Republican Iowa Caucus: No I.D. Required
Posted by Michelle Moquin on January 3rd, 2012
Good morning!
The republican Iowa Caucus is today. Do you think the party who claims that there is massive “voter fraud”, would be so worried about “voter Fraud” that they would request an I.D. to vote at the republican Iowa Caucus? Nope – not a chance. No I.D. needed. Gee…do ya think it’s because there are no democrats to vote for at this election? No doubt. Typical actions of the republicans isn’t it? Just what kind of people would vote for this party when they are so blatantly hypocritical?
Here’s the write:
Republicans Require No Photo ID To Vote In Republican Iowa Caucus
For all of their years of claims that massive voter fraud is going on at the polling place, such that photo ID restrictions are required to ensure the integrity of the vote, you’d think that when Republicans have a chance to run their own elections, they’d be sure to want it to be as “fraud”-free as possible.
Nonetheless, despite onerous polling place photo ID requirements now passed into law in about a dozen states where the GOP controls both the legislative and executive branches, voters will be able to cast their ballot in next Tuesday’s “First-in-the-Nation” Republican Iowa caucuses without bothering to show a photo ID — even though the Republican Party itself sets their own rules for voting there.
Unlike most primary elections where an official state election board or agency sets the rules and runs the registration and balloting processes, the Iowa Republican Party runs its own state caucuses, determines the rules, tabulates all the votes and announces the results to the public and media themselves. They have complete control over the entire process, and yet they don’t bother to ask their own voters to show a state-issued photo ID before casting their ballot.
I wonder why that would be?
Actually, I don’t. I know exactly why that’s the case. Polling place photo ID laws, passed in states where Republicans took control in the wave election of 2010, are instituted for one purpose and one purpose only: to suppress the votes of voters such as the elderly, minorities and students, all of whom have a dastardly tendency to vote for Democratic candidates rather than Republicans. Since only Republicans are on the IA Republican caucus ballot, unlike general elections, the GOP has no interest in disenfranchising their own voters.
While the GOP likes to claim they’re attempting to institute these laws to curb “voter fraud,” they’re unable to show evidence of virtually any polling place impersonation that would supposedly be prevented by such laws. For example, in rejecting the South Carolina GOP’s new Photo ID restriction last Friday, finding that that the state’s own statistics showed the law would be racially discriminatory, the U.S. Dept. of Justice noted [PDF] that the state failed to point to “any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state’s existing voter identification requirement and that arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls.”
That, even as independent study after study has documented how hundreds of thousands of perfectly legal voters are likely to be disenfranchised by such laws.
Of course, if “voter fraud” was truly a concern of the Republican Party, surely they would require that Iowa caucus goers present a photo ID before casting their vote. But, because such laws have never been about “voter fraud,” once again this year, the Party will not bother to require Iowa Republicans to present any such ID before voting in the all-important caucuses next week.
According to their own “Bullet-Point Guide to the 2012 Republican Party of Iowa Caucuses,” as posted at the state party’s website last week, only new registrants, those registering to sign up with the Republican Party and vote on the same day at the caucus, will be asked — but not actually required — to show photo ID:
Do you have to be registered Republican to participate in the Republican caucus? Yes. In order to participate in the Republican caucus, one must be a registered Republican in the state of Iowa. You do have the opportunity to register as a Republican at the caucus, provided that you have a valid photo ID with your current address on it (such as your Iowa driver’s license) or a photo ID and a document that proves your residence (such as a utility bill). For more information, visit: http://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/edr.html.
As the information at the above-linked website of Iowa Secretary of State and Commissioner of Elections Matt Schultz (R) details, a photo ID isn’t actually even necessary to register and vote on Election Day either! Any Iowa citizen 18 or over can register as a Republican and then vote in the Republican IA caucus without a Photo ID being required of any of them.
The IA Sec. of State’s website notes (and as I confirmed with them yesterday):
If you cannot prove who you are and where you live with the documents [ed note: such as photo ID] listed above, a registered voter from your precinct may attest for you. Both you and the attester will be required to sign an oath swearing the statements being made are true.
Falsely attesting or being attested for is registration fraud. It is a class “D” felony and is punishable by a fine of up to $7,500 and up to 5 years in prison.
Cheryl Allen at the Sec. of State’s office confirmed to me Tuesday that while showing photo ID is the “easiest way” to register to vote there, it is by no means a requirement. Folks without photo ID are allowed to sign a simple oath, along with one attester, in order to verify that they are who they say they are.
So not only is it possible to register and vote on the same day in Iowa — something that Republicans have fought against allowing for most citizens in most other states — one doesn’t even need a photo ID to do it, in an election where the Republicans themselves set all of the rules.
It’s almost as if they realize that risking disenfranchisement of any of their own voters in their own caucus would be monumentally stupid — not to mention potentially illegal and/or unconstitutional to boot, though that has yet to stop them from doing the same in general elections where Democrats may be on the ballot.
Go figure.
Too bad 96-year old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year old Thelma Mitchell from TN and 84-year old Ruthelle Frank from WI, just to name a very few, aren’t residents of Iowa. They’d actually be allowed to vote in the much-ballyhooed First-in-the-Nation Republican Iowa caucus without a problem — just as they have been doing in their own states for decades… until Republicans in those states decided to change the rules this year and make it much more difficult, and/or potentially expensive, to exercise their once-free right to vote.
I attempted to reach out to the Iowa GOP’s Communication Director for comment on all of this yesterday, via both phone and email, but those messages have yet to be returned.
One last point for now… since it’s repeated so often in defense of indefensible photo ID laws, and so few respond to the misleading claims with the truth. Next time you hear a supporter of one of these voter suppression laws claim, as they do in their usual talking points, that photo ID is required to fly on a plane or to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes, so why not for voting? Please let them know that, no, photo ID is not required to fly on a plane, as the commercial airlines are not about to keep millions of Americans who don’t have such IDs from flying. Furthermore, while I’ve purchased cigarettes and beer many times over the last several decades, I can’t recall the last time anybody ever required me to show a photo ID before doing so.
Nonetheless, even if photo ID were required for each of the transactions mentioned above (and it isn’t) each of those transactions are privileges in this country, as opposed to Constitutional rights, which cannot be infringed upon. Apparently the Republicans, in Iowa at least, are smart enough to appreciate that — at least when it comes to running their very own elections.
* * *
Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…
* * *
UPDATE: As Eric W. Dolan at RAW STORY points out, in picking up on our story, earlier this year, Iowa state Republicans in their statehouse passed a Photo ID restriction law, as sponsored by Republican Sec. of State Matt Schultz. The measure, thankfully, died in a Senate committee. And yet, when state Republicans had the chance to set any rules they wanted for voting in their own caucuses for President next week, they declined to require Photo ID of their voters. So what does that tell ya?
*H*Y*P*O*C*R*I*T*E*S*
Blog me.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:14 am
Shu (#13 January 1):
I have always had a great deal of respect for the Tibetans who had their homeland occupied by the Chinese and have been forced to live under their dictatorship ever since.
The Dalai Lama is a man of peace. In 1989 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent struggle for the liberation of Tibet. He has consistently advocated policies of non-violence, even in the face of extreme aggression. He also became the first Nobel Laureate to be recognized for his concern for global environmental problems.
The Dalai Lama has traveled to more than 62 countries spanning 6 continents. He has met with Presidents, Prime Ministers and Crowned Rulers of major nations. He has held dialogues with the heads of different religions and many well-known scientists.
Since 1959 the Dalai lama has received over 84 awards, honorary doctorates, prizes, etc., in recognition of his message of peace, non-violence, inter-religious understanding, universal responsibility and compassion. His Holiness has also authored more than 72 books.
The Dalai Lama describes himself as a simple Buddhist monk.
TIBET: AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY == While China claims that Tibet has always been a part of China, Tibet has a history of at least 1300 years of independence from China. In 821 China and Tibet ended almost 200 years of fighting with a treaty engraved on three stone pillars, one of which still stands in front of the Jokhang cathedral in Lhasa.
The treaty reads in part: Both Tibet and China shall keep the country and frontiers of which they are now possessed. The whole region to the East of that being the country of Great China and the whole region to the West being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side there shall be no hostile invasion, and no seizure of territory… and in order that this agreement establishing a great era when Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed, the Three Jewels, the body of Saints, the sun and the moon, planets and stars have been invoked as witness.
The three stone pillars were erected, one outside the Chinese Emperor’s palace, one on the border between the two countries, and one in Lhasa.
During the 13th and 14th centuries both China and Tibet came under the influence of the Mongol empire. China claims today that Tibet and China during that time became one country, by virtue of the Mongols domination of both nations. In validating this claim, it must first be remembered that virtually all of Asia was dominated by the Mongols under Kublai Khan and his successors, who ruled the largest empire in human history. Second, the respective relationships between the Mongols and the Tibetans and between the Mongols and Chinese must be examined. These two relationships were not only radically different in nature, but they also started and ended at different times. Tibet came under Mongol influence before Kublai Khan’s conquest of China and regaining complete independence from the Mongols several decades before China regained its independence.
While China was militarily conquered by the Mongols, the Tibetans and the Mongols established the historically unique “priest patron” relationship, also known as CHO-YON. The Mongol aristocracy had converted to Buddhism and sought spiritual guidance and moral legitimacy for the rule of their vast empire from the Tibetan theocracy. As Tibet’s patrons they pledged to protect it against foreign invasion. In return Tibetans promised loyalty to the Mongol empire.
The Mongol-Tibetan relationship was thus based on mutual respect and dual responsibility. In stark contrast, the Mongol-Chinese relationship was based on military conquest and domination. The Mongols ruled China, while the Tibetans ruled Tibet. The Mongol empire ended in the mid-14th century.
In 1639, the Dalai Lama established another CHO-YON relationship, this time with the Manchu Emperor, who in 1644 conquested China and established the Qing Dynasty.
By the middle of the 19th century, the Munchu influence in Tibet had waned considerably as the Manchu empire began to disintegrate. In 1842 and 1856 the Manchus were incapable of responding to Tibetan calls for assistance against repeated Nepalese Gorkha invasion. The Tibetans drove back the Gorkhas with no assistance and concluded bilateral treaties.
In 1911 the CHO-YON relationship came to its final end with the fall of the Manchu Dynasty. Tibet formally declared its Independence in 1912 and continued to conduct itself as a fully sovereign nation until its invasion by Communist China an 1949.
As pointed out earlier, the Chinese government has not claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China’s strongest foreign rulers in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries.
How can China, one of the most ardent opponents of imperialism and colonialism excuse its continued presence in Tibet, against the wishes of Tibetan people, by citing as justification Mongols and Manchu imperialism and its own colonial policies?
The U.S. Congress, under a Foreign Authorization Act passed the resolution wherein they recognized “Tibet, including those areas incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai, AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY under the established principal of international law”. The resolution further stated that Tibet’s true representative is the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people.
HOWIE
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:39 am
Michelle: I appreciate your compliment and enjoy hearing that you and some of your readers found my story ‘1815-16 — The Year Without Summer’ enjoyable.
Although I do love Aliens and their interactions and I am known for my posts on those topics, I have other interests and I will also comment about them.
One thing for sure is that I will keep commenting as usual.
Happy New Year to You, Michelle and ALL Readers throughout the world.
HOWIE
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:14 am
Kathy, thanks for the welcome back, although I don’t think I will have time to comment that much. You have yourself a Happy New Year as well.
Michelle, Zen Lill, and all the others out there. I don’t know how many more New Years we have left, but we should try and get the best out of each of them.
Al
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:38 am
I want to welcome you back too Al. Happy New Year.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:54 am
The only suprise here is all of the attention being paid to these unprepared GOP candidates, in this insignificant race, in a State with a third of the population of Los Angeles County.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:55 am
Glad to hear you will be spreading out Howie. We could use another authoritative voice on this blog.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 am
Yes, the “free market” is no longer democratic. Competition in the traditional sense no longer exists. The only competition these days is to see whose lobbyist succeeds in getting the rules rewritten to benefit whose corporation.
You don’t have a lobbyist? Why not?
Maybe herman cain will take the job. I hear he’s free. And newt will be free soon.
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Boris:
I am not trying to be another know-it-all on the blog. There are enough as it is. I just want to throw in something different once in a while.
There are many past occurrences that have no viable explanation, such as the Year Without a Summer.
I would like to find them and their true explanations.
Our version of history is not what really happened. It is just the simplest explanation for what occurred — not necessarily the truth.
Aliens also have a great deal to do with our past. I would like to put the two together when I can.
HOWIE
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Remember when the President, attempting to posture himself as the champion of the middle class, famously complained about the rising price of arugula at one of the nation’s most luxurious supermarkets?
Quoth the faux granola-cruncher-in-chief: “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” the Illinois senator said in 2007. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
That was Barack nearly five years ago while seeking his Party’s nomination, before pulling off his unexpected victory in the Democratic Iowa Caucus.
He then promised that an Obama presidency would lower skyrocketing food costs, which, admittedly, was less ambitious than his other promises of healing the planet and preventing ice from melting.
And whaddya know, he actually fulfilled a campaign pledge. But, guess who’s funding the copious amounts of arugula at the local Iowa grocery store? Yep, that’s right: You are! Read all about it here.
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:10 pm
I hear you Linda,and the same to you. How have you been? Well I hope. Happy New Year, and thanks for thinking of me.
Al
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:42 pm
HOWIE,
Perhaps you might veer off in the direction of Kublai Khan’s grandfather? I’m sure all here would be interested in learning how Genghis made agreement with and then disappointed the aliens, just one of many in history to do so… as all have done. Only time can speak if Obama will become another.
January 3rd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Al, I live in New Orleans..I am 24 years old. You have the wit of my older brother. He can always find amusement in anything.
When the rest of my family disowned me because I told them I was gay, he supported me and refused to allow them to force him to ostracize me.
When I read your writings I could sense that quite confidence in your being. I sincerely missed your contributes to this blog.
Thank you for acknowledging my post. Welcome back.
Linda
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Hafa adai:
I cannot understand why we humor the white hypocrites. They discriminate every opportunity they get on the mainland and then come to our home and attempt to use the principles they ignore on the mainland to gain a political advantage on our island.
How dare the bastards ask for equality on Guam. When they took our island they discriminated against us on it. They took the best pieces of our island for themselves.
On the mainland they deprive OTWs of everything they can legally. And then they use their Just-Us justice system to take the rest.
Now the disgusting hypocrites accuse us Chamorros of discriminating against our oppressors. They quote that fucked up body of sick white boys and the token’s Supreme Court in 2000 in Rice v. Cayetano decision that eliminated Hawaii’s attempt to get back some of what the racist white boy took from that sovereign nation before it was illegally destroyed and converted into the 50th state.
A state controlled by their sick greedy racist white asses.
Now they would do the same on Guam. How dare them!
The nazi, Hans A. von Spakovsky, makes this argument to support his hypocritical stance.
===================
The motion to dismiss filed by Guam, however, merits serious attention by the U.S. Congress. It argues that even if the plaintiffs are right and the election is racially discriminatory, it should be allowed anyway. Guam shockingly claims it has a special status within the United States that permits racial discrimination against whites and Asians.
=============
Notice the claim that his concern is about discrimination against “asians” as well as whites. When his only concern is about the white boy. They discriminate against asians as well as every other OTW at every opportunity.
The scam is to attempt to get the asians to support their attempt take our country.
Then he goes on to say his white congress should take away Guam’s Home rule status. What are we now a fucking reservation like the controlled concentration camps they have forced the Native Americans on?
You white bastards suck and should get the fuck out of Guam’s business. There are only about 100,000 Chamorros left after your genocidal attacks against our ancestors.
Why should we allow the white boy to use racial hypocrisy to bring huge numbers of their kind dilute our vote?
I would like to use one of those “jim Crow” laws he is citing to make it a misdemeanor to kill his kind like he make it a one to kill blacks. Forgot about adding them to your list of possible groups being discriminated against by Guam’s Chamorro only plebiscite.
I guess it was easy to forget them your race has been doing that for 200 plus years on the mainland.
Peter
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:25 pm
HI Al, glad you’re back, happy twenty-twelve and wishing you many more…you’re right though, let’s enjoy each and every one.
Hi Mischa, re: labeling, I’ll just say that we can agree to disagree on this one. I understand your comment though – good ones(labels) massage egos, true enough, bad ones may be true enough also though, & here’s where I take my departure, the fact is: lying sacks of shit rarely think you’re speaking to them anyway bc they’re pathological in their belief(s) so they don’t identify with that label. It’s cool, I love your titles, I wasn’t really addressing that one specifically, I personally just don’t make a habit out of labeling and/or judging, is that easy for me, most of the time – yes, sometimes – no…but no I don’t do it (label) all the time, though I catch your drift that maybe ‘we all do it’ is the general population. Again, love the titles, they’re reflective of your opinion, which I respect (no matter how I feel about the exact words used, labeling or otherwise). You are the ultimate blog host, really.
Luv, Zen Lill
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Nut, I am familiar with Genghis Khan. I don’t presume to answer for Howie. But I would like to say that comparing Obama with him is a bit like the apples and oranges thing.
Times and culture act to make the comparison a difficult one to make.
Genghis Khan lived in a time when each new conquest presented new challenges because of the prejudices that inherently spring from the unknown or different.
Obama has no such challenge. He is aware of the differences and challenges that other races and cultures bring to the table.
If Obama is true to his own honorable beliefs he will have no beef with the aliens. If the aliens ask him to do something that would violate those beliefs, he will hardly be better for us if he violated those beliefs.
Analyn
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Michelle,
I would like to add my nephew to that “Lying Sack of Shit” category. He works for the Davison County _______ in Nashville, TN.
He comes home laughing about how he made this black or that black bastard’s life miserable. He goes on television proclaiming how he cares about all the people he oversees.
He is a true lying sack of shit.
NormaMichelle,
I would like to add my nephew to that “Lying Sack of Shit” category. He works for the Davison County _______ in Nashville, TN.
He comes home laughing about how he made this black or that black bastard’s life miserable. He goes on television proclaiming how he cares about all the people he oversees.
He is a true lying sack of shit.
Norma
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Happy New Year everyone.
I look forward to the camaraderie of 2012. Howie Your input amazes me most of the time.
AH please elaborate about the assignation. You brought up names that I never heard before.
Robert, RT
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Hafa adai:
Did anyone feel that earthquake earlier today?
January 4th, 2012 at 8:45 am
I side with you Norma. I live in Iowa and the selection of Romney with his cult religion says it all about the “christian” vote.
When Obama was running it was “is he christian enough. That was why they may have to switch and vote for the republican party.
Here you have a man that won’t show his tax report to the public while attempting to hold the highest office in the land and he belongs to a secret cult religion.
Yet the LYING SACK OF SHIT “christians” vote for him. Yes, Michelle this category is needed. In fact it was long over due.
And as you asked where were the Identities for the vote check?
My friends that are republicans had to smile when I showed them your article asking that question? They had no answer.
Marilyn
January 4th, 2012 at 8:57 am
Analyn, I think you are confusing apples and oranges with respect to NUT’s comment. NUT was not comparing Obama to Ghenghis Khan. The reference was to humans failing aliens in agreements they have made. Personally, I for one would like to know what agreement GK made and broke that led to the ultimate demise of his dynasty.
Nutate
January 4th, 2012 at 9:01 am
American politics is a very big topic around this time in Poland because of the up coming presidential election.
It is so interesting to watch each party’s selection for a candidate. The problem is as some of your american writers pose. One party doesn’t have any real values that are used to select their choice.
They seem to be divided into very religious(christians), anti abortion, strict conservative(no idea what that really means) and you-got-to-be-white-to-get-my-vote.
So this morning when Roilf called to say that Romney won, we looked to see which section put him over the top.
We couldn’t find the section that would. All the candidates were white so that was a wash. He is not even close to being a strict conservative, his religion is not christian, and he hasn’t made that much splash as an anti-abortionist.
So Michelle we added your category and discovered how he did it. The “Lying-Sack-of-Shits” put him over the top.
We think that category may be the deciding factor in the over all election. If a large number of LSOS turn out any white man could win against Obama.
That’s the category to watch.
Valbona
January 4th, 2012 at 11:06 am
I very much enjoy your blog here, thank you so much you have helped me out greatly Smile spread the love.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Good blog, but it would be better if in future you can share more about this subject. Keep rocking.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:29 am
interesting post, great job
January 4th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Hi I found your site by mistake when i was searching yahoo for this acne issue, I must say your site is really helpful I also love the design, its amazing!. I dont have the time at the moment to fully read your site but I have bookmarked it and also add your RSS feeds. I will be back in a day or two. thanks for a great site.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:31 am
anaeriene
January 4th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Very fantastic, I like this blog and I shared this topic on my facebook profile. I think agree with you ! I cant speak english very good but. My opinion you unterstand me .
January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Im definitely not the sort of person that leaves a comment on blogs and forums nevertheless this is definitely an attractive post. Im still wondering exactly what the point is but give me some time and I will probably know.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:34 am
LMAO ! I just found a bug in your website! Check if your css is placed right!
January 4th, 2012 at 11:36 am
Its rare for me to discover something on the web that is as entertaining and intriguing as what you have got here. Your page is lovely, your graphics are great, and whats more, you use reference that are relevant to what youre talking about. You are definitely one in a million, keep up the good work!
January 4th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I in point of fact like this record, i did not realize a a load of the things that you posted in here. i ahve much more callow news concerning these topics and topics tied up to it. some people may tumble to it grievous to understadn the english vernacular but i find it very gentle for the confidentiality that has roll in to be what is todays policy.