Amazon.com Widgets

« Straight Talk | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Sunday »

I Have A Bracelet Too

My favorite moment during the debate




Quicktime Video 2.1 MB | Duration: 01'26
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

My god, the Republicans will steal anything from us liberals that's not nailed down. They robbed us of our American flag and the definition of patriotism, they stole the last two presidential elections, they are emptying the treasury to line their own pockets, and now -- well, this is the last straw -- they're trying to take our bracelets!

Accessorizing to commemorate soldiers has always been the realm of the left. When I was a teenager, wearing the dog tags of fallen Vietnam soldiers was an anti-war fashion, not a call to arms. While we've rolled over and let these people take everything from our privacy to our retirements, are we going to let them now just walk away with this last pitiful shred of our First Amendment rights???

Aux barricades!

My favorite part of the debate was when McCain tried to make the ridiculous comparison of Obama to Bush. I liked how Obama just smiled while McCain tried to draw that connection, it was all he needed to do.

in other wods, "I too pander to the troops."

but enough pandering dammit.

obama says the troops performed brilliantly.

really?

in what way?

"ACLU Says Military Prison Photos Confirm Widespread Abuse " http://www.nysun.com/new-york/aclu-says-military-prison-photos-confirm/86390/

for all the moist-eyed rhetoric delivered by people who "support the troops," it surprises me that no one ever calls for FEWER vets (from fewer wars) or questions what crimes the troops are to commit (in the name of honor, country, freedom) in the first place.

soldiers who die in unnecesary wars die in vain.

heed the words of wilfred owen: "If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, — My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. "

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

Dont get me wrong I dont approve of torture although if I was forced to go to war in some foriegn country, the morals I once held high would go right out the window. especially once you see people dying all around you. If you send people in to war, we should expect torture to happen. So really again I dont blame the troops for doing these things too much, I still blame the people who sent them there.

And you really think obama could say anything slightly negative about the troops and still have a chance in hell of winning the election? Regardless of if the attack on the troops is true, the republicans would play an attack add constantly and it would work.

The thing that Obama failed to do was call out Mccain on just the style of his arguments alone. if you look at his comments in terms of ethos, pathos and logos, he almost never appeals to logic. he tries to tug heart strings every ten seconds by throwing out these bullshit little stories that are mostly irrelevant and are employed like fog to prevent people from actually critically analyzing things. I know this would never happen, but my respect for Obama would increase ten fold if he had said, there never was a war to win, so the kids inherently did die in vain, and the only people you can blame for that are the people who voted for this needless and violent war in the interest of their own greed. That whole comment would have been simple to detonate right in the smug face of that lying traitor john mccain.

This was my favorite part of the debate too. He took the McCain comment and went right back at it. Maureen Dowd's article today gives some good advice to Barack for the next debate - especially as it relates to McCain repeating that he doesn't understand.

Yes, for a lot of McCain fans this was a favorite moment too. Particularly when Obama couldn't remember the name of the person who gave him the bracelet and had to look down and read it. "I have a bracelet, too! From ... uhhhh .... uhhh .... ummm ..."

If you listen a little more carefully, he did NOT forget the name of the soldier. He began to say he got the bracelet from the soldier and then corrected himself to say it was the soldier's MOTHER who gave him the bracelet.

Why people are so dishonest with their assessments when the video is right in front of them is beyond me.

Not to mention the fact that the family of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek has asked Obama to stop wearing the bracelet, and to stop using their son's name to bolster his withdrawal stance.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/28/family-told-obama-not-wear-soldier-sons-bracelet-where-media

First source I saw you quote - Washington Times. Now Newsbusters. It's hilarious. No wonder you hang out here - you are tired of that mindless right wing propaganda...

"Apparently, Jopek's mother did NOT say she was "ecstatic" about Obama continuing to use her son's name on the campaign trail even after she told him to stop. The AP had to change its headline to reflect the truth."

What was the title that was the truth - even according to a right wing organ like Newsbusters?"

"Soldier's mom defends Obama's mention of bracelet."

Hey Calligraph, this is what we call hypocrisy. You know, like how you claim to honor and respect war vets and war heros, all up until one runs for President for the opposing Party. I read the article you posted, the problem the mother claims to have was that he was using the bracelet to politicize the death of her son, so what would you call it that McCain is doing with his?
Also, please do get some perspective. If your going to make fun of Obama's ohs and ums, lets at least hear you answer for the fact that your man is unable to pronounce the name of foreign heads of state. He is after all running as the foreign policy and "experience" candidate, is he not? Or maybe this is were the old age, starts to become a factor?

This exchange seemed worse for Obama on the radio. Maybe because I think this braclet-wearing thing (not specifically for dead soliders, but for causes in general) is kind of lame. But Obama came off better with the line on TV. He also tied it back to a substantive issue.

I think McCain made a mistake in never looking at Obama. If the country was filled with disgust at air-headed optimistic liberalism, then perhaps contemptfor Obama would be the right way to capture their feelings and become their champion. But what the country is angry at is not the same thing that John McCain is angry at.

Calligraph, i have defended you, and more importantly, your man McCain on this blog, but you need to stop linking with things you likely know are wrong, you clearly have a computer and can google.

"Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdsm_ntfH32sDoi1u_H9HYCDeaHAD93G1RBG0

Calligraph, i too have admired McCain over the years, and supported him on this blog, but something is now wrong with him, why has he changed his mind on so many issues (abortion, immigration, Bush tax cuts, even changed his religion)just to get elected. Why did he not pick Liberman, who was his choice, and stand up to his party.

He is making sudden rash decisions like the one about choosing Palin, suddenly "suspending " the campaign ( huh, no one saw a real suspension), canceling the debate then showing up, his irresponsible response to the Russia/ Georgia crisis that even Colin Powell was concerned by, not allowing his vice presidential pick to be seen or heard?

I used to love McCain, sure i did not agree with him on his strong support of the war, but he was a conservative I admired, I just do not understand how the same man could well pull off these stupid stunts. It may be his campaign staff but it just does not make sense to me.

The question is why? Calligraph is dishonest, he extends no respect whatsoever to others on this blog. He NEVER admits a mistake, and like so much of the Republican party he adores, he is absolutely shameless – he has been corrected, upbraided, and has humiliated himself time and again. He neither cares about, needs nor deserves to be defended.

Why, because one should respect others opinions and not be rude to the other side, sort of like how Obama acted respectfully towards McCain and not like McCain snarling and not looking at Obama.

Why, because Obama is not god and McCain is not the devil.

Why, remember i am a psychiatrist, and Calligraph keeps coming back, he must really love us all.

My comment wasn't about McCain or Obama. But I think that for me and many liberals, if that's what I am, McCain was a Republican for whom I had at least a certain amount of respect. I can respect the idea of limited government as strongly defensible political starting point. I respect McCain for adhering to that philosophy in a fashion. I felt he was more honest than most of the GOP in his rejection of the Bush tax cuts because they revived the execrable "supply-side" economics (conservatism on the cheap - borrowing from your children to buy votes today). He rejected the Elmer Gantrys from the right and the left. Although I probably wouldn't vote for him, at least I wouldn't distrust him. But the McCain who campaigned for Bush in 2004 after Bush had smeared him personally and had been such a disgrace as president? How can one respect that? The McCain who has embraced voodoo economics and campaigns on an asinine oil drilling plan? No respect for that. Supporting the Bush doctrine? Knuckling under on torture? Voting for the Military Commissions Act? An absolute disgrace.

remember i am a psychiatrist

I do forget that - sorry to butt into your pro bono therapy session - good luck with that.

I totally agree with you on McCain, I don't get it, the reversal on torture is another one i forgot. I just don't understand it, and I am the psychiatrist. Is it another Bush Jr like thing, McCain is so desperate to be president (another show his father he is not the fuck up he was in his youth). Is he just getting really bad advice? Is he dementing???

I mean, if McCain ran as the old John McCain, he would appeal to the undecideds and well, win.

"...if McCain ran as the old John McCain, he would appeal to the undecideds and well, win."

Yes but McCain would have losed his base in the process, and would have NEVER gotten his party's nomination, let alone the vast majority of Republicans to the voting booth.

I maintain that this bronckin' maverick was broken by Rove - 2000, South Carolina. The piece of hay that broke the maverick's bite, if you will. McCain's never had the same flare or integrity since that primary.

I nominate k for the "comment of the week":

Why, remember i am a psychiatrist, and Calligraph keeps coming back, he must really love us all.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I am crazy, so I figure this gives me some valid insight.

I peg Calligraph as a sadomasochist. That, or a hit-and-run troll who copypastas the same posts on OGM and a hundred other "liberal" blogs every few days.

Na. He Really does think that Obama's stuttering and his ties to Chicago pols is more important than his presidential policies and where he wants to take this country.

I'm just surprised he's not trying to convince us that Obama is the most liberal senator, ready to turn us into Denmark.

Calligraph either reads conservative blogs obsessively or is jr associate at a right wing communications firm.

He always has the republican lies down before the campaign and news media do.

Calligraph doesn't love us, he's testing his bullshit out here. Either to make it better or because he isn't sure if he really believes it.

For those of you placing links, Markdown has a simple way of doing this so you're not displaying a huge URL in your comment.

The way to do it is quite simple:

[Words you want to Display] (Actual URL)

Just remove the space between the ] and (

So:

[My Blog] (http://journalofdoubt.net)

Becomes:

My Blog

Ah, Tim. You crack me up, although I usually don't bother to stoop to your level for a reply. But I'm a psychiatrist! As if belonging to a completely non-scientific profession whose practitioners claim to understand the human brain puts you on some pedestal of wisdom.

Regarding the bracelet controversy: Jopek's father stated clearly that he didn't want Obama using the bracelet, or his son's name, for political gain. His wife, who has stated she supports Obama, did say afterwards that she's not offended by his use of the two (although how she could not be offended by Obama completely flubbing her son's name escapes me, that's an Obamaniac for you). But the article linked above states this:

She wouldn't directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but said she hopes the issue will just go away.
And this:
"I think these bracelets should be looked upon as an honor that both candidates wear them to respect the troops"

Which is not an endorsement of Obama's conclusion.

It just continues to amaze me how the media washes Obama's dirty laundry for him. The AP went to the trouble of finding someone to contest Jopek's father's statement about the family's wishes regarding the bracelet? That's not impartial reporting, folks. That's advocacy.

Tim has also called "lie!" on all of the sourced & factual data I've provided on the housing crisis and the market meltdown, which was caused by the Democrats. Of course he did all this without bothering to address any of the facts; let me throw a new one on the pile.

This is video of the Democrats insisting that there was nothing wrong at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in 2004. Note the words of Democrat love toy Barney Frank:

I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/video-democrats-insist-nothing-wrong-at-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2004/

The blame for this fiasco falls squarely on Democrat shoulders, yet all we hear is the lie about "it's the result of Republican mismanagement!"

The bailout - which very few people support - died today, and many people are partially blaming Pelosi's ridiculous speech trying to pin the whole thing on the Bush administration.

The Democratic party put us in the mess by spending, wants to spend their way out, and wants to play politics on the way, laying all the blame at the feet of the people who tried to stop it. It's disgraceful. And who do they put in charge of trying to get it done? The guy who took more money from these organizations than anyone else. The guy with the most shady connections to these organizations than anyone else.

Yes, I do read conservative blogs. And after nearly vomiting at the blatant pro-Obama bias on my former news portal, MSNBC, I do now read Fox News (in addition to Yahoo! News, CNN, BBC, and so forth). My training in logic and debate has awakened me to the fact that a rational mind needs inputs from all sources, not biased and clipped media from one party or another. I come here to talk about these things because many people who come here are intelligent, if somewhat misguided, and I think intelligent people will make intelligent decisions when presented with well-rounded data.

Ah, Tim. You crack me up, although I usually don't bother to stoop to your level for a reply. But I'm a psychiatrist! As if belonging to a completely non-scientific profession whose practitioners claim to understand the human brain puts you on some pedestal of wisdom.

You should stoop to reading more carefully. k is the psychiatrist, I'm a chemist and I know vastly more about science - and much else - than you'll ever know.

Heh, Calligraph I am the psychiatrist, and what i said was a JOKE, JOKE, JOKE. I have no idea why you blog on this site, you can tell us if you want, but could you actually try and read the full thread so you can see it was a joke?

I would appreciate you stop insulting psychiatry unless you actually know something about it.

Finally what my original comment was trying to say was that the Jopek link was a silly attack, when any googling would have found the other story supporting Obama and the Jopek bracelet. Finally both of them are exploiting dead soldiers, but if you review the tape, McCain started the exploitation.

Still Calligraph and the rest of us, i do not support anyone attacking anyone personally, you have your opinions, I have mine, I would appreciate all of us, link stuff that has meaning, not just partisan silly nonsense. After all, we are having a financial meltdown, and no one can agree on what to do, we have huge international crisis' happening (Iraq, Iran, Russia, Georgia, Israel threatening bombing etc.) This silly bickering about flag pins, bracelets, lipstick, pregnancies, babies, only hurts all of us.

I would appreciate you stop insulting psychiatry unless you actually know something about it.

As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. :)

Tim has also called "lie!" on all of the sourced & factual data I've provided on the housing crisis and the market meltdown, which was caused by the Democrats.

Wrong again. In the recent open thread, I scoffed at your complete change in tune regarding the seriousness of our economic problems. There I reposted your month-old comment in which you said things weren't all that bad. My comment was made before you supplied any of your links that purport to shift the blame for the current crisis to Democrats - I had never seen your earlier post and neither read nor commented on the repost.

The major problem with this bill is that it is being presented by a lame-duck Republican president, and therefore he has no influence on Democrats and very little influence on Republicans. And talk about strange bedfellows. It is actually the Democrats who in the majority are supporting the Republican lame-duck president’s bill and the Republicans who in the majority have rejected the Republican lame-duck president’s bill.

If George Bush and his administration were to actually speak the truth, they would applaud the Democrats, but that sure as hell won’t be the case.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are sounding ridiculous as they attempt to explain what’s going on.

Those right wingers who believe 100% in capitalism and the free market therefore don’t believe in any socialist bailout which rewards those who made bad decisions. Anyone who made a bad decision will have to pay the price.

Now those who feel this way are going to be mighty surprised when they discover that the bad decisions of others affect their own lives. In fact, these very people don’t even understand how some of their own bad decisions have hurt the lives of others.

Life is such that the decisions of others affect me and my decisions affect them. We are a community, not an island, like it or not.

And who will be suffering because this bill didn’t pass? Borrowers, lenders, employees waiting for a paycheck, those who have retirement accounts and are nearing retirement…

Want to sell a house or buy a house? It’s going to be very difficult. Want to buy or sell a car right now? Tough luck. Looking to get a student loan to send your son or daughter to college? Sorry. Want to retire right now? Don’t count on it. An employee of one of these companies having a liquidity crisis? Too bad and don’t expect a paycheck.

Yes, I do read conservative blogs. And after nearly vomiting at the blatant pro-Obama bias on my former news portal, MSNBC, I do now read Fox News (in addition to Yahoo! News, CNN, BBC, and so forth).

You do realize that just because they say things you don't like doesn't mean there is a bias.

THe failings of Bush and republicans in the last 8 years has been profound and well documented. Facts do indeed support that much needs to change in DC and logic seems to follow that an outsider is better equipped to do it.

Obama is one of the few nominees that has ever emerged from directly fighting his own party(you may remember that until he won a lot of stuff his party structure was supporting Hillary Clinton).

The blame for this fiasco falls squarely on Democrat shoulders, yet all we hear is the lie about "it's the result of Republican mismanagement!"

Why does someone with training in debate repeat talking points already disputed without giving additional support?

The CRA existed for 25 years without ill effect.

The housing bubble peaked between 2003-5 after deregulation mixed with low income lending. The correction might have proceeded at a reasonable decline if it weren't for wars and threats of attacking Iran, and Hurricanes ignored by our current administration.

debate repeat talking points

A number of people here have alluded to the notion that Calligraph is nothing more than a plant for Republican talking points. They're right. Any analysis of "Calligraph's" comments are a strong demonstration of this.

Compare Calligraph's talking points to Syngas' heartfelt comments, and you'll quickly notice the difference.

Any analysis of "Calligraph's" comments

Yeah, but he seems to claim to be a logical thinking individual.

I come here to talk about these things because many people who come here are intelligent, if somewhat misguided, and I think intelligent people will make intelligent decisions when presented with well-rounded data.

Calli, I don't get why you try to make this argument about why you read and post here at the same time you avoid engaging in real discussion.

Redseven,

Calligraph is just fluffing people in order to soften them up to the point to where he will one again smash them. Get it? It's a game. It's a political game.

You do realize that just because they say things you don't like doesn't mean there is a bias.

Certainly. But when there is provable bias, there is bias. MSNBC has come under a lot of fire for rampant and evident pro-Obama bias. Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, and several others have actually opined that it "doesn't matter" if they support one candidate. Funny, it matters when Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson support one candidate.

It's simply ludicrous to assert that there is only one biased network on TV, and it's the one that gives air to viewpoints with which you have an ideological disagreement. In reality it's virtually impossible to spread information without inflicting some sort of bias upon it.

I don't allege some global conspiracy. The fact is that liberalism is simply popular amongst attractive demographics. It's also common for the current administration to see a backlash when something goes wrong, no matter how much they actually had to do with it - particularly when you're marketing to youth, who still have to work out their juvenile oppositional defiance.

Facts do indeed support that much needs to change in DC and logic seems to follow that an outsider is better equipped to do it.

This I fail to understand - you do realize that Democrats have controlled the lawmaking branch of our government for two years now, right? That they have had approval ratings lower than Bush himself?

And how do you see Obama as an 'outsider'? He has done nothing but play the game from day one. He has strong ties to the very institutions that crashed our markets. He's no outsider. He's just young and black and has good stage presence. If we were picking someone to play President on TV, he'd have my vote (if Dennis Haysbert were otherwise occupied). But there's no way he's the right choice for President, or his party the right choice to control two branches of our government.

Obama is one of the few nominees that has ever emerged from directly fighting his own party

That doesn't seem to be the case; he may have been 'against his party' on some issues, but largely he has been corralled on the major issues. He supports the bailout, while also railing against it and blaming everyone else for it. His website says he'll keep troops in Iraq for as long as needed, but he's talking about setting timetables. We could go point-by-point, but the man is no rebel. He's a politician.

The CRA existed for 25 years without ill effect.

The CRA was largely unchanged until the Clinton era. Until Clinton expanded it, it was marginally effective at its end goal. Under Clinton it was expanded and deregulated so much that it boomed, rapidly expanding the number of people who had houses they couldn't pay for, raising the cost of real estate for everyone, and artificially inflating construction.

This is all documented, I've posted it twice already. It is also documented that while various Republicans tried to get more regulation for these lending institutions, Democrats like Barney Frank were fighting tooth-and-nail to keep regulation away out of the fear that it would "make it more difficult for low-income families to obtain affordable housing".

You can certainly make the case that people in the Republican corner made bad decisions that contributed to the fall, such as the changes to the Glass-Steagal act, but bear in mind that was signed by President Clinton, and it was literally a teacup in an ocean of troublesome issues.

I'm more than willing to blame the Republicans that people can prove had a hand in this matter. What amazes me is that Democrats won't return that objectivity. You have jackasses like Pelosi grandstanding about the "failed Republican policies" - where's the accountability? Why are Obama's direct ties to these institutions considered minor affairs?

The correction might have proceeded at a reasonable decline if it weren't for wars and threats of attacking Iran, and Hurricanes ignored by our current administration.

Even having lost my family home in Katrina, I can't back you on that. No amount of federal preparation would have saved property from destruction, so that seems like a red herring. We haven't attacked Iran, so I don't see how that's even relevant.

Afghanistan is the war that everyone supposedly supports. So that just leaves Iraq. I'll agree 100% - it would be great if we hadn't invaded Iraq, if we had all that hypothetical money. But you can't blame everything on Iraq. You can't blame everything on Bush. It's ridiculous.

Certainly. But when there is provable bias, there is bias. Funny, it matters when Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson support one candidate.

Well, with the exception of Mathews you list all opinion journalists. Whom are certainly allowed and in fact paid to pick a side. O'Reilly like Limbaugh is well documented by organizations for simply lying on Air. Tucker is a douche bag that I find annoying that certainly has a slant but again is paid to have opinions.

The "bias" on MSNBC is most represented by the silly emotional banter passed between Mathews and Olbermann. Two guys reporting that they thought a speech was amazing is hardly the end of professional journalism the way it is made out to be.

And how do you see Obama as an 'outsider'?

He has only been connected to DC politics for 4 years. He has not been beholden to any small group demographic or interest in any election he has one. McCains ties to Fannie and Freddie are much more intrusive. Half his campaign staff has lobbied for them. THe biggest links McCain's campaign have drawn between Obama and F&F are the head of his VP search committee (whom lasted less then a week on the team) and a man whom obama met with once.

Obama has raised $126,349 from F&F employees. That's over his entire federal career. even if it were all for the presidential it would only be 2/100ths of one percent of all money raised. Even the entire banking industry has only given a little more then 2million would be 4/10ths of one percent.

Spare me this bullshit that somehow that amounts to a bigger connection then ...

At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years.

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

So they paid more money to one of McCain's staff then all banking employees from every bank gave to Obama's campaign.

We could go point-by-point, but the man is no rebel. He's a politician.

No need, I agree. He is just new to Washington and like I said previously not established not yet in debt to any one group.

Under Clinton it was expanded and deregulated so much that it boomed, rapidly expanding the number of people who had houses they couldn't pay for, raising the cost of real estate for everyone, and artificially inflating construction.

Again, it never required that the banks turn these low income cases into a high profit venture that they could list as a valuable asset. In fact there were many other problems besides loaning to people that couldn't afford them. In fact many of these people could afford them. and As Nader said on real time this week CRA recepiients have had a very high repay rate.

Republicans tried to use the bubble as a reason to start restricting loans under this program, when stricter regulation on the value F&F could place on them and the way in which they could be used to leverage credit would also have served to solove the problem.

But you can't blame everything on Iraq. You can't blame everything on Bush. It's ridiculous.

Not everything, but gas is traded as a commodity. last I checked it costs less then $40 a barrel to take out of the ground but gets sold for more then $100. the difference is "concern" and "concern" spiked around iraq and saber rattling with Iran.

Most Katrina damage could not have been prevented but the response to the need to rebuilding not only the neighborhoods but the economy on the south coast was abysmal. Not to mention investment in renewable. So I can blame bush for much of that.

Also Dems have had a majority for 2 years but not the filibuster proof majority in the senate needed to pass most anything and overturn vetos.

one could suggest they should introduce all these wonderful reforms etc and let the republicans shoot them down, but that strategy would have led to gridlock and prohibited them from delivering things like min wage increases.

Thanks for finally engaging in conversation.

Wow - I didn't know that about McCain and F&F. Or, about the extent of Obama's involvement, either.

Or non-extent... :)

You will notice that Calligraph disappeared after the facts came out.

Which is actually sad because I'd like to know if he was unaware or had been given conflicting information that he would now go and re-examine...why no followthrough if he wants to be taken seriously? He seems to spend a lot of time on his posts so I would assume he wanted everyone to assess them...

Big assumption. I take actually wants us to see the light, but rarely cares to do enough research to get past the first round of counter points.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives