William K. Wolfrum's picture

    A speech in Tucson

    By William K. Wolfrum on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:36am | Politics

     

    In what was the most moving speech of his Presidency, Barack Obama gave the people of Tucson and the U.S. what they needed most - a commanding presence, comforting words and hope.

    The Left was energized, the Extreme-Right was angry that the tragedy-struck people in Tucson applauded (while others on the Right were encouraged) and Sarah Palin left herself more marginalized than ever.

    And Speaker of the House John Boehner went to a fundraiser.

    But this was for the victims and Tucson. And the President showed us once again the promise of his leadership.

    What say you?

    --WKW

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    It was a fine speech--a eulogy for the dead, a recognition of the days ahead for the living, a plea for understanding and a coming together.   He was careful not to leave himself open to criticism from the Right and they're feeling pretty impotent this AM.  But give 'em time; they'll regroup and it'll be business as usual.

    But in the meantime, we will cherish this moment of civility and hope.  We need these moments, but they come all too seldom.  I wish it were not so. ..


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:18am

    ...they're feeling pretty impotent this AM

    The best they can come up with to criticize the speech is that some people cheered and the university printed up some shirts with the heretical slogan 'together we thrive.'  That's quite sad.

    Meanwhile, Sarah looks smaller and smaller for her selfish facebook rant and Boehner looks really poor for skipping the memorial for an RNC cocktail fundraiser.

    You are right, though.  Rush and the hatertainers will spend the afternoon trying to find anything about the speech to trash the President.  I imagine that someone will sink to a new low before 5pm ET.


    by MSNY on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:55am

    The liberal press appears to be defending Boehner, which is all right with me.

    Britt Hume had to hurrumph of course. Rush is just being evil and rotten. two days in a row!!

    I was quite taken by this speech. I watched it last night and several portions of it today and when he starts talking about that little girl...


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 4:16pm

    I've not viewed it.  I just read it and was moved. 

    Gail Collins has a nice piece out today wondering if it isn't too much to ask for a real debate in Congress on a bill introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy that would ban the sale of the special bullet clip used in Saturday's assault, one more powerful than a similar one that was used in a 1993 Long Island Railroad attack that killed her husband, permanently injured her son.  And, she adds, is the reason she ran for Congress.  

    Maybe just to show itself that it can.  "Just a thought", Collins gently suggests.  We'll see.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:57am

    "Powerful" is a strange adjective in this case. A clip is what holds bullets together until you put them in a magazine, but a lot of people say clip instead of magazine. A clip never has a feed mechanism, so it has no power.  Magazines do have feed mechanisms, usually some sort of spring or drum, but you wouldn't say they are powerful, just efficient or effective. The Glock used had a high-capacity magazine (30 rounds, I believe), which was banned until 2004.


    by Donal on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:21am

    My, and, perhaps, Gail Collins' ignorance about guns has hereby been exposed.  Hopefully not Rep. McCarthy's as well.  If her bill turns out to do nothing coherent or useful I don't doubt that there are other bills floating around that would. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:31am

    "Powerful" is a strange adjective in this case

    "firepower"-one metric thereof, the ease of and quantitative measure of, reloading. Thus, a larger clip confers greater firepower, hence, (perhaps a mixed metric...) it can be described as more powerful (though it would not be by a firearms enthusiast, who would say that it confers greater firepower)


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 2:52pm

    I could buy more deadly, but powerful makes it sound like the larger clip (magazine) makes each bullet more deadly.


    by Donal on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 3:48pm

    quite so--that's why I used the expression 'mixed metric", which was meant as  a variation on mixed metaphor, ie, one that is slightly inapposite, if nonetheless comprehensible.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 3:55pm

    But wrong.


    by Donal on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 3:57pm

    Like I said, the error is unlikely to have been made by a firearms enthusiast...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 3:59pm

    Excellent and inspiring speech! Many will take these words to heart and try to be more compassionate and understanding. There will be many others who won't, but that doesn't matter. I think we need to forge ahead speaking with civility and respect and pay less attention to those who refuse to act in a decent manner. For too long we have allowed people to dominate conversations with their harsh rhetoric and simple narratives. We need to take back the conversation to a level that allows respect of differing viewpoints, for when we allow ourselves to see many points of view we have a clearer picture of the world and can find ways to work together to create positive change. There are so many people suffering in this world from lack of food, shelter, love and it is up to all of us to come together (with those willing to work together) to offer a helping hand.


    by emerson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:38pm

    We'll see. Until what's called a "liberal/progessive" political blogosphere shows it can do it, then there's no proof of an alternative being viable, and I can't imagine who else would go first instead.

    A reminder that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is a proud member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and the business-centric New Democrat Coalition, and one who is proud of some of her votes against Dem leadership just the type that has been a big target of much hateful rhetoric in the liberal political blogosphere over the past couple of years.

    Following the liberal political blogosphere since 2003, I am so far convinced that many in it will not let go of their chance to do their own talk radio, to perpetuate the talk radio soapbox RANT form, using blogs to yell when they are angry. No screeners, no being put on hold, instant posting, talk radio without limits on your anger. It was born of wanting to spew talk radio style anger at Bush, and I see a lot of bloggers and commneters not willing to let go of that paradigm. One which actually stretches back to the Morton Downey Jr. media revolution. Check out some Meet The Press of the 60's or 70's to see what political discourse used to be like before that. So unemotional, so boring, and most importantly: such low ratings. 


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 4:34pm

    Again, ArtA attacks.

    Following the shooting, and a blog about the need for compassion and civility, you - again - come in with the smearing of the left and the liberals on the blogs.

    No one was putting your view down, no one's brawling with you, you just walk in unprovoked and slap the "you're the same" charge on the Left as on the Right.

    And who escapes in all this?

    You do.

    To you, it's entirely fair and civil and compassionate (apparently) to state that the Left critique of the Blue Dogs is "hateful rhetoric." And to follow that by claiming that the Left and liberal blogosphere engage in "talk radio soapbox" and that we show "no limits to our anger" and "spew talk radio style anger" and on and on.

    You don't even get how offensive it is that you would paint the Left and liberals on blogs (Whoops! That's be us!) as saying things that are as hateful and violent as the Right. 

    And you don't get that distortions like this are a pretty foul act in themselves.

    But to link the left and liberals directly to Gifford, and equate criticism of Blue Dogs as equalling those who painted targets and carry guns and threaten violence on a regular basis? Our "hateful rhetoric" against Blue Dogs matches up with this? Hello?

    You do this sort of attack on the left/liberals/progressives quite frequently, and - once again - offer nothing in the way of evidence. Just your grand position, after observing from on high since 2003 (wow) that those of us who advocated not voting for the Blue Dogs were in the same boat as the hateful and violent of the Right.

    I think your pattern of doing this is appalling, ArtA. To me, this just reads as another of your sneers against the liberals and left. Though the timing and styling and site of this attack seems to me to be more than a little classless. To launch a new attack on a blog about compassion and civility? To do so on a blog run and populated by the liberals and lefties you feel are so full of hatred? And to do so re: Gifford?

    Take a minute, ArtA, and please think about how you are doing this sort of thing. If you have a specific blog you dislike, or think is full of hatred, equal to that on the Right, then please name and shame it. 

    Otherwise, I maintain my position - that your comments are a smear, and read to me as the words of someone increasingly unable to keep the sneer out of their voice.


    by quinn esq on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 5:11pm

    Obviously, we come to the blogosphere for totally different things. I am looking for a place where no one attacks anyone. Therefore I don't hang around right wing sites, they do a lot more of that there. But I will continue to complain when those left of center do it, because I would very much like to be able to have a place to go where I don't see it.

    Yes, I don't like partisanship and I don't like tribalism and am looking for a place in the blogosphere that doesn't promote either. I'm not ashamed of that.

    I have noticed that you have often taken near personal offense to anyone pointing out something negative about the liberal blogopshere as if they had spit on your mother. Yet when actual individuals are attacked, you rarely speak up.. Never a word either about many many ridiiculous statements about Republicans on any liberal site,

    It's like you = liberal, they are your family. You strike me as proudly tribal that way, and there seems to be nothing I can do to prevent you from taking things I really want to talk about with others as if I had said "your mother wears army boots." Because I didn't say "your mother wears army boots." I never said anything bad about quinn nor about his opinions. So I just refrain usually from responding to you, and let my words stand for themselves. Which I will probably continue to do so in the future.

    Look, let's put it out there: I'm not a paid blog commenter for "death to liberals" organization, ok? I have no interest in that agenda. Some liberal arguments strike me as great, some not. But I am interested in the meta of it all as well, and I do consider an agenda about changing the media in this country to less punditry and rants more information and analysis as something of interest, so sue me. You on the other hand, seem to like the fighting and the passion. Go right ahead, but don't expect me to like it and never speak up about it when it is raised, especially in meta threads about the discourse in this cournty.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 5:26pm

    I am looking for a place where no one attacks anyone

    Done. Tchau.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:34pm

    Tickle Me Wolfrum - now for sale at the dag store.


    by Donal on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:37pm

    Well, one could respond with this:

    http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Kindergarten/dp/034546639X

    and also this:

    http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

    but really, where I am coming from is expressed better with something like this:

    http://www.back-to-iraq.com/2006/09/taking-a-break.php

    a post I finally recently found after looking for it for a long time because his archive is screwed up. Wherein partisanship does no favors in the truth seeking department. Allbritton if you don't know him,  was an early popularizer of teh journalistic blogging.  He has basciallly permanently given up on it now, is the Pakistan bureau chief for Thomson Reuters.

    I have not given up yet.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:06pm

    You want a place where no one attacks anyone else... other than you, attacking the left-liberal blogosphere for churning hatred out at Giffords.

    And... me as a LIBERAL???!!  The connotations of "liberal" in much of  Canada are... gutless, without principle, corrupt, elitist, etc. I would never use that term to describe my own beliefs. Naturally, with your insight, you've pegged me not just as believing liberals are my family, but as being TRIBAL about it! 

    As for me never speaking up when individuals are attacked, I thought I was one of those nasty people who waded in too often when people were being attacked? 

    And me liking the passion and the fighting over information and analysis? I spend most of my time AWAY from the partisan stuff on here, and at TPM. Partly because I can't bear the rah-rah nonsense, but mostly because I feel as though these "debates" carry nil added value, for anyone. In fact, I'm one who used to state that it was a waste of time to go on the upfront pages at TPM, where the "hot issues" were being debated. And someone who ran as many artsy and imaginative pieces as he could into TPM and on my own blog because I felt the existing way political issues were being grasped was a waste of time.

    Meanwhile, if memory serves, it was you who served up a steady diet of mass media-digested stories and opinions. And who reduces the Wikileaks story to a series of personal attacks on Assange, all the while decrying the over-personalization of politics. Yesirree, if I want good information on that Iraq war, clearly I'd be better off with the NYT than with that Assange feller.

    You attack all the time ArtA - just the way you did the left-liberal blogosphere here. But the thing is, you can't be bothered to GO GET AN EXAMPLE and tackle it directly. You can't be bothered naming an individual, so you attack across-the-board.

    And why can't you be bothered with specifics? Because they often reveal that what you're really doing... is just spouting your own prejudices. Like millions of others. You just don't want to wear them. So you stick to generalities, or the latest stories in the NYT, or whatever platitudes get you through the night.

    To the point of this comment - your linking of the left-and-liberals to the Giffords was about as classy, non-attacking, and high road intellectual as... Sarah Palin.


    by quinn esq on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:44pm

    Hello artappraiser. From my experience I have found that there is probably never going to be a world in which we all have conversations and work together to solve the issues that confront us. Because not everyone is willing to compromise and have an honest discussion. But I think it is possible for us to give less attention to those going around trying to cause divide and give more to those who want to listen and talk and really find some solutions. In another post, I mentioned that I live in an area where right - leaning talk radio is very popular and I am often confronted by people making arguments heard on these shows. I try to listen, because everyone has the right to be heard, but if I can't get the person with which I am talking to have a conversation that has more substance and instead they want to stick to why they are right and why I am wrong, I move on. I honestly try to listen to others even if I don't agree with them because I know how passionately I feel about things and I feel others deserve the respect to share their passions too. But I don't want to waste my time talking to someone who is not going to give me the same respect and is in fact just trying to win an argument. 

    Basically, I like the "boring" people you mentioned above, lol. I like those serious conversations that involve lots of facts and spreadsheets and books and presentations. And we need to have those "boring" conversations and not be too concerned if there are others who want to see things in a more polarized way. Tis their right after all.

    So are you an art appraiser? I wonder that every time I see your name. :)


    by emerson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:05pm

    Emerson,

    as to the question in your last line, answer is here, as I happen to have been just talking about it with "jolly roger." Actually,sometimes I regret having to continue to use the name chosen without much thought many years ago in order to have continuity with what I have posted on other political sites over the years. Because I have noticed a tendency for some people to react knee-jerk to the name  as in "this is going to be the opinion of a snob" and read things into what I say that aren't there judging by their opinion of my name. On the other hand, I guess my tastes in journalism are proudly elitist. Wink I'd prefer not to talk much more about it  than what I have at the link.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:27pm

    That sounds really interesting. I like your name. It makes me think of someone who loves art and sees the beauty in the world. And that is a very good thing! But if you don't like it we could call you Svetlana or Bertha. Or something like that. Smile


    by emerson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:40pm

    Your name is no big deal. You could have chosen a worse one.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:12pm

    Thanks for the laugh! That was great.


    by emerson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:16pm

    Artsy, I like your screen name and I enjoyed reading your comments on appraisal work. The Antigues Road Show did motivate me to scrounge for books, which during the mid to late nineties was a great deal of fun as I was in the estate rich area of Pasadena, Ca.

    Also, thanks for the additional references you noted on my bank thread. I'm continuing to try to collect stuff in this area. Bernanke spoke today on Dodd Frank but I havn't tracked it down.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:07pm

    A reminder that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is a proud member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and the business-centric New Democrat Coalition, and one who is proud of some of her votes against Dem leadership just the type that has been a big target of much hateful rhetoric in the liberal political blogosphere over the past couple of years.

    True as far as it goes, although I have not seen "hateful" rhetoric that has even hinted at violence.  Would you agree or disagree that is an important distinction?  Isn't it at the heart of much of the discussion about the Tucson tragedy here lately--whether overt references to the use of violence has come disproportionately, if not overwhelmingly, from one part of the political spectrum of late?  And that that crosses an important line?

    A number of us here I think are able to draw distinctions among different Blue Dogs.  Giffords earns my respect for having the courage to engage howlingly angry constituents on issues such as health care and immigration policy and ended up voting for the health care legislation.  Whatever one thinks of that legislation and however one personally thinks they might have voted on it, there is no doubt that it was a very tough vote for her in the face of the intense and menacing opposition she faced on that issue.

    By contrast, Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Blue Dog, appeared to have no openness even to considering voting for health care legislation.  He is certainly entitled to take that stance and one might fault some of the people who initially did a great deal to get him elected for perhaps taking for granted too easily that, if elected, he would be helpful on the HC issue.  On Ari Berman's account in his fascinating book Herding Donkeys, Shuler was downright rude and insulting to those among his constituents who sought to engage him in civil face-to-face discussions on the HC issue. 

    A-Man's researched post not long ago on the topic of Blue Dogs showed, if memory serves, that about half of the Blue Dogs were often or mainly in support of Obama on what for them were tough votes on issues such as HC and cap-and-trade, whereas the other half were mainly not.  I think many of us here are capable of drawing distinctions of that sort in lieu of casting broad brushes.  Ironically, the broad-brush, low-nuance denunciations of the liberal blogosphere that I have seen regularly from you, artappraiser, have caused me--never a blogosphere triumphalist, often disappointed or unimpressed and sometimes critical of it myself--to become somewhat more sympathetic to it. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:52am

    It was the right speech for the country . And for Obama too , Which doesn't invalidate the first statement.

    Maybe it was  brilliantly insincere. Perhaps he doesn't give a damn about  Gaby or the nine year old victim.  Maybe he's a monster of callous manipulation. Anything's possible.

    But life's too short to think that way. There are enough bad things that happen every day without taking what seems to have been a good thing and straining to find the hidden flaw.

    What it seems to have been was :  a compassionate , wise speech . So that's what I'll think it until someone gives me very good reason to think otherwise.And this isn't an invitation.

    This will seem off the thread but indulge me. Of all things I was reminded of Oscar Schindler.We first meet him as a motorcyle riding boyo , then  an opportunist , collaborating with Nazis to make a buck. But while protecting some Jewish workers in order to make that buck he  begins to become......someone who protects Jewish workers.  He hadn't intended to become good. Just rich.But by doing good he becomes good.

     As in "some men have greatness thrust upon them "

    It suits me to believe that whatever political calculations Obama might have harbored as he started,   that as he involved himself in drafting those  words he became someone who thought the noble thoughts those words implied.


    by Flavius on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:50pm

    nine year old victim

    Every time I hear "nine year old" I get a serious physical pain in my chest that would make a hypochondriac convinced a heart attack is nigh.

    How could anyone be so abandoned, so malignant, so lost to human feeling, as to let loose a hail of bullets anywhere near a little girl?

    All the talk of civility is perhaps besides the point....I remember a quasi-ironic formulation from the 60' s (I guess) "Support mental health or I'll kill you"

    That could have come from Loughner's mouth.

    We simply must find a therapeutic model different from our present one, wherein the county jail is the largest mental health facility in any urban setting.

    Whatever it costs...because the cost of allowing people to fester in insanity is the life of a nine year old girl.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:01pm

    I'm going skiing with my 8 year old grand daughter next month.


    by Flavius on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:08pm

    You are to be envied.  In the friendliest way....


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:11pm

    I was encouraged to see the use of scriptures.

    I sat on the edge of my seat, and when familiar passages were read, and the President paraphrasing the words, found in the Bible. I had a feeling come over me” Right on. 

    Those in powerful positions, humbling themselves; recognizing the strength and the powerful message of encouragement, found within it's pages.

    Encouraged by the President and others who quoted from the pages of the Bible, not shying away from those, who might say Shut up, for we don't want to hear these words.   

    I thought about those who wish I would stop using scriptures, thinking to myself , take notice you arm chair leaders. Shut up and listen.and learn the WAY

    But soon realizing they had already tuned out, they knew better.  

    Our leaders know where to draw strength.

    I will not be discouraged, I will stand firm for righteousness sake, to stand up, for all who long for a better place where violence and vitriol are no more.

    God would comfort those in time of need.

    Right on! Mr. President, set the wicked straight. We will follow the counsel, to care for one another, and speak good things to one another, just as the Bible commands  

    Recognizing as they do, asking for God to Bless America, because without his help they realize we are doomed, to a world of violence.  


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:36pm

    A friendly suggestion, Resistance:

    Maybe go for inspiring passages that confirm your own thought that you have written down, rather than just lists of bible passages.  Also, the fire and brimstone doesn't win people over.  Like I said -- go for the inspiring and enlightening ones that enhance what you have written in your own words.  That is why it worked for Obama.


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:23pm

    The whole service worked for me.

    I believe President Obama knows the verses and maybe you do too? But others don’t

    That's the only fault I had with Obama's speech, he received the glory, instead of glorifying where he received the knowledge.  Maybe he did and I missed it.

    Maybe he said “god’s word say’s”   

    Obama is; as one trained in the use of the Holy Book, that's his inner strength. The man within is spiritually trained. .

    Many people today, wouldn't know the scripture, or what book to find a particular scripture, or thought, so how do they ever advance from the elementary things..

    I offer the scriptures, to those who want to partake of that portion. It is for those who want to have they're perceptive powers improved.

    It also acts as a safeguard; to protect against wolves in sheep’s clothing, which make quotes that sound like the word of God, I want more than words, I want the citation, and not some mans interpretation. Only the lazy pay the minister, to tell them what Gods word says. With no guarantees he told you the truth. For how would you know if you didn't look them up yourself?  

    If the fire and brimstone scares you, why?

    I get into more trouble, when I don't just stay with what the scripture says. There are those who'll hang on every word, in order to twist or build straw men, to glorify themselves. Oh how wise they are, in their own eyes.

    In all things, I want to take notice of what he says, on any given matter and I want to glorify the one who imparted that knowledge to me. I am only a student. I am not greater than the teacher,     


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:30pm

    he received the glory, instead of glorifying where he received the knowledge

     I thought that was just as well .He is the President of all Americans: those like you who believe in God and those like me and my family,  who don't ..

     I'm not unhappy the president is religious. Or refers to God in a speech.

    Theoretically maybe I have a "right" to object if he speaks in a way that suggests that people like me are somehow not as fully American as ones like you. But I don't.

     If I'm getting most of the benefits of living here it doesn't deprive me if you get a bit more. Even tho I pay the same taxes, serve in the same military etc..

    Still  speaking for myself I'd prefer not to be excluded too often. And as a citizen I have, not a preference, but a strong desire to reduce the number of those occasions when my fellow atheists are made to feel less than fully American.

    So for me his religious references were OK.. But I was just as happy there weren't any more.


    by Flavius on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:01am

    Not too surprisingly, perhaps, I think your comments are spot on. I'd add that Obama using scripture is an excellent move as it helps prevent some of the soi disant religious right from arguing effectively against him. I often use scripture for similar purposes myself - and as Resistance alludes to, I try very hard to use the scripture in proper context. I may be an atheist, but I still think Jesus had a lot of good things to say. (Back in the day, before I became an atheist, I gave a guest sermon on the Sermon on the Mount, with an emphasis on The Beatitudes - one of my favorite passages in the Bible.)


    by Atheist (not verified) on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:15am

    MAN #1: I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

    MRS. GREGORY: Ahh, what's so special about the cheesemakers?

    GREGORY: Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

    MR. CHEEKY: See? If you hadn't been going on, we'd have heard that, Big Nose.

    MR. BIG NOSE: Hey. Say that once more; I'll smash your bloody face in.


    by Donal on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:22am

    Yes, one need not have any particular beliefs about the source, or even authenticity, of Scripture to recognize it as a highly meaningful document to many of the people a US President is elected to serve (and obviously, when it comes to the Old Testament, not only Christians.)  Whoever said it can't contain wisdom and be a source of spiritual sustenance and inspiration, regardless of its source or the motivations of those who lobbied one another fiercely over what actually would get designated as the officially sanctioned "real thing" and get published as such? 

    If cited passages of Scripture are persuasive or compelling to many individuals when used in specific ways and contexts, they are persuasive and compelling to many individuals when used in those specific ways and contexts (again, Martin Luther King's use of biblical language and imagery was compelling and uplifting to a great many people who did not associate with his particular faith tradition).  I didn't hear the President the other night making meta arguments about the source or sanctity of the scriptural passages he quoted. 

    One can effectively divide a people and a country by using faith-based rhetoric to marginalize, demonize, or overtly exclude--but not unify it towards any positive purpose. The President the other night was seeking to heal.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:34am

    To Flavius who wrote 

    I thought that was just as well .He is the President of all Americans: those like you who believe in God and those like me and my family,  who don't .. I'm not unhappy the president is religious. Or refers to God in a speech. 

    The President doesn’t withhold anything from those who didn’t vote for him, he IS President to all Americans. That is good  

    Following a good model

    (Matthew 5:43-46) . . .“YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; 45 that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, ..........since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. 46 For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have. . .


    Theoretically maybe I have a "right" to object if he speaks in a way that suggests that people like me are somehow not as fully American as ones like you. But I don't. 

    From what I have read it is false Christains who compare themselves with one another.

    (Galatians 6:2-5) . . .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving his own mind. 4 But let each one prove what his own work is, and then he will have cause for exultation in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.


    If I'm getting most of the benefits of living here it doesn't deprive me if you get a bit more. Even tho I pay the same taxes, serve in the same military etc. 

    Please explain? What benefits, do I get more than you?

    My wish would be; more benefits for all. 

    I think that is your goal too.

    SO Someone tell the Tea Party members claiming, being  good Christians makes them better Americans. Then be better Christians,   

    (Proverbs 19:17) If you help the poor, you are lending to the LORD--and he will repay you!
    (Proverbs 28:27) 27 He that is giving to the one of little means will have no want, but he that is hiding his eyes will get many curses.

    (Proverbs 14:31) 31 He that is defrauding the lowly one has reproached his Maker, but the one showing favor to the poor one is glorifying Him. . .

    Lets see the response from the Tea Party, and notice how they have hidden their eyes.

    Not God Bless America but God Help America  because they sure won't help.  


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 1:45pm

    I didn't say you obtain more benefits. I raised it as hypothetical for discussion.

    So lets discuss it.

    If  the  President led the Tucson audience in singing God Bless America you'd have had the benefit of feeling  part of a group  who felt the same way about  a number of things, importantly including  that  there was a God.

    I wouldn't have.

    I'm sure you agree that  to be better Americans  the Tea Party members  aren't restricted to having to become  better Christians..There's lots of ways to San Jose.

    They could  become better Jews.

    Or Muslims..

    Or Hindus.

    Or just better worshippers of whatever God they worship.. 

    Or  better Atheists?

    If not , what then? Are we supposed to leave the country ? Is there room for us in Patragonia? Or are we supposed to just pretend to sing God Bless America?
    Sort of Don't Ask , Don't Tell.

    "You can be an atheist . But  you might be better off if you join in singing  God Bless America. Just saying."


    by Flavius on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:39pm

    Does an Atheist have a conscience?

    Believe me, I can understand the pressure that is placed upon those not joining in.

    Reminding me of the kids in school, who wouldn't pledge Allegiance to the Flag.

    Seeing them walk home from school, persecuted as Un-American; Communists, or seeing the jeers and dirty looks at sporting events.

    You are correct, just being a better person is the answer.

    Do you believe being a better person come naturally, or is it something we learn and we can improve, and where is it taught?

    Because the illustration I gave above, didn't show me, the kids were taught in school.

    Evidently, they didn't learn how to be better people, from their parents.

    I am not familiar with the teachings of atheism, so forgive me if my question seems silly

    As a Christian I’ve been taught, just because I am not caught in wrongdoing by man, I am accountable to the Most high, who will judge everyone according to their deeds.

    As an atheist, do you have to answer only to man, only if you are caught?

    Like these crooked politicians and bankers who say "there is no God, so unless I am caught red-handed by men, I shall not fear that my actions will be punished"

    Sorry I got caught, is not the same as someone with a conscience who fears God; is it?  

    I only ask, because I want to understand


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:16pm

    site seizure. sorry.

    WTF-took out double, lost'em both.

    Once More

    Does a Yahwist have a heart?

    It's fun to be nice-people like you instead of hating and fearing you,

    It's not about going to hell,

    seems like you are already living there anyway, in a Hobbesian world where life is nasty, brutish and short.,


    by jollyroger on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:56pm

    Your sight seizure affected me too

    Once more  

    You keep using the term Yahwist.  I don’t know why.

    I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and his teachings do affect the heart . 

    He warned....... that flagrant wrongdoing would face discipline or punishment.  

    Do you have children?

    Did you warn them “stay away from the hot stove, or don’t reach for the hot pan, because the hot water would scald them?

    Did you warn them about the dangers of playing with matches?

    Did you warn them about recreational drugs and how damaging it is to the brain?  

    Under your logic it appears, A good parent doesn’t love their children, because to warn them of consequences, for not listening or disobeying, is hateful, fearful, a hell.  

    Would you believe, I don’t believe in a fiery hell, Jesus didn’t teach a fiery hell. So where do you people come up with this.  

    Within the context being discussed, is when I am more apt to bring up the issue of punishing wrongdoers;  like crooked, lying politicians or crooked bankers.  Or persons who flagrantly violate the laws. 

    I suppose now, if I tell you the Earth is in peril, the water and the air is getting worse, the polar bears are dying. You would suggest I should stop warning you, because it is unpleasant to think about such things?

    Despite all the warnings you’ve received, all these things are man caused, God had nothing to do with it.

    But he say’s he will punish those who are destroying the Earth, and seeing as how mankind can’t stop the destruction, even to save himself from himself.

    How  I hope, someone intervenes before it’s too late


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:38pm

    Love Jesus? Then hate Paul, he is an odious huckster.

     Hate the Old Testament, it is the work of Baal.

    Cleave to Sermon on the Mount, the rest is bullshit.

    Much is put in Jesus' mouth that never came from it.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:46pm

    Maybe you can post something about your question in the Creative Corner. I, for one, would respond.

    In the context of this conversation, you are asking if your interlocutor has a conscience. When the possibility of a thing existing at all surpasses understanding, one is not in a favorable position to talk about what exists.


    by moat on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:34pm

    Does an Atheist have a conscience?

    One might as well ask if a Christian has a conscience - if his/her only reason for behaving is fear of God, how is that any better than behaving from a fear of being caught by terrestial authorities? No, I recognize that many Christians base their good behavior on a love of God as well as a love of their fellow person (agape). Many atheists likewise base their good behavior on a love of their fellow person.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:34am

    Hey, R. You asked where that response was - it was here. Many people have written more eloquently on the topic, and if you're truly interested, I'm sure I could find more on the matter, but I think I've summed up what I meant to say fairly clearly.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 5:43am

    Thank you, It appears I did miss your comment, or I would have responded to the post above.  

    One might as well ask if a Christian has a conscience - if his/her only reason for behaving is fear of God, 

    I could follow your point, if  the ONLY  reason was FEAR of God, but the benefits are derived when your loving him creates a relationship. He rewards those who earnestly seek him.

    You have told me or was it Obey? The reward you get looking in the mirror and your relationship with others. I agree having a good conscience is rewarding.      

    Simply stated.  Fearing God is the beginning of knowledge. 

    The fear may impress upon our minds, to do something, take an action, avoid a conditon,  to prevent being harmed, punished or to find disfavor. 

    So in the begining of learning about God, fear starts the process of self examination. How to avoid harm, punishment. Do my deeds or actions show, I understand the fear. I am not afraid as long as I recognize how to avoid punishment or harm

    To illustrate 

    I knew a trained, utility company electrician, who should have known, the power that can be in an electrical box..He knew what he had to do, to keep himself from harm. You’ve seen the warning and danger signs yourself. Keep Away,  Danger. FEAR of disregarding the notices, could cause harm or death. 

    He ignored the warnings. The high voltage blew both of his arms and one foot off. 

    Was it the lack of warnings that caused his injuries? If you were a child, hearing of this account, would you say bad, bad , bad  electricity? 

    Further downstream there is a discussion about acceptance and tolerance, and I think with some folks, I have reached their tolerance level.  I would have enjoyed exploring this further with you.

    There is a lack of support, to challenge the intolerance.


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 9:02am

    You have told me or was it Obey? The reward you get looking in the mirror and your relationship with others. I agree having a good conscience is rewarding.

    That was Obey (although I agree that is a reward). I mentioned agape as the common thread that binds us, Christian and non-Christian alike.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 9:46am

    I only ask, because I want to understand

    Stop using that line please. It is disingenuous. You do not want to understand, you want to preach. You pick and choose scripture, then act as if you are a bible literalist. You could learn a lot on your discourse here from our president. Follow the link at the end if you really want to understand. I won't hold my breath.

    Our president at the Call to Renewal speech in 2007:

    Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

    Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

    We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

    Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

    But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

    http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php


    by mageduley on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:09am

    Hey  we've moved on three days ago.

    The hate you have, must be eating you up.

    I've already exposed your prejudice.  


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:19am

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


    by mageduley on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:27am

    Let it be, we have our differences  A lot has happened in the course of three days, I am reflecting upon what others have commented about. 

    I think it best to let it rest for awhile.

    I did read what the President said and it makes a lot of sense.

    We both want a better world, so hopefully we'll find common ground.


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 1:39am

    Well said, Flavius. Thanks.


    by seashell on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:32pm

    Seashell What part are you referring to? Maybe you can answer the question? What do I recieve more than you, from our government for being a Christian? 

    Or is this a perpetrated myth, intended to cause divison or derision?   


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:52pm

    I thought Flavius was talking about cultural norms, not special favors dispensed by the government.


    by moat on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:11pm

    What do I recieve more than you, from our government for being a Christian?

    Acceptance. Tolerance.

    And if that isn't tangible enough, let me know when there's an office of Atheist-Based Initiatives.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:11pm

    I absolutely hated that.

    It was obvious what the government was doing; passing the buck.

    It all fed into the Republican ideologies attempt, to make the government lean and mean. If they could eliminate the safety net they could cut taxes.  

    The Republican form of governance, looked upon the people as a pain, so instead of coming straight out saying “we don't see the suffering, they let the churches deal with the problem” let God deal with it,

    Why do you think they were always saying God Bless America;  because they sure wouldn't bestow blessings or assistance to the needy.  They didn't want the responsibilty.

    Then to make matters worse for the people, some one starts the myth, if you serve god to the fullest, you to will be blessed, so make it your purpose and you to will be blessed. In that way the Church could pass plate  the buck, it was now the poor and the downtroddens fault they were suffering.

    Except only when the Government wants Christian soldiers, to serve the government causes; such as spreading Christian Democracy in the Muslim sphere of influence. Bush’s new Crusade

    Otherwise forget about the government caring for the poor, the needy, the downtrodden, that’s for God to deal with and the false churches claiming to represent God, blame the ones needing help.

    How wicked is that?  


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:40pm

    Incidentally, Yahweh-boy, I'll stack my five rules of the road up against your ten commandments any day of the week.

    Plus, you don't have to be good, you just have to be better.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:27pm

    When my buddy, Jerry Cimino, was starting his non profit Beat Museum, and jostling a little with the Kerouac estate over his phone number 1800 Kerouac, I urged him to make it a church.

    When you live in a Christian Theocracy, I said, be a Christian Church.

    Next thing you know, I have a prophetic dream where he and i and the others are in front of the Wizard of Oz, and when he finishes with the Tin Man he  turns to me and says: "You have the heart and soul of a post-modern Pimp, but you don't have a long coat and big hat....and he gives me the big had and long coat.

    Then he says to Jerry "you have the heart and soul of a post-modern prophet, but you don't have a miraculous revelation.  Every Prophet needs a miraculous revelation, watch for it in the mail"

    Not a week goes by but he gets an email from Jack Kerouac, with his marching orders

    God is great!

     


    by jollyroger on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:09pm

    Let me guess, you were there to ask for the brain? Laughing


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:07am

    I wss there to have a prophetic dream, and I did...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:23am

    If you are a Christian minister, you get a lot more from our government than us regular folks.

    A tax preparer, sickened by what he saw, wrote a detailed article exposing this travesty. In his summary he had this to say:

    So in the end, the minster made $105,000, had $740 of total tax, but actually ended up getting a refund of a few hundred dollars because of various child tax credits.

    This is unfair.  What makes his profession so special that he is able to take deductions that no one else can?  Why is he able to elect out of social security?  Why is he able to deduct his mortgage interest and property taxes twice?

    To top it off, he wrote a letter to our firm asking for a discounted preparation fee because he is a minister of humble means.  It made me sick to my stomach.

    http://outerbrightness.com/?p=197

    We could do a lot to save our economy by not only ending the tax cuts for the rich, but the rich religious tax havens as well.


    by mageduley on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:27am

    Like I said to Jerry, when you live in a Christian Theocracy (and we do) it's good to run a Christian Church.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:33am

    You got me laughing with that last quote from the accountant. hahahhaahah

    The minister probably pays no real estate taxes on his residence which is usually hooked up to the church. He gets out of paying most sales taxes. hahaahah

    And he probably nets more than his accountant. hahahahah

    Praise the Lord and pass the contribution plate.


    by Richard Day on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:40am

    I agree,

    Do you know who it was who said something to the effect ' if they gave more medals for men of peace, there would be less wars" or "more people would seek to do those jobs instead of being soldiers" something like that.

    Ending the wars would really be a cost saver. isn't that the job of Godly men?

    Do members of the military/industrial complex get special tax breaks?Members of Congress?

    I’m missing something here.

    I've heard of many people who skim money from their taxes.

    (Matthew 22:17-21) 17 Tell us, therefore, What do you think? Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: “Why do YOU put me to the test, hypocrites? 19 Show me the head tax coin.” They brought him a de·nar′i·us. 20 And he said to them: “Whose image and inscription is this?” 21 They said: “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.. . .

    Seeing as how the churches are taking on more of the responsibility to care for the needy, I'd just as soon give the tax break if any, to a peaceful man of God, than a greedy man with connections in Government.

    Are you advocating a flat tax? We do away with any tax breaks?


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 4:35am

    I don't see a problem with taxing God.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 5:29am

    I'm sorry I missed that article, Wolf

     


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 7:51am

    Seeing as how the churches are taking on more of the responsibility to care for the needy, I'd just as soon give the tax break if any, to a peaceful man of God, than a greedy man with connections in Government.

    If that's the case, the churches caring for the needy could easily fall under existing tax laws for charities.  The problem with a blanket tax code for "churches" is that it opens the door to anyone who wants to use it to make money or create havoc.

    I wrote about one of them in The Holiness of Burning, Burning Hate.

    I'm working on another piece about prosperity preachers in TV land.  All of these people--far from anyone's definition of men (or women) of God--call their ventures "churches" in order to gain credibility and avoid paying taxes.  I think that's what some are referring to here.  There are more bad apples using the tax code than there are good, legitimate churches, and that's the fault of the tax code enforcers.  It's obvious to a two-year-old that many of them aren't any sane person's idea of a church, but they exist and they thrive and they don't pay taxes.  That's not right.

    BTW, the tax code is clear about it--on paper.  There doesn't seem to be any real enforcement, however, judging by the numbers of truly awful organizations using that term "church".

    Religious Organizations

    To determine whether an organization meets the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3), the IRS maintains two basic guidelines.

    1. That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held.

    2. That the practices and rituals associated with the organization's religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.

    Therefore, your group (or organization) may not qualify for treatment as an exempt religious organization for tax purposes if its actions, as contrasted with its beliefs, are contrary to well established and clearly defined public policy. If there is a clear showing that the beliefs (or doctrines) are sincerely held by those professing them, the IRS will not question the religious nature of those beliefs.

    Churches.   Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions, the organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption. In this event, you should submit information showing that your organization is a church, synagogue, association or convention of churches, religious order, or religious organization that is an integral part of a church, and that it is engaged in carrying out the function of a church.

       In determining whether an admittedly religious organization is also a church, the IRS does not accept every assertion that the organization is a church. Because beliefs and practices vary so widely, there is no single definition of the word church for tax purposes. The IRS considers the facts and circumstances of each organization applying for church status.


    by Ramona on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 6:46am

    And now that I've read Wolfie's take on this, I'm convinced that there should be no special tax break for churches.  They can and should fall under the tax code for charitable organizations--if the shoe fits.


    by Ramona on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 8:05am

    The Traveling Merchants, of the Word? Maybe soon, you’ll see the day the Churches of Babylon the Great are devastated. Taxing her will be the least of her worries as she is destroyed.   

    (Revelation 18:11-12) . . .Also, the traveling merchants of the earth are weeping and mourning over her, ……..(Revelation 18:15-17) . . .“The traveling merchants of these things, who became rich from her, will stand at a distance because of [their] fear of her torment and will weep and mourn, 16 saying, ‘Too bad, too bad—the great city, clothed with fine linen and purple and scarlet, and richly adorned with gold ornament and precious stone and pearl, 17 because in one hour such great riches have been devastated. . .

    (Revelation 18:23-24) . . .and no light of a lamp will ever shine in you again, and no voice of a bridegroom and of a bride will ever be heard in you again; because your traveling merchants were the top-ranking men of the earth, for by your spiritistic practice all the nations were misled.24 Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.. . .Revelation 18:4-7) . . .: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. ……… 7 To the extent that she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury, ……… For in her heart she keeps saying, ‘I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall never see mourning.. . (Revelation 18:9) . . .And the kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her. . .


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 8:51am

    Resistance, I have no idea what you're getting at here.  Please comment in your own words. 


    by Ramona on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:35am

    The merchants who benefitted from the promoting of false teachings, or Babylon the Great itself. Once it is explained the pieces all come together.

     


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 3:28pm

    Well, THAT clears it all up No, wait....

    by CVille Dem on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 6:55pm

    Cville within the context of what it said is the answer, Where do you find a bride and a bride groom?  In the churches.

    The traveling merchants who became rich from her; are made up of such persons as TV evanglists, they profit from the idea of religion.

    With some churches it's all about the money.  

    Religion as pointed out in the verses preceding and following, says religion controlled  government, is to blame for much bloodshed. 

    Those versus are only supporting what you and many others have observed, only it tells of it's destruction.

     I brought it up because  That is the Good News,  the destruction of religion, by God.  

     


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 2:04am

    Resistance.

    I ceased answering  because anything I had to say had already been said by others.Better. .

    No disprespect intended.


    by Flavius on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 1:49pm

    That's okay Flavius. I thought others made a good point also, helping me to meditate to get a better understanding of other viewpoints. 

    I appreciate deeper thoughts, and refining. 

    Take care flavius, have a good day     


    by Resistance on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 2:28pm

    The fire and brimstone doesn't frighten me; it repulsed me. I don't like violent movies or books, and the bible is full of the same kind of scare tactics that one can see in "B" movies, although it seems to be far more effective, considering the millions of people who have swallowed its pretty appalling story line.

    by CVille Dem on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 6:47pm

    To wrap this up, what is it you think the fire and brimstone is?

    It is a tool, propagated by religion, to make you fear punishment.

    Martin Luther in  1517,  recognized that,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther 

    There is only one outcome for sinful man and it's the same for even the righteous man, DEATH

    Both will be buried and both will turn to dust.

    Mankind has proven on a small scale with DNA and cloning, the possibilities of life from a small genetic code. 

    Imagine, the remembrance of the entire code, bringing back life.

    The only difference between the dead individuals, is one will be brought back to live again; the other will remain dust.

    No fire and brimstone…… just dust

    It's not about punishment,  it's the reward we seek  LIFE


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 2:36am

    Chicago native helped Obama find his voice in Tucson speech
    January 13, 2011

    By Katherine Skiba, Tribune reporter

    WASHINGTON — — President Barack Obama's emotional speech on the Tucson tragedy was penned in part by a 30-year-old Chicago native who works in the White House.

    Cody Keenan, a graduate of Northwestern University and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, long toiled anonymously in the White House speech shop, assigned to what a friend called the "eulogy and commencement beat."....

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-13/news/ct-met-obama-speechwr...


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:51am

    AA Obama sure did reach the heart thanks for the link. It'll be interesting how much this young man progresses, after Obama is out of office.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 6:57pm

    Latest Comments