Who’s Got The Bigger War Chest?
Fans of porn star Stormy Daniels are behind an effort to get her to run for the seat held by Louisiana Senator David Vitter. Vitter, you may recall, was on the client list of the DC Madam, in spite of being a co-sponsor of “The Marriage Protection Act”, and in spite of being a “family values” candidate who used his kids in his 2004 campaign ads.
Daniels says she’s intrigued with the idea of a run and is planning a listening tour around her native Louisiana.
According to a capsule bio on the Draft Stormy Web site, Daniels has been “breaking barriers and shattering glass ceilings her entire life,” serving as editor of her high school newspaper and president of her school’s 4-H Club and eventually transferring “her determination and talents to the professional level, becoming a featured performer in the adult entertainment industry.”
Another stride was “signing an exclusive contract with the video production company Wicked Pictures, a company committed to a health and safety first policy, as pertaining to its video performances. Stormy’s decision to sign with Wicked highlighted her commitment to sending a positive message to young people of the importance of practicing safe sex,” the bio said.
This already puts Daniels ahead of Vitter on health care. Vitter is infamous for having opposed HR976, the reauthorizaton of the State Children’s Health Care Program.
“I think anyone that knows me … is more than aware of that,” Daniels said. “Politics can’t be any dirtier of a job than the one I am already in.” Vitter has a $2 million war chest. Daniels has 36DD’s.
Stormy is obviously more talented and certainly honest.
She’s the only politician not lying about laying!
February 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Alan…really? from apostrophe’s to porn stars. I hope your posts get better.
Here’s one for you to consider putting on your website as you’re definitely having a slow day:
“5000 mexicans killed by drug cartels in 2008 along the Mexican/US border”
February 9th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Alan,
I have been reading you blogs lately, just to see what you are writing about. I did not plan to register to voice my views, but I just couldn’t not respond to this article.
Why is it that you seem to “demonize” the idea of having family values or faith. No one is perfect and therefore, will fail at times. This article is worthless. Why aren’t you talking about how congress and Obama are stealing our money and rewriting the constitution? How about the fact that the white house is taking over the census? There will be NO way to watch this. You really think they are going to be honest and bi-partisan? To me, this is much more scarey and news worthy than this women with the big chest. Or, is that what matters most to you? Do you not think these things are what the Americans need to know, or do you just don’t care anymore, now that a liberal is in the White House?
February 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Hey Jared…I put up what interests me. That’s why I have the site. But thanks for reading it!
February 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Deb…I’m not demonizing family values. I’m demonizing hypocrisy. Don’t tell me how much you love your family, use them in campaign ads, and then cheat on your family with hookers. I’m sorry you have such disdain for liberals that you think ideological labeling is what it’s all about.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
What the hell are ‘family values’ anyway? Every family is different, and each family, and each member within that family has a value system.
It really irritates me that some on the right think they own the word ‘family’.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Golly, “family values” are so important to a party led by Newt Gingrich and John McCain, aren’t they?
Poor Deb.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
“Family Values,” Um Cara, mean getting women to pump out as many children as they can (thanks to Palin, out-of-wedlock is now “in”), and then whining about welfare moms.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Alan, I don’t have disdain for liberals. I, too, don’t like hypocrisy on either side of the aisle. Since I don’t know much about him and you did not say anything about adultry in your article, why would I assume he is using his family? I have no problem with any candidate showing his/her family. You just seem to be criticizing his family values. But, again, you are not answering my concern as to why you don’t talk about things that REALLY matter. This kind of talk is just bait to try to get division, in my humble opinion.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Alan, I reread your article. I saw the line about the DC madam. Sorry.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
“Family values” is like “common sense”: totally meaningless constructions people use to denigrate opinions which conflict with their own.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“”5000 mexicans killed by drug cartels in 2008 along the Mexican/US border””"
Supply and demand, Jared. When you do something to stop the demand (and stop selling them the weapons, lol) perhaps the supply will stop…
Best get crackin’….
And DEB…this topic DOES matter to those of us that are sick and tired of conservatives running for election on “holier-than-thou” family values (Whatever those are)…
The sooner consrvatives admit that they behave the same way as anyone else, the better.
But it IS funnier when a ‘family-values’ far right Republican gets caught with diapers on and a lolly-pop inserted in his sphincter, don’t you agree?
:-0
February 9th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
She exemplifies where the democratic party is today.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
In power?
February 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
They’ll drag a “$100.00 through any trailerpark” to find a candidate to run. Yeah, we need more mindless porn stars in politics.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Actually, in the gutter Frosty.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
FROSTY,
If it were just pot they were killing innocent people over, then we could probably have a legitimate discussion on the point. However, were talking about cocaine, heroine, ecstasy, and pharmaceuticals, and pot. We’ve already given Calderon and his government upwards of $500M specifically for combatting the drug problem. And it isn’t the US Gov that’s selling them the weapons, it’s the corrupt police and military forces that are giving them the weapons. Get your story straight.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hasn’t David Vitter voted no to the stimulus package???? This is the guy who promotes “family values.” I wonder how he would feel if he were a regular working stiff and lost his job and there were no jobs readily available (as is today) no money for unemployment and no money available for food stamps. I am sure at that point he would be wondering why the leaders in this country did not care about families.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Me get MY story straight?
That’s rich.
Jared, prohibition doesn’t work. It didn’t work for alchohol, it hasn’t (and won’t) work for narcotics.
There is too much profit to be made, and so NO MATTER how much money you throw at it, the dealers will throw more.
On the other hand, if you were to start to address the root of the problem, e.g. the ‘demand’ in your own backyard, you might have a chance.
Jared, let me ask you, why do you think people take drugs?
February 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
why do you think people take drugs?
Because they have the flu.
And because the desire to alter consciousness is a basic human (plus other critters) drive/pleasure.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
David Vitter is a flawed human being. We are all flawed human beings. We all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
We should pray for our nation and our soldiers and those who lead this nation. Pray for each in the name of Christ Jesus, our Risen Saviour.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
And they take durgs because they are addicts. A byproduct of the sixties.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Jared you say
1) “”then we could probably have a legitimate discussion on the point.”"
but then you tell me to:
2) “Get my story straight…”
and yet, the ATF and FBI say”
3) “”Mexican and U.S. officials estimate the cartels get 95 percent of their guns from the United States….”"
And so Jared, how can we have “1″, when you say “2″…and in fact, “3″ are the facts…?
LOL
You neo-cons just won’t budge an INCH, will ya? Defending Bush, attacking science, blaming gays for the end of marriage, when are you going to stop the argueing, so we CAN have a conversation?
February 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
And they take durgs because they are addicts.
The majority of folks who take drugs are not addicts.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“”We are all flawed human beings. We all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. “”
Speak for yourself, Willy. I, for all my idiosyncrasies and oddiites, do not consider myself ‘flawed’.
In fact, the opposite, I am a typical example of 3 billion years of evolution, and other than my pot belly, long greasy hair, unkempt beard…erm, bit of a temper….uh, a bit on the lazy side actually,…erm…
…
….OK, flawed, but ‘fallen short’?
Not me mate…
February 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
FROSTY,
thank you for the history lesson. However, the effects of hard drugs (even you can agree) are much more lethal than alcohol. How many people have you heard of have died from overdosing on alcohol than say heroin?
I’d say people take drugs, initially, out of intrigue. They want to know what it’s all about…peer pressure would probably be a factor. I can’t imagine many people taking drugs because they know their teeth will eventually fall out.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
FROSTY,
As I pointed out in a previous post, the US isn’t directly giving the cartels the weapons. Sorry, but that’s one thing you can’t pin on Bush.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I used to be conceited, Frosty, until I found out it was a fault. Now I’m perfect. :)
February 9th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“”Because they have the flu.
And because the desire to alter consciousness is a basic human (plus other critters) drive/pleasure.”"
Both of these answers are, erm, technically correct…but I was looking more for the latter….
That’s right…they feel good. What DOESN’T feel good though, is that because they are so expensive due to this stupid ‘prohibition’, many are forced to beg borrow and steal to buy them.
Those in the middle classes, rarely become addicts…abusers maybe, but addicts, no…
But for the poor, it’s different. Drugs offer a relief from the day to day worries of well-being, food and shelter…not to mention the ‘goodies’ that we are told we want by the “free market”…
And they feel ESPECIALLY good to those who live with little or no hope for the future…they are a painkiller and numb us to our desperate situations.
Raise the quailty of life, the hope, and the ambition of the least among us, and watch addiction go down.
legalize, and regulate, drugs, price them fairly through prescription (like Palin/McCain ladies) and watch crime plummet.
How is it that Fat-mouth Limbaugh can get 120 Oxys for 30 bucks, and an addict, with no MD/health plan/credibility has to pay $300 for the SAME amount of opiate?
February 9th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Actually Jared, Where I live more people are killed by alcohol than any other kind of drug. If people overdose on anything it’s usually a prescription drug or an OTC medicine. Most of the time it’s a guy out on the lake who was too drunk to make it home and passed out in the 20 below weather. But with stupid is Darwins law of natural selection … right Frosty!
February 9th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“”the US isn’t directly giving the cartels the weapons.”"
No, they come and and buy them from your “no-holds barred” arms dealers….C’mon Jared! Can you neo-cons not take ANY responsibility for ANYTHING??!!
where do you think they get the guns, from Ecuador?
February 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
How many people have you heard of have died from overdosing on alcohol than say heroin?
You are joking, right? Far, far, far, (many more fars), more people die of alcohol than heroin.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“” How many people have you heard of have died from overdosing on alcohol than say heroin? “”
Jared, some inconvenient truths for you.
NO-ONE overdoses from heroin, ‘accidently’. let me put it a better way. They overdose because there is no regulation or control over the purity of the drug!
One day, your gear is weak and its been ’stepped on’…the next, you meet the ‘new ‘playa’ and HIS stuff is pure…because he’s trying to win market share, blah blah, blah….you do the same amount, and voila!
As a musician, I have known many beautiful souls over the years that dies from an ‘unexpected’ overdose, mostly heroin. Cocaine, nop, no-one i know has ever overdosed on cocaine. Stolen from their families, yes, robbed old ladies, yeah…
…heinous crimes, but in many ways, they were “collateral damge” from the ‘war on drugs’.
I know MANY more people that dies as a result of booze, don’t you?
February 9th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
FROSTY,
I’ll start with you…first of all, I don’t consider myself a “neo-con” and I’d appreciate not being lumped into an idealogical bucket. Secondly, who are our no-holds-barred arms dealers? Everyone who buys a gun, legitimately, must pass a background check, etc. before they can purchase a gun. If you’re talking about criminals supplying criminals, then you may have a point. But in that, don’t say the US is giving the cartels weapons.
And what haven’t the “neo-cons” taken responsibility for? Be specific so I can shove facts right back in the face of your personal opinion.
UM CARA, BRIAN…I didn’t ask how many more people die from alcohol abuse or drug abuse, I asked how many more died from overdosing on hard drugs than have died as a result of an overdose of alcohol.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
FROSTY,
c’mon man! you’re mincing words here…now it’s become a matter of purity vs. use? Overdose is an overdose. On the coroner’s report, it doesn’t say “overdose due to toxicity of heroin”, it just plainly says “overdose of heroin.”
February 9th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I didn’t ask how many more people die from alcohol abuse or drug abuse, I asked how many more died from overdosing on hard drugs than have died as a result of an overdose of alcohol.
Well, if your concern is number of overdoses, Frosty is correct. The primary abusers of morphine are doctors. And they don’t ever overdose because they know exactly how much of the opiate they need to get high.
Anyway, to answer your question:
In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Many thousands per year die of heroin overdoses primarily due to the quality control issues Frosty mentions.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Um CARA,
I’ve already conceded that overdosing on pot is impossible…no argument from me on that point. However, heroine, cocaine, etc. is more along the lines of where my argument is going.
QC is one thing…however, you needn’t be worried about the purity of a drug you never take.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
On the coroner’s report, it doesn’t say “overdose due to toxicity of heroin”, it just plainly says “overdose of heroin.”
The point is, if they bought their heroin in a liquor store, with a label that told them the purity, they would know how much to inject.
Instead they have to guess because the purity is unknown when you are buying it from some random dealer, who cut it with god knows what (or, perhaps even more dangerous, not at all).
February 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
however, you needn’t be worried about the purity of a drug you never take.
Hey, no arguments from me. And girls wouldn’t get knocked up if they would quit having sex.
But folks take drugs, the key is to reduce the harm as much as possible.
(ps. I forgot to delete the pot part from the quote, I know you understand people don’t OD from it – it was just a slopppy cut and paste)
February 9th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
UM CARA,
reducing the harm as much as possible, in my opinion, is to (like FROSTY said) take care of the demand. reduce the demand to zero, and you’ve eliminated the possibility of harm being done.
Now, realistically, not gonna happen. As you’ve pointed out, people are going to do drugs, and there’s literally no way we can stop them. I don’t have the answers, and neither does the US Gov. and, surprising enough, neither does FROSTY.
But mark my words, pretty soon, it’ll be “5000 americans killed along the border” as the cartels expand.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The pro-legalization argument around heroin is more complicated/less obvious than pot, for sure. But it should be more of a medical issue than a legal issue.
We aren’t going to convince people to stop taking drugs. We have been fighting a ‘war’ on them for some time, and yet people still do drugs.
Regulate it, provide medical care for those who have addiction problems as opposed to jail for those who have addiction problems. And if someone gets hopped up on pot and commits ax murder, arrest them for committing ax murder, not smoking a joint.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
getting back to the post…I’d bet she’d bring a whole new meaning to “casual fridays”!
Too much?
February 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
To jump in on the subject of drug overdosing. As mentioned before I have a history on this subject. Never went down the opiate route (except for prescription occasionally) but have used and abused just about every thing else in my late teens and the first half of my twenties. In that time I did know several people who died and only one was from overdose. The intended cause of that overdose was death (no one ingests an entire teener of meth straight from the lab in one shot if they do not intend to die). The other handful of deaths were all attributed to the criminal element that the prohibition of drugs brings to the table. You don’t have to tell me that hard drugs are something that are best avoided, I have learned that through experience. But the point is people are going to do them regardless, there has to be a better way to handle them then the current “war on drugs”.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The toughest part about legalizing is that like cigarettes, opiates are horribly physically addictive.
It’s kind of crummy that a company would make a profit selling a product that physically addicts people to it.
Maybe a single source, the state, and zero advertising.
Pot should be sold like beer, however. With cool Superbowl ads and everything.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
At least if pot was legalized then the efforts could be concentrated on the more harmful substances. A tremendous amount of money and resources are wasted in my opinion on one of the least harmful of all drugs.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I agree, Placefield.
I go back and forth on legalization of selling opiates (though addicts should absolutely be treated as having a medical problem, not arrested).
But there just is no argument against legalizing pot. As you say, the cops could focus on other, more harmful crimes. Like speeding or jaywalking.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I read about a study once where, I believe in the UK, they actually treated heroin addicts with prescribed amount of heroin. The reasoning was that it was similar to methadone treatment but it gave them what they really wanted and heroin is not actually that bad for you in measured amounts. When I read about it the study was not finished yet but it was having a high rate of success in getting the participant back in to a “normal” productive life. Wonder what the end result was?
February 9th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
“We should pray for our nation and our soldiers and those who lead this nation. Pray for each in the name of Christ Jesus, our Risen Saviour.”
Posted by willy
Actually you should say, “Pray for each in the name of your God”.
The Jews, Muslims, Hindus,Buddhists, etc., don’t believe in Jesus, but right now we need all the help we can get. And if that means praying to Allah, Yahweh or whoever, I’m all for it.
We should welcome everybody’s prayers, even prayers from those heathens mentioned above who’re going straight to a fiery hell. =)
February 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
“”I’ll start with you…first of all, I don’t consider myself a “neo-con” and I’d appreciate not being lumped into an idealogical bucket.”"
OK, Jared, but neo-con is an abreviation for the new “neo” conservative movement starting in the 60’s by intellectual centrists…and it’s not a put down. In fact they were criticised for moving to the “left” by old-school conservatives!
On the other hand…
If you support the war in Iraq, as a type of ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Saddam, if you support little to no interference of gov’t in BUSINESS, but do support the gov’t upholding MORALITY, e.g. banning gay marriage, anti-drugs, no wiping of butts with old glory…
…If you are less concerned with traditional ‘conservative’ support for the middle class, and think that the wealthy class is more important, because it “creates the jobs” ,lol
If you feel that the US needs to police the Middle East and North Korea, etc
Than you are a neo-con. Like I said, it’s not an insult. In fact, orginally, neo-cons were described as liberals who moved to the right!
In fact, neo-cons are more tolerant of things like social safety nets and medicare than old school ‘paleo-cons!
Cheers Jared
I appreciate your input
john
February 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
You are right Placefield, and in fact, if pot was legal, it would stop the ’stepping up’ factor whereby when you go to buy pot NOW, you enter a seedy underground world…where other drugs are sometimes pushed…if it came for a likker store, lol, that would be avoided.
BTW, it’s estimated that legal pot, taxed and priced fairly, would pay for free health insurance, AND a mission to Mars!!!
Whoa, duuude…Mars?~!
the planet, not the bar, calm down willy
February 10th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Sarah said:Golly, “family values” are so important to a party led by Newt Gingrich and John McCain, aren’t they?
Poor Deb.
Sarah, if that is your attempt at an insult, it didn’t work.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:31 am
So they legalize what is now an illigal drug. Tell me, who are you going to sue when you get addicted and it harms your health? Liberals like to do that you know.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Willy,
It is debatable if pot is physically addictive or not. As for psychologically addictive, well everything is to the write (or wrong I guess) person. But lets just assume it is for your point. Are there a bunch of alcoholics out there suing people because they are addicted? Not that I have heard of. In the case of cigarettes most of the suits had to due with the fact that tobacco companies actually manipulate their product to make it more addictive. As far as the comment indicating that liberals are sue happy, I doubt that the issue of frivolous lawsuits can solely be blamed on one political ideology. Idiots and suckers come in all shades.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Place, how was the camping trip?
February 10th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Kregg,
We actually stayed in a house (I prefer camping but I am a minority in my family as far as that goes). It was great. The weather on Saturday was perfect, and I don’t remember ever seeing so many harbor seals in the water. My youngest is actually still up there with my parents coming back today, but we had to get my oldest back for school yesterday.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Place said: We actually stayed in a house (I prefer camping but I am a minority in my family as far as that goes).
K: Yeah, the world if full of condo-campers. ;-) Although its nice to sit by a fire and then get a hot shower and crawl into a warm bed, too. I solve all those problems by stopping at my favorite hot tank in the Mammoth meadows area after a day of fly fishing, then crawling into the back of my ‘burb on a nice soft pad. I skip the fire because it would blot out the stars and satellites going over. Best of both worlds… ;-)
February 10th, 2009 at 10:05 am
You really think they are going to be honest and bi-partisan? To me, this is much more scarey and news worthy than this women with the big chest. Or, is that what matters most to you? Do you not think these things are what the Americans need to know, or do you just don’t care anymore, now that a liberal is in the White House?
POSTED BY DEB
Oh come on. This story and all those stories that Alan runs are not the fundamental basis of his show. Colmes is no Stern. You just want to talk about the Obama policies because you can’t wait to spread falsehoods and lies about the Stimulus claiming it to be socialism and the Great American Rip-off when Bush did the same thing with the ease of passage in Congress. Let’s talk about the Republicans in Congress who are pure partisans and damaging this country in the name of political games.
You have not followed Alan’s site or show that much if you are saying this. The majority of the posts and topics on the show are focused on the national issues. It is a sideline to cover these stories and not everyone wants to talk politics until we are blue in the face. There are other elements of America worth looking at.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
But mark my words, pretty soon, it’ll be “5000 americans killed along the border” as the cartels expand.
POSTED BY JAREDFROMTEXAS
So when 5000 Americans die we will go do something about it but when 5000 Mexicans die it is something to ignore in the media and pretend it’s not really happening.
It is going to get worse and it has already spread over the border. The issue here is not allowing racists and anti-Hispanic views from dictating the argument when Mexico goes under and we are forced to act.
Somehow I can see JaredFromTexas working for the enemies of freedom who want to break apart families and put everyone who is ‘illegal’ in a cage.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Oh come on. This story and all those stories that Alan runs are not the fundamental basis of his show. Colmes is no Stern. You just want to talk about the Obama policies because you can’t wait to spread falsehoods and lies about the Stimulus claiming it to be socialism and the Great American Rip-off when Bush did the same thing with the ease of passage in Congress. Let’s talk about the Republicans in Congress who are pure partisans and damaging this country in the name of political games.
POSTED BY ERICG
Believe me, I was not happy about this plan while Bush was in office. But if you want to talk about congress, let’s not forget it was not all Republicans who caused our mess. And here’s a new idea… maybe these Republicans (and several Democrats)are voting no because it is how the way the MAJORITY feels about this bill…and not along political lines. How come people with your mentality believe that if someone disagrees, it is spewing lies. Why not follow the advice of our leader and prefer to look forward, not backwards.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Stormy Rocks and she is the only one NOT lying about laying.
VOTE for Stormy at a Louisiana Business poll vs two other politicians including Diapers.
http://www.businessreport.com/
Check out Stormy’s website at DraftStormy.com
February 11th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Believe me, I was not happy about this plan while Bush was in office. But if you want to talk about congress, let’s not forget it was not all Republicans who caused our mess. And here’s a new idea… maybe these Republicans (and several Democrats)are voting no because it is how the way the MAJORITY feels about this bill…and not along political lines. How come people with your mentality believe that if someone disagrees, it is spewing lies. Why not follow the advice of our leader and prefer to look forward, not backwards.
Posted by Deb
Here is a chocker: I felt the same way about all this right from the very beginning. It is not the way to go about it. In fact if anyone reviewed this site you’ll see me ranting about “Where’s my bailout?” awhile back.
Point is this. The majority of the American people got PISSED when Bush spent the money on the banks and still both partys came to the vote. Now only rare few Republicans come to the table after ample inclusion in the bill.
Huh? I believe people are spewing lies when they are spewing lies. This right here is great. Discussion. Most of what the other radio faces of FOX say on the air is actually lies or failing that misrepresenations of liberals, Dems, etc.
I am always looking forward. But if we don’t review our past we are doomed to repeat it. I don’t want to make the Republicans do what I want them to do I just want them to review policy without looking to the party afflilation from which it came from.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:02 am
oops, shocker not chocker
whats a chocker?
February 11th, 2009 at 3:02 am
I have a test for you. Try finding this article on the Fixed News website. Then get back to me.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:01 am