tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post429761343582605236..comments2024-03-28T12:10:26.197-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Truth as Freedom (3.12.12)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68276602771123071632009-03-28T19:36:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:36:00.000-07:00when I last posted, I was busy working over Job an...when I last posted, I was busy working over Job and his sons and daughters....fighting the cannonfodder-faith war...<BR/>but now I read your stuff and wish I could simplify it to high school level so that the young'uns had the truth, reality and ammunition through the leftists controlled, public education system...which is where we lose the battle..<BR/>Glad you are still here....<BR/>God BlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-59790613486072372822009-03-28T19:25:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:25:00.000-07:00We always have one or two trolls who cannot stay a...We always have one or two trolls who cannot stay away from the light they despise. Not to worry. What is a bad man but a good man's teacher?Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-39422237266367750972009-03-28T19:17:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:17:00.000-07:00And I'm not mtraven...been away from your site for...And I'm not mtraven...been away from your site for a year...took that long to digest and you always make my head hurt...which is a good thing..but I came back and saw mtravens post and it is so...incredible that she/he doesn't come close to understanding what you are talking about...different galaxy entirely from truth and God...and is completely clueless<BR/>It's astoundingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79154444236221194592009-03-28T19:16:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:16:00.000-07:00Of course. America = USSR, "predatory" capitalism...Of course. America = USSR, "predatory" capitalism = communism, authoritarian allies of US = totalitarian communist satellites, Inquisition = Holocaust, Hiroshima = whatever. LIke our mtraven, I was morally insane, which is to say, given over to an immature moral fervor outside any traditional moral channel.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5547169547200134232009-03-28T19:00:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:00:00.000-07:00Bobquestion for you (long after the fact). In your...Bob<BR/>question for you (long after the fact). In your student days, when you spoke about running circles around your interlocutor, weren't those circles dependent on faulty equalizations /rationalizations (ie Bush=Hitler)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-75739781029887127002009-03-28T18:42:00.000-07:002009-03-28T18:42:00.000-07:00He'll be back.Prediction: Three.. No. Two more com...He'll be back.<BR/><BR/>Prediction: Three.. No. Two more comments and then comes the new name.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-78510600964897975242009-03-28T15:28:00.000-07:002009-03-28T15:28:00.000-07:00It's very simple. The best people in the world ar...It's very simple. The best people in the world are fighting the worst people in the world, and the latter know they can rely upon useful idiots such as MT to get their PR done.Cousin Dupreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45493120368712837632009-03-28T14:02:00.000-07:002009-03-28T14:02:00.000-07:00empty craven said "That ruling was almost three ye...empty craven said "That ruling was almost three years ago."<BR/><BR/>Helvering v. Davis (1937) decided in favor of social security 72 years ago, but it is as unconstitutional today, as it was then. Every legislative abuse made through twisting the 'Commerce Clause', have been, and still remain, unconstitutional. What's your point, that bad decisions made through intimidation, ignorance, error or the deliberate intent to rationalize what is wrong in order to do what you want, somehow establish that what is right actually 'wrong'?<BR/><BR/>Moron.<BR/><BR/>"How do classical liberals come to be such enthusiastic fans of giving the state the power to inflict pain and suffering with no restraint whatsoever."<BR/><BR/>Putting a man in prison, or even executing him for a capitol offense, does not in any way harm or weaken the concept of Individual Rights, Property Rights, the rule of law or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, in selected cases where, during the prosecution of military actions in order to defeat an uncivilized enemy, if it is determined that a terrorist is withholding information vital to exposing other terrorists and their plans to inflict harm upon your nation, in no way, to a rational person (yeah, you're left out again), does that harm either the concept of our constitutional rights, or that they are less than endowed with unalienable rights - it means, that in this critical context, they have forfeited their political protections, and if after due diligence, those representatives of the people in our govt, have the right to authorize harsh measures (again, not torture) in order to protect those people they represent, from the depredations of dangerous savages.<BR/><BR/>"Of course, you aren't the first Christians to be torture enthusiasts and servitors of the state. But the Inquistition and its modern-day descendents do not go around claiming to be classical liberals."<BR/><BR/>As stupid and equivocating a comment as I'd expect from you.<BR/><BR/>"So unless you address them, I'm done."<BR/><BR/>I asked you over and over, from your first appearance here, for your thoughts on the more important issues of what you thought the basis of rights, property rights and morality were, and why you felt it was ok for leftist policies to violate them, and have received nothing regarding those questions but evasions and stupid comments. I finished with you long ago.<BR/><BR/>"Why should we believe you, rather than the international bodies with legal responsibility for defining torture, such as the ICRC"<BR/><BR/>Because those international bodies, who have no constitutional standing, are far and away representatives of illiberal statists, who couldn't give a fig for any proper conception, let alone defense, of Individual Rights.<BR/><BR/>"I suggest that being able to face unpleasant facts is a prerequisite to any worthwhile philosophizing"<BR/><BR/>A clear reason why you assiduously avoid doing anything other that attacking and ridiculing, never once making the effort to examine, construct or even define the most vital and fundamental of concepts.<BR/><BR/>Fool, Begone.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-72469072099483439632009-03-28T13:29:00.000-07:002009-03-28T13:29:00.000-07:00Oh Van, about the 33.30 (wink) its all Monopoly mo...Oh Van, about the 33.30 (wink) its all Monopoly money anyway. I’ll send you all mine and then I get to chase you around the desk this time…like they do at the White House. Good times. <BR/>Nah, just kiddin. I sent all my money too…<BR/><BR/>Empty, are you sitting down?<BR/><BR/>HALIBURTAN!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-639400747231658762009-03-28T13:17:00.000-07:002009-03-28T13:17:00.000-07:00“So how do Christians (whose savior was himself a ...“So how do Christians (whose savior was himself a victim of torturous and execution) come to be such enthusiastic partisans of such dehumanizing methods?”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let’s see. Uhm. Terrorists are not victims. Jesus didn’t deserve it.<BR/><BR/>There’s plenty more. But I reject also that this is about quantity. Quantity of items would imply that more is needed than these. You can’t skip over them if you don’t like them.<BR/><BR/>Bye!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27272497784126439752009-03-28T13:12:00.001-07:002009-03-28T13:12:00.001-07:00It is indeed a Christian thing. You wouldn't unde...It is indeed a Christian thing. You wouldn't understand.Peteynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-18243699918172365402009-03-28T13:12:00.000-07:002009-03-28T13:12:00.000-07:00“I thought you guys are religious Christians of so...“I thought you guys are religious Christians of some sort or another. I thought that a fundamental tenet of Christianity was that all men are endowed with souls, even the most criminal and depraved.”<BR/><BR/>Yes. But only 180 degrees out of phase from the way you do.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-54085734495022659022009-03-28T13:07:00.000-07:002009-03-28T13:07:00.000-07:00Lookit all dem links.Bob, you shur itsnot Ray?Now ...Lookit all dem links.<BR/>Bob, you shur itsnot Ray?<BR/><BR/>Now <I>you</I> owe me ten bucks.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-39967996833954603312009-03-28T13:06:00.000-07:002009-03-28T13:06:00.000-07:00“The point is:”Oh…thank God.“The point is:”<BR/><BR/>Oh…thank God.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85925129594759532802009-03-28T12:57:00.000-07:002009-03-28T12:57:00.000-07:00Sigh, please try harder:The Bush administration ha...<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html" REL="nofollow">Sigh, please try harder</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.</I><BR/><BR/>That ruling was almost three years ago.<BR/><BR/>But legalisms are not the point. The clear intent of the law, both US Constitutional law and international law, is to make certain basic human rights universally applicable. If terrorists are not legitmate military actors nor criminals, it does not mean that they fall through the cracks and thus governments can do whatever they like to them.<BR/><BR/>And even that isn't the point, either. The point is: I thought you guys are religious Christians of some sort or another. I thought that a fundamental tenet of Christianity was that all men are endowed with souls, even the most criminal and depraved. Christians tell me that that is the historical source of the secular concept of universal human rights, and I think they are correct. So how do Christians (whose saviour was himself a victim of torturous and execution) come to be such enthusiastic partisans of such dehumanizing methods? How do classical liberals come to be such enthusiastic fans of giving the state the power to inflict pain and suffering with no restraint whatsoever? <BR/><BR/>Of course, you aren't the first Christians to be torture enthusiasts and servitors of the state. But the Inquistition and its modern-day descendents do not go around claiming to be classical liberals.<BR/><BR/>I've asked these questions over and over and received no answer except idiotic name-calling. So unless you address them, I'm done.<BR/><BR/><I>Putting a cloth over someone’s head and pouring water on them, sorry, not torture.</I><BR/><BR/>Why should we believe you, rather than the international bodies with legal responsibility for defining torture, such as the ICRC? A bunch of bleeding-hearts, I suppose, but they have the advantage of actually knowing what they are talking about. Or <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58" REL="nofollow">Christopher Hitchens</A>, who had balls enough to submit himself to waterboarding? <BR/><BR/>Notice how you are lying to yourself with your bland description of waterboarding above as "pouring water on them". You fancy yourself a philosopher; I suggest that being able to face unpleasant facts is a prerequisite to any worthwhile philosophizing. <BR/><BR/>As a parting shot, <A HREF="http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444" REL="nofollow">here</A> <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar" REL="nofollow">are</A> <A HREF="http://www.sonyclassics.com/standardoperatingprocedure/" REL="nofollow">some</A> <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0MPcN08Zc" REL="nofollow">other</A> links you probably should not click on because they might disturb you with facts and spoil a pleasant Saturday afternoon.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-81935531222677339062009-03-28T12:01:00.000-07:002009-03-28T12:01:00.000-07:00Ricky said “Now you owe me $30.”No problem, leftis...Ricky said “Now you owe me $30.”<BR/>No problem, leftist economics provides a simple solution, I’ll just borrow $33.30 from you, pay you $26.70 ($30 less tax), and you can return the balance to me as paid in full.<BR/><BR/>“btw, I enjoyed watching you lay out the truth like that”<BR/><BR/>And that is kind of the purpose, arguing with an empty craven of course being pointless on the face of it, but like a person who sees a filthy muddy footprint on their clean floor, cleaning it up is something I sometimes just need to do, and in my mind working through the process to the truth of the matter not only cleans it up, but places the lieSol and mOp at the ready to auto-clean any further smudges.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5598574093093572312009-03-28T10:56:00.000-07:002009-03-28T10:56:00.000-07:00Yes, it's always good to shine a light on these cr...Yes, it's always good to shine a light on these crockroaches, even though they just scurry off to some dark coroner of the internet to nourish themselves on some more intellectual filth.Cousin Dupreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46629344250290065432009-03-28T10:48:00.000-07:002009-03-28T10:48:00.000-07:00Van,I just wanted to finally place a bet I was sur...Van,<BR/>I just wanted to finally place a bet I was sure to win. By Empty’s logic, you owe me $25 dollars. And what logic is that you ask? The type of logic that says, if it lives on a blog somewhere, it must be so. In fact, I’ve transcended that logic with a knew and I’mproved version, which is, I can believe whatever I hate, I mean, like. Now you owe me $30. It says so somewhere, I’m sure.<BR/><BR/>(btw, I enjoyed watching you lay out the truth like that. So please keep it up :-)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-4414257082266979362009-03-28T09:55:00.000-07:002009-03-28T09:55:00.000-07:00Ho! Expanding the Geneva Conventions to protect te...Ho! Expanding the Geneva Conventions to protect terrorists defeats their very purpose -- like reading Miranda rights to a coiled snake. "You have the right to remain sssssilent."<BR/><BR/>Which only proves the adage that a liberal is too broad-minded to take his own side in a fight, whereas a leftist actually fights for the other side.Peteynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-60733797850334088632009-03-28T00:20:00.000-07:002009-03-28T00:20:00.000-07:00empty craven said "The extension of such rights in...empty craven said "The extension of such rights in wartime is guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions, which also have the force of law."<BR/><BR/>Have you read the Geneva Conventions? If not, might want to start <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention" REL="nofollow">here</A>, there are additional protocol's to look through as well - I'll spoil the punch line for you - to most reasonable people, your precious terrorists aren't protected by it, certainly not as clearly as you’d like to pretend.<BR/><BR/>As wiki grudgingly puts it <I>"Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons. Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" currently in use by the out-going government of the United States."</I>, the primary gist of them is that ‘protected persons’ need to be clearly marked or uniformed, and play by rules of civilized warfare (you know, no beheading civilians, hiding howitzers in schools, that sort of thing) or you can look at the <A HREF="http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5" REL="nofollow">ICRC site</A> where you’ll find things such as,<BR/><BR/><I>"Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.<BR/><BR/>Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.<BR/><BR/>In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."</I><BR/><BR/>Most sensible people (I realize that rules you, the democratic underground and most other lefties out, but, hey) will read that, and conclude a couple of things. One, fanatic members of illegitimate govt's (taliban), and terrorist bands who are still committed to "Death to America" (al queda) can be reasonably thought of as not being a 'protected person', but even if they were to be granted that consideration, they could still reasonably be considered on a par with "...a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention."<BR/><BR/>Additionaly, reasonable people (again, leaves you out, sorry) would tend to consider the fact that fanatical members of an illegitimate govt (taliban) who not only do not distinguish themselves from the populace, but hide among them, do not rise to the level of 'protected persons', not to mention religious terrorists groups such as al queda (who by the way, is not a signatory to the treaties, and hence from that angle are also not a 'protected person') who are not part of an army, not uniformed, and are expressly murdering civilians, do not fall under the status of 'protected' persons.<BR/><BR/>But again, even if they were daft enough to grant them ‘legal protected status’, they might also consider that such people (again, taliban, al queda) who not only chant ‘Death to America!” but have murdered 3,000 people (here), and are actively plotting future atrocities, they might reasonably (yeah, leaves you out again, darn the luck) consider that language such as <I>"... the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."</I> is a date which has not yet been reached.<BR/><BR/>“conducting cruel and unusual punishment”<BR/><BR/>Cruel and unusual punishment is not what you typically perform upon your own people as a matter of training, or upon curious journalists. Just because it is effective, does not make it torture. Nailing testicles to a board, rape rooms, throwing people off buildings, beating them to a literal pulp, yanking out fingernails, smashing fingers, etc, etc, etc, that’s torture. Putting a cloth over someone’s head and pouring water on them, sorry, not torture.<BR/><BR/>“Do you think that everybody that has been tortured during the course of the so-called war on terror was guilty? Are you quite confident that no innocents were picked up?”<BR/><BR/>This isn’t NYPD Blue, and as in the example cited, zoobayduh was not picked up on the streets of New York, but during a firefight in a land where he wasn’t a lawful combatant. This is an entirely new situation we are in, of trying to practice warfare upon uncivilized savages hiding among the general populace, and the pretence that rules of behavior written for combat between nation states can be applied to combating such terrorism, is ludicrous. To even think that evidentiary rules could be even contemplated in the scenarios they are going to be found in, is at best naïve, but more realistically, it is dangerously uninformed and just plain stupid. To pretend that either pure civil law, or even utopian rules of warfare (which have historically only been upheld by the better western powers, and used against them by their non-western opponents) can be unilaterally held to, to the probable detriment of the legitimate state, and for the benefit of the savage, is nothing but sick.<BR/><BR/>But enough of your idiocy. As you have again expressed so well, you and your ilk, have little or no concept of civilization, law or decency. These are terrorists; they are not legitimate combatants in any way shape or form. By definition, they do not even fall under civilized rules of warfare let alone civilized law, and until such time as they are eliminated as a threat, no date ‘consistent with the security of the state’ will be reached in the battle against them.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-61882713692484152442009-03-27T21:51:00.000-07:002009-03-27T21:51:00.000-07:00Ricky said "However, five bucks says this will bou...Ricky said "However, five bucks says this will bounce right off him and he will come back to defend…his utterly indefensible position..."<BR/><BR/>Oh I know, I gave up on him after the third evasion, has nothing to do with the empty craven, just needed to be said.<BR/><BR/>wv:dobbledn<BR/>? Can't double down, I'm all inVan Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11663480939433990882009-03-27T21:30:00.000-07:002009-03-27T21:30:00.000-07:00Petey: Who do you imagine NRCAT is a front for? S...Petey: Who do you imagine NRCAT is a front for? Satan? <BR/><BR/>"Unindicted co-conspirator" is a legal term of art that does not imply guilt. It is a tool for prosecutors to get around the rules of evidence, and in addition appears to be very useful letting them smear whoever they feel like, without the affected parties being able to challenge it in court. There were over 300 individuals and organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in that trial, I am somewhat dubious that they are all working for al Qaeda. See <A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/discrim/36054res20080721.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/partying_with_40_000_unindicted_co_conspirators" REL="nofollow">here</A>. And of course, whether ISNA has links to terrorists or not is completely irrelevent to the issue at hand; you are just dodging the issue with a lame <I>ad hominem</I>. <BR/>Van:<BR/>personal insults, yadda yadda...<BR/><BR/><I>a terrorist leader...is by definition outside of the scope and protection of any consideration of rights whatsoever</I><BR/><BR/>Sez you. Unfortunately the law, civilized opinion, and liberal theories of government (which I thought you were all signed onto) disagree. The state is prohibited from conducting cruel and unusual punishment, period, no matter how heinous the crimes of the person they have in custody. It is also prohibited from exercising any punishment without due process of law. Such rights against state power do not only apply to good people, they apply to all people. The extension of such rights in wartime is guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions, which also have the force of law. <BR/><BR/><I>This is not a legal matter. It is not even properly a matter of War, it is a conflict between civilization and savagery</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you are right about that, but you are on the side of savagery and against civilization.<BR/><BR/><I>... and it is good and proper that our people deal with them by whatever methods remove them as a threat to our people and nation.</I><BR/><BR/>Torturing them is not required to remove them as a threat. It in fact interferes with that, since once someone is tortured they can no longer be prosecuted in a court of law. <BR/><BR/><I>If not, then you’re an emotions based guy, thinking apparently out of the question for you...</I><BR/><BR/>I am thinking, you are emoting. One role of the law is to restrain emotions, such as the fear and lust for revenge which is animating you, from interfering with justice. <BR/><BR/>Note this quote that you included: <I>We <B>believe</B> that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden....</I> You are apparently so trusting of the state that you are willing to let it employ the tools of torture based on their belief, unconstrained by any law or judicial process. Zubaydah probably was guilty. Do you think that everybody that has been tortured during the course of the so-called war on terror was guilty? Are you quite confident that no innocents were picked up? Do you believe that the state is so perfect in its operations that it ought to be able to torture anybody it feels like? Is "rule of law" such a foreign concept to people who claim to be classical liberals?mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-66995558327617702012009-03-27T20:20:00.000-07:002009-03-27T20:20:00.000-07:00Angry moonbats such as Empty idealize and defend t...Angry moonbats such as Empty idealize and defend terrorists because they have the guts to actually do something about their hatred for America, instead of just talking about it, as the left does.Cousin Dupreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69251121266611967822009-03-27T20:15:00.000-07:002009-03-27T20:15:00.000-07:00She’s clearly given this a lot of thought though. ...She’s clearly given this a lot of thought though. I mean she’s right. What’s not to hate about hate. Nobody likes hate. I don’t. Hate is bad too. Anyway, I’m glad I had a chance to listen to her. I’m going to stop hating now.<BR/>But I used to like her. Does this mean I can't anymore?<BR/>I'm confused...Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23449739059803749732009-03-27T20:06:00.000-07:002009-03-27T20:06:00.000-07:00Awe man…Wonder Woman too!!I give..Awe man…Wonder Woman too!!<BR/>I give..Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.com