« Bitchslap Ted Rall Day, Volume 8 | Main | The tart speaks (and rants) »

speaking of wackos

Attention baseball fans:

Tim Robbins has discovered the true purpose behind the existence of the Baseball Hall of Fame:

"[The Hall of Fame] is using what power it has to infringe upon my rights of free speech with the hope to intimidate millions of others who disagree with our president."

Tim Robbins, meet Ted Rall. He will be your roommate in the Tin Foil Hat section of the Leftie Loony Bin.

Enjoy your stay. I hear they play Politically Correct Scrabble at lunch time.


I can't look at the guy without thinking of "Eric the Viking".

The nice thing about the Loony Left is that its ranks are made up of folks nobody really wants to have around anyway. The Loony Left is welcomed to them.

I saw Tim on the news last night. He shoved a Nader button right in front of the camera. That tells me all I need to know about him.

So, baseball is now part of the Government?

'Cuz the last time I checked, the First Amendment said that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could not establish a law that prevented free speech. (And subsequent amendments made it clear that the states and local gov't couldn't do it, either.)

Michele, to be fair the situation isn't quite as simple as you're making it out to be. You may not agree with Robbins and I'm not even arguing the validity of his statement, but there's enough info to render the Hall of Fame's stance somewhat suspect. For one thing, Dale Petrosky of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a staunch Republican, former Reagan staffer and Bush supporter, that's enough to raise eyebrows in a time when dissent is being crushed. As for "using the Hall of Fame as a forum for political views," from what I read Sarandon and Robbins agreed when the event was planned to leave politics at the door. To muddy the waters even further, Petrosky seems to have no problem intertwining the business of the HOF with his Republican leanings . For instance, the baseball HOF in conjunction with other Cooperstown museum secured Ari Fleischer for their lecture series. Petrosky was instrumental in arranging the deal. Also in 1999 he arranged for a Republican speaker to give a lecture in Cooperstown on the upcoming election but didn't balance it out with a Democrat -- again, all partially under the auspices of the HOF.

So, whether you think it's right or wrong -- the tin-foil-hat line is a little off-base on this one. The event was cancelled because of their political views and that is an uncomfortable situation in America.

But, it's Petrosky's ball and he can just take it and go home. His Hall, his rules, private vs. public and all those other technicalities that supercede the constitution. I guess to an extent Petrosky is exercising his 1st Amendment right...

But... if it's a movie about baseball, and the actors agreed to leave politics out of it, what's the problem?

Maybe Petrosky just wanted to screw someone who doesn't agree with him and make a big public show of it. I mean, I agree that the HOF is no place for politics... baseball is baseball and that is it. And if Saradon and Robbins did end up using it as a platform I would find it in poor taste. But it seems like Petrosky's move made this more of a political issue that Sarandon and Robbins would have.

...besides, the HOF won't be worth a damn until they induct Don Mattingly (probably one of the best 1st basemen ever to play -- but might not make it because the 2nd half of his career was injury prone and he played through severe back pain -- but I digress).

Tom, dissent is hardly being crushed. The fact that protesters are still routinely gathering indicates that dissent is alive and well. However, the fact that dissenter ranks are made up of fools who chuck molotov cocktails at police in the name of "peace" illustrates why dissent is being ignored more and more. Dissent isn't being crushed, it's simply being ignored, Folks like Robbins and Tim Rall are shouting at the top of their longs, but people don't want to hear them any more.


Simple question: Who runs the HOF?

If it's the gov't, then it has an obligation to limit, as much as possible, any abridgement of free speech, and to bend over backwards to be fair.

If it's a private organization, then, w/in the limits of its charter, it can do pretty much as well as it pleases.

How did Petrovsky wind up there? Was he appointed by the GOP? Did they (HOF) select him? Is he out of bounds by his actions? Is he obligated to present equal time?

All this is separate from the issues of:

1. Is it wise to dis-invite someone.
2. Is it intelligent to base it on political concerns.
3. Is it ever wise to invite Tim Robbins and/or Susan Sarandon.

"...that's enough to raise eyebrows in a time when dissent is being crushed. "

Tom, go find dissent being crushed in the US. Then come back and explain to me why a businessman acting on his political beliefs and using a public event (or, in this case, the cancellation of said event) to make a statement is morally and/or legally any different from any of the Hollywoodites making anti-war statements at every public opportunity. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply here, except to say that Robbins has every right to bitch about it as much as he wants.

Anyway, michele: the idea of "Politically Correct Scrabble is amusing... " I can't shake the idea that it would mean all of the pieces would be the same; can't spell any inappropriate words that way! Of course, they couldn't just be blank--because then they'd be blond wood, which is discriminatory--so they'd have to be painted dull gray. And they'd have to be round, because you can't have sharp corners, now can you? (Why does the phrase "wooden nickels" come to mind now?)

No offense, but Bull Durham really wasn't that great of a movie. Frankly, why did they even bother inviting these twits to spout off how much they were "in touch" with minor league baseball. The closest those t wo twits got to minor league baseball was the scene where he actually had to TOUCH a baseball.

Wasn't the movie mostly about Susan Sarandon polishing the knobs of every guy on the team? If they want to show it somewhere, show it at the "Slut of the Month" club outing. ;-)

I'm not crying tears for poor Timmy.

I'm sure if I pitched a movie called "Ronald Reagan: One Hell of a President" the left-leaning movie studios would not be much help.

They get the movies, we get one HOF ceremony. He should quit his bitching.

I wrote:

the situation isn't quite as simple as you're making it out to be...I'm not even arguing the validity of his statement, but there's enough info to render the Hall of Fame's stance somewhat suspect...
...So, whether you think it's right or wrong -- the tin-foil-hat line is a little off-base on this one. The event was cancelled because of their political views and that is an uncomfortable situation in America...
...But, it's Petrosky's ball and he can just take it and go home. His Hall, his rules, private vs. public and all those other technicalities that supercede the constitution... I guess to an extent Petrosky is exercising HIS 1st Amendment right...

Just trying to add some nuance. Yes, the HOF can do what they want -- they're a private institution. And yes, this is all about:

1. Is it wise to dis-invite someone.
2. Is it intelligent to base it on political concerns.
3. Is it ever wise to invite Tim Robbins and/or Susan Sarandon.

It's all about this because the individual facts make up the whole and all have influence on one another.

Fine. Crushed is a strong word -- marginalized, trivialized, dismissed, whatever. I'm not here to argue that with y'all, today. I'm merely rounding out the facts of the Bull Durham situation beyond, "Tim Robbins wears tin-foil-hat and bitches because he's a whining baby ..." I given up arguing, I'm merely presenting another side -- do with it what you want...

Besides, Bull Durham wasn't a great movie -- not as good as The Natural. Now THAT was a good baseball movie...


I agree that the HoF had a right to do what it did, since it's nominally a private institution (one that gets taxpayer cash like other museums and educational institutions, by the way). But kee-riminy! Are we so afraid of what someone MIGHT say that we close up shop for fear they might show up? What are the soldiers in Iraq and across the globe fighting for then? My right to speak as long as I agree with the powers-that-be?

I don't want to hear any of you whine about conservatives getting hushed up on college campuses, then.

Solonor -

I don't think it was fear of what they might say--I think it was just one of those "Oh, for the love of God I don't want this to turn into another Oscarish Free-Tibet-athon."

Well, that and probably the guy in charge just thinks Sarandon and Robbins are morons. Or maybe he's making a political point himself. But fear? Doubtful.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Tom -- Tim Robbins gave an hourlong lunchtime speech yesterday to the National Press Club, one of the most prestigious, influential organizations in the country. He's hardly been pushed off the to margins.

And The Natural was supposed to end with Roy Hobbs taking the money and walking away like he did in the novel, not hitting a triumphant home run. I guess Redford decided he didn't want to play a nonhero.

Um, was Tim Robbins "throwing Molotov cocktails in the name of peace"? I don't think so. The amount of vitriol that gets thrown around in these right-wing echo chambers about two actors who dare to make their political views known makes me wonder who is and who isn't "loony." Do y'all reserve the same scorn for Charlton Heston, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger or, for that matter, Ronald Reagan? At what point are Hollywood stars allowed to voice their opinions...when they run for office? That's ridiculous.

Although I think it's important to point out that, in this case, Robbins originally hadn't said a word. In fact, both he and Susan Sarandon were on their best behavior at the Oscars, which - if they were given to grandstanding at this particular moment - would have been a much more obvious forum. What happened is some idiot GOP flak used his power as Hall of Fame curator to stop a harmless Bull Durham retrospective, as apparently the Hall of Fame only supports All-American drunks, racists, and wifebeaters, not peaceniks. In so doing, he gave much more airing to Nuke's views than he otherwise ever would have gotten, even if Robbins had in fact chosen a friendly, low-key movie reunion to unleash an all-out assault on American values.

Yes, the Hall of Fame is a private institution, and it's under no obligation to protect Tim Robbins' freedom of speech, (Although, as someone earlier noted, private universities could follow this same lousy logic.) So the remark Michele birddogged in his letter is indeed a tad shrill. But, as a representative of the sport of baseball, the HOF, IMHO, has no business cancelling events for such dubious political reasons. Believe it or not, lefties and peaceniks like baseball too. Or is the American pastime only for Republicans now?

And don't get me started on the Hollywood leftist conspiracy. That's exactly the type of conspiratorial thinking that right-wingers deride the left for. Sure, there are dozens of famous lefties in Hollywood, and no doubt many of them have bigger mouths than they do brains. But it's not like right-wing ideas don't find purchase on the silver screen. Like most other institutions in American life, Hollywood has room for a diversity of opinion, even if the average movie star may tack center-left.

The Natural book and movie are two different things in my mind. I don't even try to compare them because the movie really does butcher it. The movie is a feel-good, beauty of baseball schmalzy thing and the book is more pragmatic and a downer. The book didn't paint so heroic a picture of Hobbs and I remember the character development was entirely different.

But c'mon, a Spielberg fan who complains about a syrupy ending? :-)
Aside from some notable exeptions and his current fascination with Kubrick, Spielberg was the king of schmalz! (and don't take offense -- that is just a good natured jab at a fine director, I'm saying this in good fun ).

What Kevin said!!!

ascending right wing vitriol spewing echo chamber pulpit

Kevin you ignorant slut.

That's all I got.

Organizations like the HOF are commonly run by former politicos -- across both parties. Anyone remember when George Mitchell was considered for Baseball Commissioner? Tim Finchem, head of the PGA, was a senior fundraiser for the Democratic Party. So, invites, disinvites may tend to reflect whomever is in charge at that time. Big deal.

What's difficult about Robbins isn't even as much his views as his strident anger and hatred toward this administration. And what seems to be personal pique that people don't want to listen to him. He does not have a constitutional right to use a private event as a public forum to express his views. ONLY the government can infringe on a person's constitutional right to free speech. Private organizations, no matter how politically well connected, cannot infringe on Robbins rights to free speech. And, free speech does not protect against economic loss -- if people boycott his movies, or he loses movie roles because of his outspoken views, that is not protected. It is simply others expressing their views or companies protecting their own profitability. So he got disinvited to a party cause the head guy doesn't like him and wanted to publicly state he thinks he's a jerk. So what? Anyone who would find that intimidating doesn't have much of a spine.

Beyond that, his statement is illogical on the face -- he's standing before the National Press Club saying his free speech rights are being violated? That's where the tin foil hat comes in.

Side note...I saw the clip of his speech. I had no idea he was so much like the character he played in Arlington Road (albeit with opposite political views.) Creepy.

"You shouldn't speak until you know what you're talking about. That's why I get uncomfortable with interviews. Reporters ask me what I feel China should do about Tibet. Who cares what I think China should do? I'm a f---ing actor! They hand me a script. I act. I'm here for entertainment, basically, when you whittle everything away. I'm a grown man who puts on makeup."
Brad Pitt, Time interview (13 Oct. 1997)

Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston, for that matter Sonny Bono - They all walk(ed) the walk, and on the Right-hand side. I can't think of a single Hollywood leftist who has had the cojones to get down to it - run for office, win, and actually serve.

Sports of USA as making death.

Longtime Republican here with just a couple of points to add:

1) Petrosky did what he did without consulting with the Hall of Fame's board of directors. I don't know that the result would have been any different if he had consulted, but if I'd been on the board I'd've wanted to be informed up front about any decision such as that one that was likely to result in negative publicity.

2) The Hall of Fame has no official connection to Major League Baseball. By that I mean that the hall has its own governing board separate from MLB, which is governed by the team owners. Anyone wishing to comment one way or the other should bear that fact in mind.


So Brad Pitt admits to not being comfortable enough to speak out on things and that's fine.

Beyond that he's right! Actors should act, janitors should clean, housewives should mind their own, airline pilots should only worry about flying planes, landscapers should landscape, reporters report, we should all live our occupations and nobody should impose their views on anybody else because it's just wrong. It's un-American!!! Un-patriotic and grossly negligent of the catastrophic impact your opinion may have on the masses. Those actors and actress are soooo influential. Did you see how the support for the war dipped 15 percentage points after Susan Sarandon flashed the peace sign? Unbelievable!

Leave the thinking to the politicians and the "news" people (celebrities in their own right). Just shut up and do your job and don't worry about what doesn't concern you! Shit, there would be no more blogs!

Yes, people, even celebrities, can spout off all they want about whatever they want. The point is, they shouldn't be surprised when their opinions get slapped down, and they certainly shouldn't whine about it. Robbins clucked off his opinions, and he didn't like the ramifications. Well, too frickin' bad. Ditto for the Dixie Chicks. Ditto for Fat Bastard, a.k.a. Michael Moore. Ditto for Martin Sheen. Free speech doesn't translate into consequence free free speech. You won't go to jail or be tortured for speaking your mind, but you may get un-invited to a few functions and be subject to ridicule for it. And that's just fine by me. I'm subjected to ridicule every day, and that's just from my family.

This one's for Sheila.

So Tim and Doopy Jugs don't get to pout and preen for the cameras at the HoF, thank God! You said you liked baseball Kev, and I'm assuming you were sincere and not just setting up a strawman, so you should be happy too. After all Bull Durham was a crap film, shit, Sarandon was painful to watch on film and what Robbins did could hardly be called acting. What was good about it again? The tedious voice overs from droopy jugs? The bland and passionless acting from the supporting cast? Robbins stellar Highschool quality performance or the work Costner could have phoned in? Really, these two sad sack pieces of shit don't get another 15 minutes in the lime light and we're supposed to think its denying them their freedom of speech? Puh-leeze.

Kevin - "two actors who dare to make their political views known" What? The rest have been cowed into shutting up finally? Jeez-us Halle-berry! It's about time! Hell, it's not like there's been an actor or actress anywhere in Hollywierd who's had a problem running to the nearest camera they can find to share their profound beliefs that: Bush is stupid, they're ashamed to be an American, Bush is dangerous, the war is wrong...oh, and go see my new movie, okay luvya now buh-bye! Yeah, it takes a lot of personal strength to stand in the liberal echo chamber of Hollywood and proclaim yourself to be a leftist whacko pro-dictator jackass.

Hell, you want to talk about people who've actually had their freedom of speech repressed, talk to the conservative and Republican leaning actors in LA. You know, the ones that don't want anyone to know who they are because they're afraid they won't find work if anyone found out? Don't believe me? Ask Ellen Treanor "It's a joke for anyone to be supporting conservatives. If you speak up, you're limiting your chances of finding work." or Emma Caufield "I would never fully admit to being Republican in this town. I want to work." See Kev, that's oppression of free speech, not speaking your mind because you're afraid it will interfere with your livelihood.

"Declaring yourself a conservative in Hollywood would be like declaring yourself a meat-eater at a vegetarian convention." - MICHAEL LEVINE, Hollywood publicist Yeah, now that's what I call being repressed.


I fear Nothus more than I fear getting crabs, so we're talking a whole shitload of fear here.

...being repressed.
Posted by Nothus at April 16, 2003 04:58 PM

10 simple rules for reading my blog...
...2. I welcome you all here. I'm glad you are here. Leave as many comments as you want, email a hundred times a day if that's what floats your boat. Just try to remember that I - and the other commenters - are not some faceless, nameless droids without feelings. I really don't care what you say about me, but lay off the other visitors here.
...4.I am all for opposing viewpoints. I like debate and discussion. But if your idea of debate and discussion revolves around name-calling and berating without any intelligent rebuttal or discourse, you look like an ass. I won't bother deleting your comments though, because if you want to make an ass out of yourself on my space, I have no problem with that. Sometimes just leaving your comment out there to hang is the best debate ender in the world....

Is this enforced?

When you wrote "speaking of wackos" I thought the item was going to be about Dale Petroskey

Geez, sorry Tom, did I make you soil your delicates? Just an FYI - I'm a hot tempered, opinionated, arrogant, loud and belicose person. I called Kevin a jackass. Get over it. If our gracious Hostess the Good Emperess Michele decides to punish me - so be it. But try and fight your own battles once in a while Tom.

BTW, I don't believe that adding the word "Jackass" at the end of the post amounts to a violation of rule #4. I think that really means don't resort to saying things like "Tom, you're a gutless pillow biting wanker." as a complete reply to a post. I mean where's the point in nothing but venemous ad hominem attacks?

Could someone direct me to the nearest recruiting station of the Ashcroft Iron-Booted Dissent Squishing Brigade?

I can't seem to find one in my Yellow Pages.

Imperial Falconer

Nothus, believe me, I find you entirely too humorous (and not in the way you're going for) to feel the need to soil my delicates.

"Gutless pillow-biting wanker," that's a good one big fella. You're like Dennis Miller sans the SAT words. I know it takes mountains of guts to lob insults from your keyboard... it's just that you manage to further perpetuate a certain stereotype of right-wing computer lunacy every time you vomit up your rage (Flamerman, the real deal)... and you somehow lower a decent debate to the level of a 3rd grade recess bully...

Anywho I have nothing further to say to you, I've said my piece... you can save the rest of your bellicosity for someone who will actually acknowledge it.

Tom, thanks for coming to my aid, but I can handle myself without invoking the law.

Nothus, you're proving my point with your unnecessary venom. I was being facetious about Robbins and Sarandon being the only two stars to speak their mind...They all do, including right-wing crazies like Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that right-wing nutballs spew so much bile their way, (or mine, if I should deign to stand up for them.)

By the way, calling Susan Sarandon "droopy jugs" is a pretty ridiculous cheapshot - she looks much better than most women her age, and I suspect you're no winner yourself.

To clarify, I never claimed to like baseball. I said many lefties and peaceniks do, which is patently obvious, so I hardly get where you're invoking the straw man.

Nor did I say Tim Robbins was being repressed. I said the HOF guy made an egregiously bad call trying to clamp down on any possible speech Robbins might make, and thus gave him an even bigger platform for his views. Read it again.

As for those poor lost Republicans in Hollywood you cite, I don't have much sympathy. For one, try being a Democrat raised in South Carolina. For another, their comments are a stones' throw away from what Tim Robbins is being accused of in the first place, crying "woe is me" and "repression" because people don't agree with their political views. In fact, those comments read like exactly the type of victim-think right-wingers are always blaming liberals for.

As for the "jackass" riposte...whatever, dude. You're confirming all my preconceived notions about right-wing freakshows by resorting to middle school name-calling to make your point. Limbaugh much? Take a page from Ryan, Lex, or pretty much everyone else who posted in this forum and learn to have a conversation with someone you disagree with without resorting to name-calling. We'd all be the better for it.


Hmm. When I worked in the [awed whisper] Industry [/awe] in Hollywood, I was told point blank to keep my (Republican/conservative) politics tightly locked away, or I might not 'make it' in 'the industry.'

Being disinvited from a private event because of your politics is not suppression; being told your job may be in jeopardy because you don't hold the views of the producers, actors, and directors with whom you work, on the other hand, is.

I'm just sayin'.

But then, the rules are different in Hollywood, as I'm sure y'all have figured out by now.

Leave the thinking to the politicians and the "news" people (celebrities in their own right). Just shut up and do your job and don't worry about what doesn't concern you! Shit, there would be no more blogs!

Not my point at all -- point was not that no one should have opinions -- I'm sure Pitt has some -- point is why do we as a country care what either Rall or Robbins has to say on the subject? Why would their opinions of anything outside of their realm of expertise or profession carry any weight? No one would pay attention to Michael Jordon's Book of the Month picks, so why give a damn what Robbins has to say about politics or the military?

Speaking of suppression, try being a conservative on a modern college campus.

Well gosh Tom, your condescending demeanor and sanctimonious attitude have shown me the light! Iím questioning my entire approach to interpersonal communications and conflict resolution...nah, who am I kidding. Why fix what ainít broke?

Now while I appreciate the comparison to Miller, I can't do the man justice. Seriously though, what is it with you thin-skinned libs and the concept of questioning someone's bravery? Get called ďchickenĒ a few too many times on the playground? Dude, this is a blog. We're arguing in cyber space. How else do you expect me to lob insults at you? Hey, trust me - I'd be insulting you face to face if we were sitting right across from each other. Act like a jackass, get called a jackass. Thatís my motto.

Geez, what is with you guys today? Hyperbole anyone? Reverse Parallelism? Using rhetorical devices and extreme language to make a point? Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson are right wing crazies? I mean Gibson, yeah, but Willis?

Actually Kev, what you said was, "Believe it or not, lefties and peaceniks like baseball too. Or is the American pastime only for Republicans now?" So yes, by adopting a defensive posture and asking the rhetorical question in an attempt to shift blame to Republicans you were in fact building a strawman.

Now where you are right is in your remarks about the HoF President making an egregious mistake in telling Robbins to take a hike. I went back and re-read it, and for the most part I agree. Huge error on his part. But it doesn't change how I feel about the film being involved in the HoF at any rate. It's a terrible film. And sorry buddy, but Sarandon is a troll. She was hot once - I'm talking the 80's here, but not now. As for me Kev, I can't complain - how about you? Curdle any milk lately?

So you're a Democrat living in South Carolina. You've had financial hardships because of this? They wont let you work or get jobs because you voted for Clinton right? Because what were talking here. People unable to work because they don't toe the line. Note, Tim and Susan aren't loosing any work over this; hell they'll probably get job offers because of it. Not that I expect you to have a problem with that though. After all the hallmark of modern liberalism is its intolerance for non-conformist thought.

BTW, I'm glad I could confirm all of preconceived notions about right-wing freak shows. Thanks for reminding me why I left the Democratic Party years ago, condescending sanctimonious people like you and Tom.

Later, jackass.

having had to get celebrities to appear at events myself I am lead to a question--since it usually costs to get a celebrity to show up to talk about a film they've been in, how much was Robbins getting? And, if it it the HoF that has to pay the fee, why are they not entitled to not pay for someone to be present?

Finally, this was something that Tim could have attended SANS pay--he COULD have just gone.

Apparently he not only wanted to say his piece, he wanted to be paid to do it.

Evil left, evil right, evil left, evil right...


Man, all you right-wingers better watch out. Robbins will fucking find you and fucking hurt you.

Doyce, sorry if I mischaracterized your point. To an extent I agree with you -- if people are going to spout their views they should have some sort of qualification. And to be fair, I'm not defending Robbins/Sarandon per se. I'm referring more to the general backlash against celebrity activists. It's a hot-button thing and it really pisses people off -- which is kind of amusing when you think about it. It's real easy to just turn them off (and that's what I generally do when I don't agree with them or I think that they're talkign out of their ass -- and the ass-talking part refers to both those who may or may not be "liberal" -- Cheryl Crow would do her cause better to just shut it).

I prefer to take it on a case by case basis rather than just say "oh actors should just shut up because they have no clue..." Some are utterly clueless, some are pretty smart and well-versed in what they speak about. Same goes for any other profession or celeb status position. Did you ever sit back and wonder why we ("we" as a society) value the opinions of some of our celebrity "pundits"?

It just seems to me that lately, it's the left-leaning celebs who speak out who are getting bitch-slapped more with non-sequiturs like "how could you not support our troops you un-patriotic bastard!!!???" I'm less concerned with what the celebs are saying than with how the pro-war and the "right" are responding to it...

Jay-sus, that was a long-winded ramble to make a point that I basically sum up in my last two sentences.

[From the operation manual for the CI-300 Dot Matrix Line Printer, made
in Japan]:

The excellent output machine of MODEL CI-300 as extraordinary DOT
featured by permitting wonderful co-existence such as; high quality
against low cost, diversified functions with compact design,
flexibility in accessibleness and durability of approx. 2000,000,00
Dot/Head, being sophisticated in mechanism but possibly agile
operating under noises being extremely suppressed etc.

And as a matter of course, the final goal is just simply to help
achieve super shuttle diplomacy between cool data, perhaps earned by
HOST COMPUTER, and warm heart of human being.
Texas Holdem http://www.texas-holdem-poker-casino.com

highest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com