talking about. I referred to bork literally a post or two after that and before your resposne. I even mentioned why RBG was considered palatable. Either you're an esl caliber reader or you choose to ignore it because you have no idea of how legal philosophy has varied from the warren court to today. The last couple lines in this comment confirmed this though. They're the least valuable due to rules and party? Are you fucking serious? 1 senator in the minority can block at least a half dozen district/appellate nominees if she wants. That means at least 6-800 cases on the district level and more significant cases on the appellate level each year. That's the quickest avenue to challenging things like the constitutionality of the individual mandate or regulation of CO2 emissions. And these are lifetime positions. To claim their effect is minimal is absurd.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 08:19 PM (RC7LR)
I'm not butthurt that they rejected Castle. I'm angry that they replaced him with a partially labotomized Sharon Angle and now have to cheerlead on absurd ads.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE
Don't you know that anger isn't productive in politics? You should read blogs more. They tell you wonderful things like that. I know this guy who talks good about that, when he isn't bitching about cycles. He must be having his monthly cycle about now.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:20 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: Aaron at October 04, 2010 08:20 PM (XUIJ5)
That's it, feel the Wiccan power flow through you.
And then tell us how people who interpret Roe vs Wade or the constitutionality of Obamacare arent important.
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 08:21 PM (RC7LR)
Posted by: inyouheadZOMBIE at October 04, 2010 08:26 PM (RC7LR)
OK, suppose that you are a Delaware resident who is "undecided."
Think for a just a moment how completely disconnected you must be from the political process to be "undecided" four weeks before Election Day in such a high-profile campaign.
You turn on your TV and see this nice, pretty woman -- maybe you've heard of her -- smiling sympathetically and saying she's exactly like you.
As a matter of fact, if you're a guy, what you're subconsciously hearing inside your wicked little mind is something more like: Bring a four-pack of wine coolers and pick me up by the skating rink.
Call me crazy, but I think this ad might be a lot more effective in terms of basic psychology than any of these genius political analyst types realize.
Posted by: Robert Stacy McCain at October 04, 2010 08:27 PM (5czt6)
Posted by: eman at October 04, 2010 08:27 PM (Zi5DB)
I didn't claim that it was at odds idiot. I said that you precious theory failed to include factors that pertained here. Such as Castle failing to run a decent primary. But you keep trying to hide behind purity and anger. Castle wasn't the first guy pressed to win one from his party and then win one in the general. Many people pul this off. Some don't. Add to that the fact that primaries are rare here.
And please don't use beclowned when you have no idea what you're fucking talking about. I referred to bork literally a post or two after that and before your resposne.
You said that "Nominations were more collegial at that point than they are now" referring to when Ginsberg was confirmed. Bullshit. Bork was pilloried before her nomination. You can't get the timeline right.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:27 PM (1O93r)
OK, suppose that you are a Delaware resident who is "undecided."
Think for a just a moment how completely disconnected you must be from the political process to be "undecided" four weeks before Election Day in such a high-profile campaign.
You turn on your TV and see this nice, pretty woman -- maybe you've heard of her -- smiling sympathetically and saying she's exactly like you.
As a matter of fact, if you're a guy, what you're subconsciously hearing inside your wicked little mind is something more like: Bring a four-pack of wine coolers and pick me up by the skating rink.
Call me crazy, but I think this ad might be a lot more effective in terms of basic psychology than any of these genius political analyst types realize.
Posted by: Robert Stacy McCainThis right here was one of the reasons that she won the primary; the ads then backfired. Does this mean that she can make up all of the ground that she requires? I don't know and the odds are currently against it. But she now has cash, she has some national talent, and Coons is getting Al Franken!?!
If she can respond with Scott Brown or Hell, even one of the Maine sisters, that would be an ideal response.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:32 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: The Pricker! at October 04, 2010 08:33 PM (0EfeF)
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 04, 2010 08:33 PM (k6b9M)
Posted by: eman
That would require witchcraft. Or something.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:33 PM (1O93r)
Posted by: Grey Fox
I would like to thank everyone who made this award possible. And if I ever sober up, I will list them. Methos, thanks for flying wingman; I owe you.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:36 PM (1O93r)
That said, the ad is awful. Just awful. She's not confident. She looks weak. I wouldn't vote for her and I'm a conservative. She can't take on anyone as she's busy cowering in the black corner in pearls, bless her heart. She just handed Coons PR a gift with this ad.
I sometimes wonder if yankees, who are so beaten down by being in blue states for so long, are so skittish they jump at every shadow. She should have come out stong and powerful to beat the stereotype. This ad is fail.
Posted by: Lana at October 04, 2010 08:39 PM (MpHql)
Good night folks.
Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2010 08:42 PM (1O93r)
As a matter of fact, if you're a guy, what you're subconsciously hearing inside your wicked little mind is something more like: Bring a four-pack of wine coolers and pick me up by the skating rink.
Call me crazy, but I think this ad might be a lot more effective in terms of basic psychology than any of these genius political analyst types realize.
Posted by: Robert Stacy McCain at October 05, 2010 12:27 AM (5czt6)
I was gonna say that it makes me want to lick her face cause she looks so cute.
But, yes, a psychological affect. Absolutely. She comes across as simple and sweet. This is not dissimilar from Japanese video releases featuring either a cute anime girl (look up Sleeping with Hinako...I swear to God it will mess you up) or a model laying about in revealing panties. She's not talking to the people, she's talking to you...YOU...the viwer. She is you. She empathizes with you. She wants you to feel her up and then make you a sammich. Okay, maybe I'm starting to read too much into it now. But it's O'Donnell and the viewer, no one else.
Topically, I can see where the detractors are coming from, but psychologically the affect is devastating. I mean, if that shit don't make you melt how are you not some kinda gay?
Posted by: Robert at October 04, 2010 08:44 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: eman at October 05, 2010 12:29 AM (Zi5DB)
Jesus Christ! Everything makes sense now.
Sullivan was right!
Posted by: Robert at October 04, 2010 08:46 PM (4ixH5)
Hey
I'm your life
I'm the one who takes you there
Hey
I'm your life
I'm the one who cares
They
They betray
I'm your only true friend now
They
They'll betray
I'm forever there
I'm your dream, make you real
I'm your eyes when you must steal
I'm your pain when you can't feel
Sad but true
I'm your dream, mind astray
I'm your eyes while you're away
I'm your pain while you repay
You know it's sad but true
You
You're my mask
You're my cover, my shelter
You
You're my mask
You're the one who's blamed
Do
Do my work
Do my dirty work, scapegoat
Do
Do my deeds
For you're the one who's shamed
I'm your dream, make you real
I'm your eyes when you must steal
I'm your pain when you can't feel
Sad but true
I'm your dream, mind astray
I'm your eyes while you're away
I'm your pain while you repay
You know it's sad but true
I'm your dream
I'm your eyes
I'm your pain
I'm your dream
I'm your eyes
I'm your pain
You know it's sad but true
Hate
I'm your hate
I'm your hate when you want love
Pay
Pay the price
Pay for nothing's fair
Hey
I'm your life
I'm the one who took you there
Hey
I'm your life
And I no longer care
I'm your dream, make you real
I'm your eyes when you must steal
I'm your pain when you can't feel
Sad but true
I'm your truth, telling lies
I'm your reasoned alibis
I'm inside, open your eyes
I'm you
Sad but true
Posted by: Robert at October 04, 2010 08:54 PM (4ixH5)
The undecideds, bless their heart, want a winner. She didn't give them that in this ad. She's helpless and pitiful. Who needs that noise?
Posted by: Lana at October 04, 2010 08:57 PM (MpHql)
Posted by: Patton at October 04, 2010 09:14 PM (+HIl0)
Suddenly I'm flashing back on J.D. Hayworth's last-ditch "I've made mistakes" ad.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 04, 2010 09:45 PM (F5Gxy)
Posted by: Alec Baldwin as The Mimic at October 05, 2010 02:06 AM (wb/re)
But I would prefer having candidates that are capable of running without this sort of stuff. I know that politics is rough and that good people get creamed every day out there, but still O'Donnell and her people should have done a better job of deflecting a lot of this from the outset. Or not run in such a high profile race at all.
Posted by: Terrye at October 05, 2010 02:19 AM (SkhDW)
"Don't use your campaign funds to pay the rent..you don't have to be that damn smart to know better than that."
Er, so only people who are independently wealthy should get to run for office now?
I have not the slightest problem with any politician using campaign funds to pay the rent if they're in financial stress, none whatsoever. Now if they're using that money for vacations to Martha's Vineyard or something, yeah, -that- would suck. But paying the rent because you have no other means to because you're out campaigning is about as valid a use of campaign funds as I can think of.
Unless, yes, you believe only independently rich people can or should run for office. Cause that's -sure- to get us some rock ribbed conservatives, after all, all rich people are Republicans, haven't you been listening to the Democrats tell you this for years?
Posted by: Qwinn at October 05, 2010 03:23 AM (9zHDv)
Let me get this straight. She's not good enough to vote no because she worked out of her house?
The Treasury Secretary is an admitted tax cheat. The Secretary of Health and Human Services brags about taking money from baby killers. There are now two communists on the Supreme Court. The President's overriding priority is to destroy our way of life. But she's not good enough to vote no because she worked out of her house?
Do you really think these scumbags are shooting with a 6 mil offset? They are on target and firing for effect. If we don't get some counterbattery in the air ASAP, it is gonna be all over.
All it takes is 41 like minded senators to stop this train wreck and maybe, just maybe save the republic. But, she's not good enough to vote no because she worked out of her house?
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at October 05, 2010 03:24 AM (UL/HQ)
He is a republican... I had no idea.
Posted by: Timbo at October 05, 2010 03:52 AM (ph9vn)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 05, 2010 03:58 AM (tJjm/)
Posted by: William Jefferson Clinton at October 05, 2010 03:59 AM (DYJjQ)
Posted by: YRM (The Youngest Ace Commenter- Go Rays! Go Bucs! Go Gators!) at October 05, 2010 04:00 AM (4NbXN)
Sorry, IMO it came across a bit...what's the word? Whiny? Tired? Not sure. But I would rather have seen something a little more assertive that kind of flipped the virual bird at the witchcraft thing with a sense of humor. Kind of like, I won't call Chris Coons a bearded marxist if he doesn't call me a witch.
Personally, it made me like her more, but I'm not so sure it will play well with squishes and moderates who are prepared to dismiss her as a lightweight nut case.
Posted by: RM at October 05, 2010 04:03 AM (1kwr2)
Posted by: YRM (The Youngest Ace Commenter- Go Rays! Go Bucs! Go Gators!) at October 05, 2010 08:00 AM (4NbXN)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 05, 2010 04:10 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: dagny at October 05, 2010 04:27 AM (jS7i0)
Posted by: William Jefferson Clinton at October 05, 2010 04:41 AM (DYJjQ)
The ad would have been a lot better if they didn't dress her in black with a black background and something that looks like puffing smoke behind her. Geez ... it's like they didn't get the memo that Hollywood movie witches wear black and appear in a puff of smoke so avoid it at all costs. Also the ad should have more clearly stated, I'm here to talk issues while my opponent talks nonsense.
I think they would have been better off doing an ad making fun of the witch thing. People respond best to humor.
Posted by: D. at October 05, 2010 04:56 AM (plSrP)
And the ignorance of O'Donnell detractors reminds me of something out of a Coons campaign ad. If you don't like her, don't use this forum to post Coons' talking points.
Posted by: Gryph at October 05, 2010 06:07 AM (UHYuF)
Posted by: BarbaraS at October 05, 2010 06:41 AM (RKQY5)
Posted by: davod at October 05, 2010 06:53 AM (GUZAT)
Was it cute? Sure. Lots of conservatives thought Obama was charismatic, but wanted nothing to do with his Presidency, same likewise. Never mind her stance on her issues, mice people, China invading US, come on!
Posted by: dude at October 05, 2010 06:55 AM (HY2p7)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at October 05, 2010 07:00 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: dude at October 05, 2010 07:07 AM (HY2p7)
In general, when democrats have a candidate who says stupid stuff, they circle the wagons and protect them (Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, ad infinitum).
When a republican candidate says something stupid, half the republicans denounce them immediately while the other half try to salvage things.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 05, 2010 07:08 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Mazzuchelli at October 05, 2010 08:10 AM (zAZNI)
Blue Hen, Awesome take-down with the Ginsburg point.
Posted by: Schwalbe at October 05, 2010 08:22 AM (UU0OF)
I just hate the first few seconds. What advertising genius let "witch" even enter the copy?
In a former life, I was an advertising genius, and I can tell you this ad would have gone right back to the copywriter and Art Director. The starting message is all wrong: you don't begin with a disclaimer about witchcraft, of all things. And the overall look is somber, lugubrious. All that black. The piano as background sound. As an ad for a funeral parlor, it would have done well. But they're trying to sell a candidate for US Senate. This was a waste of campaign money. She's lucky she has so much more to throw away.
What should be more worrisome if you are an O'Donnell fan, is that she has embargoed Delaware media, and her campaign events are by invitation only. She is not engaging in retail politicking, handshaking, kissing babies etc. that is essential in an insular locale such as Delaware. And doubly important when a candidate is trailing as badly as she. She probably should call Ladd Ehringer.
Posted by: Marla at October 05, 2010 08:47 AM (kD8Fh)
Posted by: Tim at October 05, 2010 11:07 AM (nA+tQ)
Posted by: g21in45 at October 05, 2010 11:18 AM (7m/sa)
In point of fact both the Republican and Democratic party have undergone enormous philosophical and demographic changes which have redefined both parties for generations. I think that's the heart of what is going on within the Republican party, and the change will be as significant as when the liberals took over the Democratic party in 1972, and when the Republicans assimilated the South in 1968.
Posted by: fapo at October 05, 2010 12:22 PM (f3GW1)
God, she is sooo fucking cute. I volunteer for "husband" duty if you ever need it, Christine. I am a "rock hard" conservative IYKWIMAITYD.
Posted by: The Drizzle at October 05, 2010 12:58 PM (ysCLj)
Posted by: Gun-totin-wacko at October 05, 2010 04:53 PM (IaL7a)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at October 05, 2010 08:46 PM (6Uid1)
Posted by: wantong123 at April 27, 2011 07:53 PM (nVyIQ)
Posted by: abercrombie sale at May 07, 2011 12:26 AM (/klvg)
Posted by: hulin01 at May 16, 2011 12:37 AM (OT8ms)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
61 queries taking 0.1256 seconds, 310 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: The Eagles at October 04, 2010 05:36 PM (SwkdU)