James Montgomery, Esq. is holding a press
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2008-12-10
In Reply to:
conference. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is "candidate #5" and he thinks Blagojevich should step aside and resign and let the Lt. Gov. take over. He states JJ, Jr. is qualified for the position.
He states JJ, Jr. is not guity of anything. He is not worried about any consequences of this except the media frenzy that is being created by this. If the meeting between the Gov. and JJ, Jr. was taped, they have no concern over it.
He (JJ, Jr.) will be speaking with the investigators on Friday or Monday. He will be holding a press conference in 15-16 minutes.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
Charley James is racist.
Obsurd to post someone else's trash. I notice that is happening a lot here lately.
Like James Carvell (sp?) said, most of the people there
was in the age range of 72.4 years and white. I saw no diversity in the tea party myself, the few minutes I switched to Fox (that was the only channel I could get that was showing anything about it, not CNN, MSNBC or the local channels) just a bunch of hate mongers going under the disguse of taxation woes. More like anti-Obama group with all those horrible signs I saw on line.
Revelations, King James Version
Here are a few quotes from James Cone's book...
the author of Black Liberation Theology...you were not looking at the black liberation theology practiced at Trinity...James Cone is central to that, says so on their website, unless they have taken it down.
Here are a couple of direct quotes:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
"Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it... While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. " Excuse me...WHAT??
That is the racist part.
Here is the Marxist part:
One of the pillars of Obama’s home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America’s economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).
Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't understand. Who do you think planted James T Harris
He's a radio talk show host in Milwaukee.
Rick James died in 2004
of a heart attack. That was too bad. I loved Superfreak.
Sean Penn...Jeremiah Wright...James Carville...to name
X
Miers: Margaret Carlson & James Dobson know. Why doesn't Bush?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=ajuZsQQbuwl4#
With Miers, Bush Gets Fifth Vote Against Roe: Margaret Carlson
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- What if former President Bill Clinton had nominated his White House counsel, Bernie Nussbaum, to the Supreme Court? I can hear Bill Frist now. What does Slick Willy think he's doing -- filling a job at FEMA?
At first glance, there seems to be no other reason for Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court other than that she is President George W. Bush's Bernie Nussbaum. The notion that a careerist corporate lawyer would have risen to the top of Bush's list if she weren't down the hall is preposterous.
Unlike famous self-selector Dick Cheney, no one suspects the modest Miers looked in the mirror and saw the best replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staring back at her. Only Bush could see the ``heart'' and ``character'' in Miers that made her the perfect selection. She's been his consigliore, fixer and confidante for more than two decades, and she thinks the way he does.
The fact that Miers is a woman helps enormously. It looks as if Bush listened to wife Laura, who publicly suggested he should replace a woman with a woman. It's far more likely that Laura publicly suggested it because he already had decided to do so. The choice prompts automatic praise from some liberals, excites Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and placates Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Bush's Wants
And notice how tongue-tied a potential critic, Senator Edward Kennedy, was two days ago trying to criticize her.
Miers satisfies a number of Bush's proclivities: his inability to distinguish an insider job from an outside one (White House counsel is the most partisan legal job in government), his desire to reward loyalty and his love of surprise.
Ambitious Republicans should be on notice that the best way to get ahead in the Bush years is to work anonymously inside. It was only because the White House floated Miers's name that she was on anyone's list.
This is not to say that Miers isn't a decent, competent (she may be a crony, but she's no Michael Brown) and respected person. She's devoted to her mother and brothers, a regular churchgoer, an early riser, an avid celebrator of birthdays.
Up the Ladder
In Dallas, she broke the glass ceiling for female lawyers (although she lived the life of a nun to get there). After meeting Bush in 1989, she represented him in matters ranging from his purchase of a fishing cottage in East Texas to questions about his National Guard service.
At the same time, she climbed a steep corporate ladder, becoming co-manager of a huge Dallas firm and chairwoman of the Texas Bar Association, specializing in commercial transactions for large corporations.
She served on the Dallas City Council and headed the Texas Lottery, where, some say, she cleaned up Powerball. She moved with the president to the White House, where the only complaint against her was that she lingered over paperwork too long.
She became counsel to the president when Alberto Gonzales was promoted to attorney general. Gonzales is another loyalist who proved himself to Governor Bush by speed-reading through death row appeals in Texas and redefining torture in the White House for purposes of allowing more of it in Iraq. With her nomination, Miers has gotten an even bigger promotion than her predecessor.
Shocked Conservatives
Some conservatives are loudly shocked that Bush ignored the long list of known quantities among conservative jurists in the mold of his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It depressed Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Rush Limbaugh was so agitated Cheney gave him an interview to calm his listeners.
What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson's approval beforehand.
Like Bush, Miers had a late-in-life born-again moment, joining a conservative evangelical church in Dallas where she taught Sunday School.
In an interview in yesterday's Dallas Morning News, Miers's former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, said Miers told her when running for city council in 1989 that she had been ``pro-choice in her youth.'' Then, according to Bartos, Miers said she underwent ``a born-again, profound experience'' that caused her to change her mind and oppose abortion.
Keeping the Promise
That conversion fits with her $150 contribution to Texans United for Life in 1989 and her successful effort to get the American Bar Association to move from support for abortion rights to neutral in 1991. After the ABA switched back to a pro- abortion-rights position, Miers in 1993 failed in a bid to have the endorsement put to a vote of the full membership.
At his press conference yesterday, Bush claimed that in all the years he's known Miers he never learned her view on abortion. Dobson and Sekulow will have their hands full reassuring the base about that comment. It's one thing for Chuck Schumer to be left in the dark, quite another for Bush to say he purposely kept himself there.
Didn't he promise the base he'd turn the light on and give them a selection sure to reverse Roe?
I think he has. This time he's tricking Harry Reid.
I used to think the younger Bush was like his dad on abortion -- pro-life for purposes of getting elected, pro-choice otherwise. But I now see him as a victim of Stockholm syndrome, adopting as his own view that of his right-wing captors. My money is on Dobson knowing what Bush claims not to. Assuming Miers is confirmed, it won't be long before we all know.
To contact the writer of this column:
Margaret Carlson at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 5, 2005 00:16 EDT
I have been holding my tongue on that ...sm
It is interesting though. These were Bush, Reagan, Ford and Clinton appointees that made this decision (5-3). And I see where the right is upset, but to me it is pivotal that they followed the law and not beliefs and I'll tell you why.
Charles Lane, writer for the Washington Times wrote (see link below), *Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, ***were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.*** As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently.*
Looking at it this way, *Bush* NOT the Supreme Court, has held this up for four years when he could have done the prior one or two things. No president can just willy nilly make up things as he goes without going through the proper channels. This case is no different. Checks and balances is taught in elementary nowadays. I predict as he ways he will, he will get with Congress and they will collectively make a decision on something that will bring the POWs to justice (wishful thinking).
Do I want to see bin Laden's assistant, or any other war criminals walk? No, especially not the perpetrators in the 9-11 attacks. That's something I do not want to see come of this decision, but we must respect our own democracy in seeking justice.
This is just my opinion of what I understand is going on with the decision. If anyone can shed some more light on it I'd appreciate it. Have a good holiday weekend!
I'm not holding my breath......sm
I'll believe Obama gives me a tax cut when it happens, as well as help out with my health insurance. Can't tell from his website how "exactly" that's going to happen. His website if filled with a whole lot of words that are meaningless to me. Sounds good, but I don't see a lot of substance there, just like when he was campaigning.
Not holding my breath, but I'll come back and tell you if either of those things happen.
Not a Republican even though I leaned towards McCain over Obama, since he's such an unknown (and still is), and I actually decided I couldn't vote for McCain either....so my vote went to neither of them.
Who's holding a gun to your head? Don't like him
Simple as pie. Why spend your life being angry and posting these pathetically juvenile insults? Nothing better to do?
What's holding Edwards back?
Still holding out that last desperate hope
DNC has proven this over and over and over and over and over again. Burden or proof is now on the Berg the Boob.
the world is holding their breath
After 9/11 would the United States really elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?
Right now on C-Span, they are holding hearings
for the auto bailout. It's just starting.
We're not holding our breath. Owning up
nm
There is a picture of her in a bathing suit holding
a gun...does that count?
Holding people accountable and blaming
people are 2 different things. Blaming either party will get us nowhere. The situation is upon us and the blame game is only holding up the resolution.
Holding people accountable may help to prevent a similar situation in the future. Holding someone accountable means owning up to their part in the problem and making retribution to fix the problem. If someone went along with this and gained financially from it, then that person should be accountable - own up and pay up. If someone went along with this and gained politically, then that person should be accountable - own up and give up (your position).
I took serious offense to your comment because you didn't say it was directed to the politicians on the hill. You said as a general statement to all dems.
so quit talking and start doing -- what's holding you
nm
It isn't the Navy holding her child support
The federal government has rules concerning how much of someone's paycheck that you can garnish. I personally was in the Navy (in payroll of all things) and when I went through my divorce, the court ordered a whole $325 a month for 2 kids (both in daycare at $120/week/per kid). We were both discharged just prior to the divorce and he purposely took a job that paid $6 an hour, working 20 hours a week. The judge, out of the kindness of his heart, based the child support on him making $6/hr at 40 hours, not the 20 he was working. He was capable of making more, but wanted to tick me off. BUT, you cannot garnish more than 60% of ones wages and if back support is owed, not more than 65% with the 5% going to pay off the arreage.
There are certain things that you can take into consideration when they garnish your wages (most states make it mandatory now). In the military, they cannot include your food ration money, housing money, uniform money and whatever extras they have these days. They can only include your base salary. Being that military pay royally sucks, I can see where they are not handing over everything that is owed, especially if he is lower ranking.
I know it bites the big one and I feel for your daughter, being that I have been there, but she can get through it and be stronger for it. She needs to show her kids that she can hold her head up high and trudge on. I'll keep her in my prayers.
Thinking good thoughts and holding him up...:-) nm
nm
Not bickering. Holding feet to fire. Like GP...
and I agreed to. Have a good night!
If that's the case, I'm holding a bake sale.
If my sending money to Israel can help them buy bombs to nuke the Palestinians off the face of the planet, I'm cutting them a check right now.
KaBOOOOOOM!
Mazel tov!
I'm not predicting anything...just holding onto that new 4-letter word
YES WE CAN
Oh...forum domination. Someone holding your hands behind your back....
and preventing you from posting? Or don't you have a cause you care enough about TO post?
That was not the question....Gitmo is a holding area for terrorists...
The Hanoi Hilton housed American soldiers. And yes, I think it is VERY important that a presidential candidate is a patriot, has integrity, strong in the face of unimaginable pressure, and puts his country even before himself. Yes, I think all those are VERY strong criteria for the Presidency. Obama has nothing in his resume to indicate that he is that patriotic, that UNself-serving, showed that he put his fellow prisoners above himself...and you compare that to a terrorist in Gitmo. Good grief. ??
Yep...and today he is holding a town hall in France...
yukking it up with Europe as his own country circles the drain....pittiiiffullll.
Remember Bush holding hands with Prince Abdullah???
So as far as reading anything into Obama trying to get our nation back on the right track, thank God what was here before no longer around.
And Associated Press
They have both been caught doctoring pictures. Another example of how you can't trust the MSM.
I haven't seen the photos, but I'm going to look them up tonight when I get home.
How about the Associated Press?
then select news.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkwn9iRCwdE76BB6ClH6Qmw8NcFQD938KQSO0
Will you believe Associated Press then?
Had to look hard for it, no surprise there.
New House rules reflect Democrats' election win
By LARRY MARGASAK – 2 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats unveiled internal rules Monday that would end Republican-imposed, six-year term limits on committee chairmen and make it harder for GOP lawmakers to offer alternative legislation.
In changing how the House operates, Democrats sent a message that they will use the huge majority they won in November to overpower Republicans any time they wish. GOP leaders complained to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they were being marginalized, but there is little they can do.
The changes are set for approval Tuesday after the 111th Congress takes office.
Not all of the new rules were partisan, but they reflected only the Democratic view of how the House should be run.
The Democratic majority will be 256 to 178 with one vacancy when the new House is sworn in, compared to 235-198 with two vacancies at the end of the previous Congress.
One rule would have a longer disclosure requirement for House members negotiating a post-government job. Under the change, negotiations must be reported until the lawmaker leaves office. Previously, the disclosure directive ended when a successor was elected.
It also would be easier to object to so-called "air drop" earmarks: special projects added to legislation by House-Senate conferees after both houses already approved legislation.
For Republicans, however, the changes were a reminder that the majority rules in the House, unlike the Senate, where it takes 60 of the 100 senators to pass controversial legislation because of filibuster rules.
"President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. This (rules package) does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago," Republican leaders wrote Pelosi.
When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, they adopted rules to limit the terms of committee chairmen to three terms, or six years.
That change followed four decades of Democratic rule, when committee chairmen ruled by seniority and built up unchallenged power to pass or block legislation. The powerful chairmen also built up a system of perks for themselves, including a special bank that allowed lawmakers to overdraw their accounts without penalty. That helped lead to the Democrats' downfall in 1994.
Republicans said the term limits they established were designed to reward new ideas, innovation and merit rather than longevity.
However, the limits also generated huge fundraising efforts by chairmen-to-be, moving them closer to special interests in the legislative areas they controlled.
Republicans also objected to a proposal that governs how alternative legislation can be offered. Republicans said this would prevent the minority from trying to eliminate hidden tax increases added to larger pieces of legislation.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnHMsHdiW-mG_jKo8vvmIqcdmKMQD95HAAJG1
Not according to the Associated Press. nm
hammered press sec
I thought it was great how the journalists finally yesterday started hammering the press secretary about Rove. Yesterday I read where Hiliary Clinton equated Bush with Alfred E. Neuman, LOL. Today I was thinking, what cartoon would be Rove. Elmer Fudd. So, we have Elmer Fudd, Alfred E. Neuman and **death warmed over Cheney** running the country. Oh my, we sure are in good shape..NOT..and they we have the dinosaur backward thinking conservatives backing up whatever this administration wants to do/say..
Press conference
Gee, none of the stations out here covered it, LOL.
WH press secretary would
I do almost feel sorry for Scott. Rove made his 4th trip to testify today as well. Scott better get ready for some major 'splainin' or catapultin'
There is a rumor going through the press that........ sm
Rahm Emanuel turned him in. I'm not reporting this as fact because I haven't checked it out yet, but I have seen that mentioned.
and let's press charges
someone who kills someone who is pregnant for a double homocide but WAIT A MINUTE...... that is not an actual life...
Another press conference going on now
If I didn't lose count, that's #8 since he was elected. Do I have to listen to 4 years of this? Or is this just about chosing his cabinet and if so, did he fill all the spots yet?
I can read. I don't need to see him except when he takes questions from reporters.
FYI, I never listened to GW's press conferences either. I can't stand canned speeches.
Looks like BO's press honeymoon
The press might finally be wising up to a fact that's even more important (to their bosses) than playing suck-face with BO - namely, that even Americans who voted for this President are starting to really, really dislike his policies. The last issue of Newsweek to feature an Obama (was it number 19?) barely sold enough copies to pay for the printing, and it's more or less a rule in the news business (and it IS a business) that "if they don't sell, they smell". Obama is starting to sell less, and smell worse. Lots worse.
If the most recent news conference with BO is any indication, the honeymoon might just be over...and BO didn't like it one bit. In fact, he got downright surly - and he is really one UGLY man when he gets surly. Tsk - such a thin veneer.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html
Pres just had a press conference..
listened very discernibly, heard nothing different from his other press conferences... Feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray, only Bill Murray is much more funny and quite a bit smarter! When will get some real leadership? We desparately need LEADERSHIP!!!
Palin not ready for the press
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259517
Todd Harris, a GOP strategist, and McCain aide Nicole Wallace both said Sarah Palin won’t be available to the press. They said might make a mistake and American people don’t care about Palin talking to the press. Todd Harris, GOP Strategist who is also close to the McCain campaign, told Chris Matthews, MSNBC that Palin won’t be available to the press for about two weeks. He said she might make a mistake in the show.
If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt McCain for awhile, so I think this is a smart move.
And the GOP is proud in making such a decision, despite telling everyone she has more experience than Obama and Biden.
In the second video, McCain aide Nicole Wallace told Time’s Jay Carney and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC that the press will not be given a chance to take shots at Palin. She said American people don’t care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. She said the public will know about her from Palin’s scripted speeches and appearances on the campaign trail and in political ads.
Jay Carney responded with the following statement:
Wallace's bash-the-media exercise has its merits as a campaign tactic. It certainly rallies the base. But the base won't lift McCain to 50% in November. More importantly, in her smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters.
If she is not ready now, how can we expect that she will be ready in the next few months? Is there a two-month crash course for Presidency?
Meet the Press at 6 pm EDT. Watch
for the answers to these allegations.
A press conference is where reporters ask...sm
the candidate questions. The candidate does not know what questions are going to be asked. Hence, a teleprompter would be useless at a press conference. Teleprompters are for SPEECHES. Get it?
Watching press release
Could our president be double-standard? Reporters are asking really good tough questions. No confidence in this new administration whatsoever.
Interesting how it was leaked to the press
These types of studies are typically not for public consumption, but the timing of this one was just perfect for some manufactured outrage based on intentional misconstruing of the contents of the study.
I saw the press conference. Sad. Feel bad for the
nm
From the way Fitzgerald spoke in the press conference...sm
S. Libby has A LOT to be worried about. It seems he's a bald face liar, and I think what would be interesting to find out is why would he lie and say he didn't even know who Plame was under oath having been briefed on her at least 4 times before coming to court. I smell smoke...
Kiss freedom of the press goodbye
BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@herald.com
Thomas Jefferson understood.
He said that if asked to choose between government without newspapers
or newspapers without government, ''I should not hesitate for a moment
to prefer the latter.'' Jefferson knew that a free and adversarial press
was the people's best defense against the excesses of their government
and a fundamental building block of healthy democracy.
Unfortunately, that was 40 presidents ago.
The present president has a decidedly different view of the news
media's role. His administration sees the press as a thing to be bought. In
fact, while political manipulation of the news is hardly new, Team Bush
has a long and singularly sordid record of trying to turn the media
into a wholly owned public relations subsidiary.
Now they're taking their act on the road. And get this: They're doing
it under the guise of building democracy. Which is rather like stealing
from the collection plate under the guise of giving to the needy.
I refer you to last week's Los Angeles Times report that the Pentagon
has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories, written by
American troops, that reflect favorably upon the U.S. mission in that
country. The stories, while basically factual, are reportedly written so
as to flatter U.S. forces and the Iraqi government and to omit
information or perspectives either might find embarrassing. These press
releases are presented to the Iraqi people as independent reports by
independent reporters.
One is appalled, but hardly surprised. After nearly five years of
watching these folks' truth-optional approach to dealing with the public,
one is seldom surprised anymore.
BUYING PRAISE
This is, after all, the same Bush administration that was caught buying
praise from an ethically challenged columnist -- in violation of
federal laws against propagandizing the public, according to a September
report by the Government Accountability Office. It's the same
administration that allowed into the White House press room as a reporter an
Internet porn entrepreneur who wrote for a GOP website. The same one that
issues video reports favorable to its policies to be broadcast without
attribution as TV news. The same one that censors and quashes its own
scientific studies when they conflict with its preferred worldview.
So this is just more of the same in a new ZIP Code.
It will be argued by the usual sycophantic Bush enablers that what's
being done is justifiable. We are at war, they will say, and in war it is
perfectly acceptable to propagandize the enemy.
So it is. But the flaw in that logic is this: We are not at war with
Iraq. We are at war in Iraq against insurgents seeking to topple the
government. At least, that's the line put forth by Team Bush. Iraq, they
say, is a sovereign nation to which we are simply helping bring the joys
of democracy -- one of which would be a free press.
That being the case, you cannot justify telling covert lies to its
people any more than you can justify telling them to ours. You want to
communicate something to them? Buy an ad. Drop leaflets. Put up posters.
But don't produce a commercial and tell people it's news.
CREDIBILITY AT STAKE
Doing so undermines both the message and the medium. It could also
conceivably encourage Iraqis to question how seriously they should take --
how seriously we ourselves take -- this whole notion of a free and
independent press.
Indeed, one can only guess how this is playing with Iraqi journalists.
After all, the messages could hardly be more mixed. On the one hand,
U.S. officials are offering them workshops in media ethics. On the other
hand, U.S. officials are violating the most basic media ethics with
blithe indifference.
But then, it's a sour joke in the first place that the Bush
administration purports to teach Iraqis how democracy works.
You can't teach what you don't understand.
St. Paul Police Protest the Press
Be careful of your constitutional rights - they are rapidly disappearing.
http://www.truthout.org/article/st-pauls-police-protest-press
I just saw Nancy Pelosi in a press conference...
and I was reminded of the interviews I have seen her in...and frankly...Palin does a HECK of a better job than she does....and nobody seems to mind that. Bear in mind, if, God forbid, something happened to both Pres and VP guess who we get: NANCY PELOSI. She is TWO heartbeats away from the Presidency no matter who gets elected. Good grief, no wonder they send the VP to an undisclosed location and don't let Pres and VP travel together. lol.
|
