- This topic has 685 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 29, 2010 at 9:25 AM #557553May 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM #556636
briansd1
Guest[quote=eavesdropper]
While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.
I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.
[/quote]
You make two important points here.
1) Squandered political opportunity.
2) Political capital accumulation to achieve goals.I believe that Obama’s mistake is extending an olive branch to the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in hope of cooperation.
As was noted before, HCR is really a Republican proposal of the past (but it’s still better than none, in my opinion).
Obama squandered his political capital and let HCR twist in the wind and get watered down while Congress debated and debated. What did Obama get in return? Nothing but more obstruction from the opposition.
The truth is that the political strategy and staying unified in opposition of the other side works. As you say, eavesdropper, nothing works like accumulating political capital to achieving your party’s goals.
FDR was able to push through his agenda with forcefulness and resolve.
May 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM #556739Guest[quote=eavesdropper]
While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.
I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.
[/quote]
You make two important points here.
1) Squandered political opportunity.
2) Political capital accumulation to achieve goals.I believe that Obama’s mistake is extending an olive branch to the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in hope of cooperation.
As was noted before, HCR is really a Republican proposal of the past (but it’s still better than none, in my opinion).
Obama squandered his political capital and let HCR twist in the wind and get watered down while Congress debated and debated. What did Obama get in return? Nothing but more obstruction from the opposition.
The truth is that the political strategy and staying unified in opposition of the other side works. As you say, eavesdropper, nothing works like accumulating political capital to achieving your party’s goals.
FDR was able to push through his agenda with forcefulness and resolve.
May 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM #557223Guest[quote=eavesdropper]
While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.
I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.
[/quote]
You make two important points here.
1) Squandered political opportunity.
2) Political capital accumulation to achieve goals.I believe that Obama’s mistake is extending an olive branch to the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in hope of cooperation.
As was noted before, HCR is really a Republican proposal of the past (but it’s still better than none, in my opinion).
Obama squandered his political capital and let HCR twist in the wind and get watered down while Congress debated and debated. What did Obama get in return? Nothing but more obstruction from the opposition.
The truth is that the political strategy and staying unified in opposition of the other side works. As you say, eavesdropper, nothing works like accumulating political capital to achieving your party’s goals.
FDR was able to push through his agenda with forcefulness and resolve.
May 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM #557325Guest[quote=eavesdropper]
While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.
I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.
[/quote]
You make two important points here.
1) Squandered political opportunity.
2) Political capital accumulation to achieve goals.I believe that Obama’s mistake is extending an olive branch to the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in hope of cooperation.
As was noted before, HCR is really a Republican proposal of the past (but it’s still better than none, in my opinion).
Obama squandered his political capital and let HCR twist in the wind and get watered down while Congress debated and debated. What did Obama get in return? Nothing but more obstruction from the opposition.
The truth is that the political strategy and staying unified in opposition of the other side works. As you say, eavesdropper, nothing works like accumulating political capital to achieving your party’s goals.
FDR was able to push through his agenda with forcefulness and resolve.
May 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM #557602Guest[quote=eavesdropper]
While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.
I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.
[/quote]
You make two important points here.
1) Squandered political opportunity.
2) Political capital accumulation to achieve goals.I believe that Obama’s mistake is extending an olive branch to the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in hope of cooperation.
As was noted before, HCR is really a Republican proposal of the past (but it’s still better than none, in my opinion).
Obama squandered his political capital and let HCR twist in the wind and get watered down while Congress debated and debated. What did Obama get in return? Nothing but more obstruction from the opposition.
The truth is that the political strategy and staying unified in opposition of the other side works. As you say, eavesdropper, nothing works like accumulating political capital to achieving your party’s goals.
FDR was able to push through his agenda with forcefulness and resolve.
May 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM #556685Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Afx: Did you happen to watch “Real Time with Bill Maher” last night? I ask because Cornel West, a man with whom I’d ordinarily have no truck, was on and in full voice. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was also there, discussing his new book, “The Promise”, which details Obama’s first year.
West, needless to say, is NOT a conservative, nor is he a Republican, but he went after Obama with a vengeance last night. His criticisms were not picayune, by the way, but the criticisms of a student of political history and a black man.
What really captured my attention was him lambasting Obama for essentially lying to his adherents (note I didn’t say constituents) in order to gain office, and then abandoning them and becoming just another political operator.
A consistent, and I believe valid, criticism of Obama has been that he is just another Chicago pol, and a product of that system of patronage, wheeling and dealing, and cronyism.
While I take your point about the Dems being very individualistic as a party, I also think Obama never figured out how to get them to cohere as a broad-based coalition seeking common goals (the lack of statesmanship that West lamented) and I think the promise he offered to the great swathe of middle class America evaporated after his election, and people came to see that the sweeping oratory was just that: Words.
True or not, the Gulf spill is now Obama’s. I personally don’t think its true, but that’s the nature of politics. Bush was taken from pillar to post over Katrina, while the failings of the local and state first responders were never discussed. FEMA is NOT a first responder and never has been, and the same group that expected the federal government to fix Katrina is now expecting the same for the Gulf spill.
May 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM #556787Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Afx: Did you happen to watch “Real Time with Bill Maher” last night? I ask because Cornel West, a man with whom I’d ordinarily have no truck, was on and in full voice. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was also there, discussing his new book, “The Promise”, which details Obama’s first year.
West, needless to say, is NOT a conservative, nor is he a Republican, but he went after Obama with a vengeance last night. His criticisms were not picayune, by the way, but the criticisms of a student of political history and a black man.
What really captured my attention was him lambasting Obama for essentially lying to his adherents (note I didn’t say constituents) in order to gain office, and then abandoning them and becoming just another political operator.
A consistent, and I believe valid, criticism of Obama has been that he is just another Chicago pol, and a product of that system of patronage, wheeling and dealing, and cronyism.
While I take your point about the Dems being very individualistic as a party, I also think Obama never figured out how to get them to cohere as a broad-based coalition seeking common goals (the lack of statesmanship that West lamented) and I think the promise he offered to the great swathe of middle class America evaporated after his election, and people came to see that the sweeping oratory was just that: Words.
True or not, the Gulf spill is now Obama’s. I personally don’t think its true, but that’s the nature of politics. Bush was taken from pillar to post over Katrina, while the failings of the local and state first responders were never discussed. FEMA is NOT a first responder and never has been, and the same group that expected the federal government to fix Katrina is now expecting the same for the Gulf spill.
May 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM #557273Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Afx: Did you happen to watch “Real Time with Bill Maher” last night? I ask because Cornel West, a man with whom I’d ordinarily have no truck, was on and in full voice. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was also there, discussing his new book, “The Promise”, which details Obama’s first year.
West, needless to say, is NOT a conservative, nor is he a Republican, but he went after Obama with a vengeance last night. His criticisms were not picayune, by the way, but the criticisms of a student of political history and a black man.
What really captured my attention was him lambasting Obama for essentially lying to his adherents (note I didn’t say constituents) in order to gain office, and then abandoning them and becoming just another political operator.
A consistent, and I believe valid, criticism of Obama has been that he is just another Chicago pol, and a product of that system of patronage, wheeling and dealing, and cronyism.
While I take your point about the Dems being very individualistic as a party, I also think Obama never figured out how to get them to cohere as a broad-based coalition seeking common goals (the lack of statesmanship that West lamented) and I think the promise he offered to the great swathe of middle class America evaporated after his election, and people came to see that the sweeping oratory was just that: Words.
True or not, the Gulf spill is now Obama’s. I personally don’t think its true, but that’s the nature of politics. Bush was taken from pillar to post over Katrina, while the failings of the local and state first responders were never discussed. FEMA is NOT a first responder and never has been, and the same group that expected the federal government to fix Katrina is now expecting the same for the Gulf spill.
May 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM #557374Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Afx: Did you happen to watch “Real Time with Bill Maher” last night? I ask because Cornel West, a man with whom I’d ordinarily have no truck, was on and in full voice. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was also there, discussing his new book, “The Promise”, which details Obama’s first year.
West, needless to say, is NOT a conservative, nor is he a Republican, but he went after Obama with a vengeance last night. His criticisms were not picayune, by the way, but the criticisms of a student of political history and a black man.
What really captured my attention was him lambasting Obama for essentially lying to his adherents (note I didn’t say constituents) in order to gain office, and then abandoning them and becoming just another political operator.
A consistent, and I believe valid, criticism of Obama has been that he is just another Chicago pol, and a product of that system of patronage, wheeling and dealing, and cronyism.
While I take your point about the Dems being very individualistic as a party, I also think Obama never figured out how to get them to cohere as a broad-based coalition seeking common goals (the lack of statesmanship that West lamented) and I think the promise he offered to the great swathe of middle class America evaporated after his election, and people came to see that the sweeping oratory was just that: Words.
True or not, the Gulf spill is now Obama’s. I personally don’t think its true, but that’s the nature of politics. Bush was taken from pillar to post over Katrina, while the failings of the local and state first responders were never discussed. FEMA is NOT a first responder and never has been, and the same group that expected the federal government to fix Katrina is now expecting the same for the Gulf spill.
May 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM #557650Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Afx: Did you happen to watch “Real Time with Bill Maher” last night? I ask because Cornel West, a man with whom I’d ordinarily have no truck, was on and in full voice. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was also there, discussing his new book, “The Promise”, which details Obama’s first year.
West, needless to say, is NOT a conservative, nor is he a Republican, but he went after Obama with a vengeance last night. His criticisms were not picayune, by the way, but the criticisms of a student of political history and a black man.
What really captured my attention was him lambasting Obama for essentially lying to his adherents (note I didn’t say constituents) in order to gain office, and then abandoning them and becoming just another political operator.
A consistent, and I believe valid, criticism of Obama has been that he is just another Chicago pol, and a product of that system of patronage, wheeling and dealing, and cronyism.
While I take your point about the Dems being very individualistic as a party, I also think Obama never figured out how to get them to cohere as a broad-based coalition seeking common goals (the lack of statesmanship that West lamented) and I think the promise he offered to the great swathe of middle class America evaporated after his election, and people came to see that the sweeping oratory was just that: Words.
True or not, the Gulf spill is now Obama’s. I personally don’t think its true, but that’s the nature of politics. Bush was taken from pillar to post over Katrina, while the failings of the local and state first responders were never discussed. FEMA is NOT a first responder and never has been, and the same group that expected the federal government to fix Katrina is now expecting the same for the Gulf spill.
May 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM #556695eavesdropper
Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Love the Obamameter!! Many thanks for the link.
I was really pumped when the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania came up with the FactCheck.org website. Brilliant idea! Most of our political leaders and their staffs likewise thought so, too, utilizing FactCheck regularly in campaigns, legislative battles, and press releases….until facts came up that were not necessarily in their favor. Now we have a number of similar sites from which you can choose, depending on your particular brand of bias. Oh, well. It was great while it lasted.
In regard to the legislation, mine was an attempt simply to demonstrate the extreme divide along party lines. I have no delusions that any of those battles were easy. As for a change in the balance of the Senate and House, I wish I had your faith. In my eyes, a significant number of Republicans winning the seats of incumbent Dems will confirm what I suspect: that the evidence that the Republicans are drawing large paychecks for obstructing legislative progress hasn’t registered in the brains of American voters, or it simply doesn’t bother them. I’m not sure which of those bothers me more.
May 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM #556797Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Love the Obamameter!! Many thanks for the link.
I was really pumped when the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania came up with the FactCheck.org website. Brilliant idea! Most of our political leaders and their staffs likewise thought so, too, utilizing FactCheck regularly in campaigns, legislative battles, and press releases….until facts came up that were not necessarily in their favor. Now we have a number of similar sites from which you can choose, depending on your particular brand of bias. Oh, well. It was great while it lasted.
In regard to the legislation, mine was an attempt simply to demonstrate the extreme divide along party lines. I have no delusions that any of those battles were easy. As for a change in the balance of the Senate and House, I wish I had your faith. In my eyes, a significant number of Republicans winning the seats of incumbent Dems will confirm what I suspect: that the evidence that the Republicans are drawing large paychecks for obstructing legislative progress hasn’t registered in the brains of American voters, or it simply doesn’t bother them. I’m not sure which of those bothers me more.
May 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM #557283Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Love the Obamameter!! Many thanks for the link.
I was really pumped when the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania came up with the FactCheck.org website. Brilliant idea! Most of our political leaders and their staffs likewise thought so, too, utilizing FactCheck regularly in campaigns, legislative battles, and press releases….until facts came up that were not necessarily in their favor. Now we have a number of similar sites from which you can choose, depending on your particular brand of bias. Oh, well. It was great while it lasted.
In regard to the legislation, mine was an attempt simply to demonstrate the extreme divide along party lines. I have no delusions that any of those battles were easy. As for a change in the balance of the Senate and House, I wish I had your faith. In my eyes, a significant number of Republicans winning the seats of incumbent Dems will confirm what I suspect: that the evidence that the Republicans are drawing large paychecks for obstructing legislative progress hasn’t registered in the brains of American voters, or it simply doesn’t bother them. I’m not sure which of those bothers me more.
May 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM #557384Participant[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.
Time will tell.[/quote]
Love the Obamameter!! Many thanks for the link.
I was really pumped when the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania came up with the FactCheck.org website. Brilliant idea! Most of our political leaders and their staffs likewise thought so, too, utilizing FactCheck regularly in campaigns, legislative battles, and press releases….until facts came up that were not necessarily in their favor. Now we have a number of similar sites from which you can choose, depending on your particular brand of bias. Oh, well. It was great while it lasted.
In regard to the legislation, mine was an attempt simply to demonstrate the extreme divide along party lines. I have no delusions that any of those battles were easy. As for a change in the balance of the Senate and House, I wish I had your faith. In my eyes, a significant number of Republicans winning the seats of incumbent Dems will confirm what I suspect: that the evidence that the Republicans are drawing large paychecks for obstructing legislative progress hasn’t registered in the brains of American voters, or it simply doesn’t bother them. I’m not sure which of those bothers me more.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.