 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM I've read recently that what a Democratic mover and shaker like Soros should do now is volunteer to pay all Craig's legal bills in any attempt to keep his seat. Sounds right to me. Not that Democrats would want to keep his situation on the front page. Perish the thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM "'Do you think the sex act that Clinton did with Monica -- in the context in which he did it -- was wrong?'" Only to the extent that it might have comprimised national security--the way some right-wing-religious nut cases on the radio seem to frame it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM She was just another coc#sucker doing what she wanted to do. He was the coc#suckee. In a motel or hotel or somewhere that wasn't the White House--a house that belongs to all the citizens of the USA--it was at the very least an act of classlessness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:56 PM Not meaning it that way. I'm just contending that Clinton's behavior didn't really bother that many Democrats. Certainly not a majority of them. How else would you word it than to ask if someone thought he was wrong? And all I was driving at RE: the "qualifiers" is that most of the qualifiers I have heard over the years really just amount to another way of saying "he didn't do anything wrong with the sex -- only the lying -- and that, he was forced to do". I've heard those rationalizations over and over in several permutations. So I don't think it's asking too much to ask "Do you think the sex act that Clinton did with Monica -- in the context in which he did it -- was wrong?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Bill D Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:49 PM You are changing the rules and stacking the deck, John.... the original point was about whether it was or was not 'vile' and whether agreeing or disagreeing was 'approval' or not...now you want to base the whole thing on whether you get your opponents to say "he was 'wrong'" with no qualifications. Durn, John...you could be designing polls for CNN! They put up those kind of loaded questions every day! "Do you think illegal immigrants should be dipped in taco sauce and shipped back to Mexico in bean-dip containers...yes or no?" The whole point of some polls is to phrase the question so that you can't answer it without sounding like you agree. That's how the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" joke got started! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:39 PM "I actually think that, even if there had been no criminal charge, if the media had proof that Larry Craig was trolling for gay sex in public restrooms, the Republican party would pressure him to resign. At the very least, he'd be defeated in the next Idaho primary." Man, I would sure hope so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM John, if you're going to generalize to "the majority of" Democrats, or any group, you need a much better research design than scanning the posts on some internet website or polling its members. I don't recall if there was scientific polling done during the "Monica Gate" to determine what percent of Dems, Repubs, etc., found Clinton's behavior unacceptable, but I do clearly remember many Democrats pubicly decrying his actions, even if they didn't consider those actions to represent the kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would warrant impeachment. Our elected officials in Washington have been officially reprimanded many times in the past for one sort of misbehavior or another without impeachment proceedings being initiated or their being asked to resign. I really think the reason the Republicans are intent on Craig leaving office is that his tacky behavior involved trolling for gay sex -- promiscuity and homosexuality combined -- as opposed to his having committed adultery with a woman or being known as a "skirt chaser." The only reason Bob Packwood was pressured to resign from the Senate was that his pattern of conduct involved sexual harrassment, maybe even sexual assault; he wasn't just a skirt chaser, he was grabbing and fondling women without their consent. If he had merely been "sleeping around," he'd probably still be in the Senate. (And, given Gordon Smith's voting record, I wish he still were - but I digress.) I actually think that, even if there had been no criminal charge, if the media had proof that Larry Craig was trolling for gay sex in public restrooms, the Republican party would pressure him to resign. At the very least, he'd be defeated in the next Idaho primary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM I only used that one because it was the closest. It was handy. You really don't think I could mine the archives of mudcat and find scores of comments to the effect that... There's nothing wrong with what he did -- she was a consenting adult. There's nothing wrong with what he did -- I think it pretty much just goes with the territory (all the other presidents did it too). No. I really don't think that a majority of Democrats think that what he did was wrong. I'd be willing to poll the mudcat though. Tell you what... Poll the mudcat and if without qualification (but Republicans have done worse; it wasn't worth $80 Million to find out) an overwhelming majority can bring themselves to say that what he did was wrong (the sex part -- not JUST the perjury) I will publicly change my mind. I'm betting that if you even tried such a poll, you wouldn't get three posts in without a qualifier or a reference to the perjury only (and that was, of course, forced upon the man). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Bill D Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM awww..c'mon, John....saying "it wasn't vile" is NOT voicing approval! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: heric Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:28 PM (fade to bolivian was BillD's joke from another thread but the original source is Mike Tyson.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:45 PM "...and I never heard one say he DID apporve") up thread: From: Riginslinger - PM Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:47 PM There wasn't anything vile about what Clinton did. "It certainly didn't warrant $80 million and months of attention... And as you know, it didn't get it either. It came at the tail end (so to speak) of a very long and drawn out investigation into several scandals, some of which ended up in jail time for a few. I don't know how much of the $70Mil (TIA) or $80Mil (you) was specific to the Paula Jones case. Do you? "It is all pretty simple...Craig is not Barney Frank, and he is from a conservative state and in a conservative party who find his overall behavior in the matter a blot on the party and a BIG distraction. He has NO chance of re-election, and would be shunned by his Republican colleagues if he did not resign. (I believe that no Senator has been FORCED out in about 100 years!...and they don't want to have to.)" ^ From this point on you must no longer be addressing me, as I made the same points. "It's funny...he be a better help to the Democrats if he DID refuse to resign!" That ship has sailed. The Democrats are already "helped". Either and any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM Well said, Bill D. Re the argument that the Dems did not find Clinton's behavior "obectionable," that brings up an all-too-common specious argument in political discourse: "We should not legalize (decriminalize) prostitution (or marijuana, or whatever) because that sends the message that it's OK. Letting something be legal amounts to endorsing it." Horsefeathers! Each of us could probably rattle off a whole slew of behaviors that most people find offensive, maybe even immoral, but which society has not seen fit (at least in the last few decades) to turn into misdemeanors, much less felonies. They include most varieties of sexual promiscuity (if not money is formally exchanged), adultery, gluttony, sloth, lying (including tabloid 'news' media smearing celebrities with distorted or fabricated stories), obnoxious drunkenness at private parties, bad parenting (if no physical or sexual abuse is involved), etc. I daresay there's far, far from a one-to-one correspondence between what's "illegal" in most communities and what's generally viewed as "undesirable" or "offensive" behavior. Our representatives in government, including the Republican party and many of our churches, should thank their stars that we don't make promiscuity, adultery, wastefulness, boorishness, and (private) drunkenness criminally prosecutable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc From: Rapparee Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:24 PM Butch Otter, Governor of Idaho, is actively searching for a replacement for Craig. He's met with Craig and is doing this "just in case." Which means that come October Idaho will have a replacement Senator. One possibility is Jim Ritsch, who was Lt. Governor under Kempthorne and Acting Governor between the time Kempthorne was made Sec. of the Interior and Otter was elected. He's not a bad man, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Bill D Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:14 PM Genie...*grin* Joun Hardly said several days ago... "The Democrats forever changed the national political landscape when they proved that they did not find Clinton's sexual behavior objectionable." I am late getting back in this thread, but I can't let that go unanswered... That is pure BS! Of course they found it objectionable! (Most of them, anyway...and I never heard one say he DID apporve)...but, as others have said, they found it more 'foolish' than anything. It certainly didn't warrant $80 million and months of attention....except by Republicans who, as a group, ARE more concerned with folks' sexual morés...as they are proving by their stern actions toward Craig. It is all pretty simple...Craig is not Barney Frank, and he is from a conservative state and in a conservative party who find his overall behavior in the matter a blot on the party and a BIG distraction. He has NO chance of re-election, and would be shunned by his Republican colleagues if he did not resign. (I believe that no Senator has been FORCED out in about 100 years!...and they don't want to have to.) IF Craig had denied all the charges from the beginning, and not flashed his Senate ID card at the officer, and played totally innocent, he 'might' have avoided all this....but all those things, plus his earlier videos calling Clinton a "nasty, naughty boy" were just over the top...he is a target for every comedian on the planet now. It's funny...he be a better help to the Democrats if he DID refuse to resign! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM Don't they have gay bathroom-cruising politicians in Bolivia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: SINSULL Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM bolivian???? LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:14 PM The main fault I find with Sen. Craig in this context is that he's giving gays a bad name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: heric Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:09 PM *The Senate Ethics committee late Wednesday rejected Sen. Larry Craig's [lawyers'] request to drop ethics charges against him* I thought he wanted to clear his name. What a maroon. First you want to be probed and then you don't. I tried to defend him and I still think the "sting" was preposterous but now even I hope he fades to bolivian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:10 PM LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: SINSULL Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:02 PM First you say you will and then you won't Then you say do and then you don't You're undecided now so what are you going to do? Now it's a music thread. He chose against the advice of his lawyers to plead guilty. He chose against the advice of "friends" to announce his resignation. He has created his own monsters. And he has yet to explain what exactly he was doing in the Men's Room that led to his arrest. Claims that he was illegally caught in an unconstitutional sting operation? Does that mean he should not have been arrested not because he wasn't breaking the law but the sting was questionable? Go away! Just go away! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Alba Date: 06 Sep 07 - 11:31 AM Ok here we go. Today a spokesman for Craig says he is definetly resigning... Who knows what tomorrow may bring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:01 AM "One person pleads guilty to a misdemeanor and others are suspected of felonies and/or treason. Whose continuing position in the government is more problematic? " Well, if I understand your question, that requires several answers. 1. I'm not sure I can see a case where a misdemeanor should be a problem, so I can't see where one who pleads guilty to one couldn't remain in office without a problem. I can think of several misdemeanors, however, that may lead to serious problems with one getting re-elected. 2. If one is suspected of a felony, or of treason, he, of course, WILL remain in office until such time as due process runs its course. If he is found innocent of the charges, then, of course, his remaining in office is of even less consequence than is the fellow guilty of the misdemeanor. If he is found guilty, he will, of course, face a much greater consequence than would the fellow who pled guilty to a misdemeanor. 3. The two are unrelated. One person's felony does not absolve the guilt of another's crime or misdemeanor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)- lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:02 AM Oh, and no one's suggesting Bush and Cheney should be removed from office without or before a trial. An impeachment itself is merely an indictment, to be followed by a trial. Impeachment HEARINGS in the House are preliminary to that indictment, but the Republican controlled Congress would not even allow hearings into what many -- and not just Democrats -- saw as possibly treasonous acts, such as outing a CIA agent and the entire brassplate organization she worked in. (Just to name one.) One person pleads guilty to a misdemeanor and others are suspected of felonies and/or treason. Whose continuing position in the government is more problematic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)- lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:56 PM JohnH, I think I heard on radio today about a former US member of Congress who was convicted of drunk driving and not asked to resign. While not as good a springboard for 5th-grade humor or a source of borderline tabloid TV 'news' stories, I'd say driving while intoxicated is a more serious offense than using coded signals to hit on another adult in a restroom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Charley Noble Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:34 PM Hell, the Senate ain't sufficient for someone like Craig. Why doesn't he run for President! Anyone who would vote for him at this point would need to have his head examined (or extracted from his or her nether region) but that hasn't stopped our voters in the recent past from voting in some dozies. I wonder when his wife is scheduling their divorce, or is she as good at self-deception and he is. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc From: Rapparee Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM I try to hate the sinner and love the sinner. Although it's really hard sometimes.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Sep 07 - 06:47 PM I hate war & I hate the actions of those that got us there & that keep us there. Do I hate the politcian, sometimes not just their actions. When they repeat the actions that I hate & those actions cost the lives of others then yes I do tend to begin to hate the piece of shit. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:58 PM "As for Craig staying in the Senate, why shouldn't he?" Quite possibly, no reason. Trouble is, he pled guilty to a charge. It appears that the charge was a misdemeanor (minor offense) and he very well might ride this thing out. "Bush and Cheney have broken much more important laws and the Republicans are not calling for them to resign. Well, that where the difference between having pled guilty to a charge, and being charged with something and being found guilty comes into play. Political enemies of Bush and Cheney are convinced of their having broken laws but this is still a country where one has to be charged and prosecuted and found guilty in a court before disciplinary actions can be taken. I'm sure that if Bush and Cheney can be found guilty of something, there will be consequences for them. "If he stays and makes it through the Republican primary next year, we'll see whether Idahoans hate gays (and/or bathroom cruisers) more than they hate Democrats. Do you "hate" your political opponents? I'm just curious because I don't. I don't vote for someone because I hate his opponent. I don't vote against someone because I hate him. Hate doesn't really ever enter the political picture for me. I guess I had assumed the same of Democrats -- the ability to disagree without hating. |
|
Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM [["Complaining about "bad judgement"? In a country that elected Bush and Co to high office? That's chutzpah." McGrath Of Harlow]] Excellent point, McGrath. (Of course, the country clearly did not elect Bush in 2000 (when all the votes were counted) and very probably did not in 2004, either. But, unfortunately, nearly half the voters did have the bad judgment to vote for him and Cheney.) As for Craig staying in the Senate, why shouldn't he? Bush and Cheney have broken much more important laws and the Republicans are not calling for them to resign. If he stays and makes it through the Republican primary next year, we'll see whether Idahoans hate gays (and/or bathroom cruisers) more than they hate Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM He's got to get some somewhere! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: GUEST,heric Date: 05 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM My guess is that he'd be a catcher, not a pitcher, on their softball team not that there's anything wrong with that. But he doesn't seem a grab-the-world-by-the-balls kind of guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:15 AM Maybe he'll become a spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:16 AM Complaining about "bad judgement"? In a country that elected Bush and Co to high office? That's chutzpah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc From: Rapparee Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:09 AM IF Craig runs a again he has zero chance of re-election, assuming that the Idaho Republicans even nominate him. Folks I've talked to don't seem to care about his sexual conduct, but the argument goes like this: 1. He pled guilty, thinking it would get everything over with and never be found out. 2. This demonstrates really bad judgement. 3. I don't want someone with bad judgement representing me or Idaho. These folks are Republicans or independents, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Alba Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:41 AM This has got to be a hard one to fight legally. Craig was arrested in June and didn't plead Guilty to the charge till August. He had plenty time to think his plea over. Kind of knocks the wind out of Fred Thompson's campaign announcement which is due to come this week. (if it had any wind in the first place :>) Ah what a tangled web we weave Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:14 AM Bully for Craig. Let's see who in his party backs him...or at least waits for the outcome before speaking again. Again, their quickness to condemn is either homophobia, or blatant '08 electioneering. Curiouser and curiouser.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Ebbie Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:49 PM Well, you see it's like this: I did nothing wrong but I pleaded guilty at the police station and agreed that I did but that was when I thought that would take care of the problem but now it appears that it didn't so I agreed to resign from the Senate but you know, if I resign, I'll never make that easy a living again and besides I did nothing wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: GUEST,heric Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:46 PM Wow. But decisive he ain't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Alba Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM Seems Senator Craig is now reconsidering his resignation. So looks like this discussion will be going on for a while longer.... Link to News article: what to do, what to do! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)- lewd conduct From: Genie Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:13 PM What happened between Bill Clinton and Monica did not occur in a public place and was not against the law. And Clinton's "shenanigans" with Monica did not amount to saying "F*ck the Bill Of Rights." Bush and the Republicans aren't rushing to Larry Craig's defense because they have nothing to lose, and a good deal to gain, by his resignation and replacement by a "less controversial" Republican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:58 AM So, you do understand that there isn't any Bush apologist on this thread then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM The big defference between Clinton and Craig is that Clinton did not run for office on the anti-blowjob platform. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM Bobert and TIA, There is, as far as I can tell, no Bush apologist in this thread. Bush was brought into this thread by Clinton apologists, looking to make Clinton appear better in contrast. You may well believe that Clinton looks better in contrast to Bush. Personally, as a president, I think Clinton looks better than Bush. But there is nowhere in this thread where Bush is compared to Clinton in order to make Bush look good. And there is nowhere in this thread where anyone is defending Bush. Hence, there are no Bush apologists on this thread. Again, Bush was brought up as a comparison here by Clinton apologists, not the other way around. Clinton was brought up on this thread as a comparison to how Democrats view sexual scandal as compared to how Republicans view the sexual scandal of the subject of this thread -- Larry Craig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Bobert Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:50 AM Well, one thing is fir sure and that is there is no Bush screw up that the Bush apologists won't somehow shift the story around to Bill Clinton... Now, I didn't much like Clinton either and didn't vote for him and wouldn't vote for his clone/wife but, geeeze Louise... Whatever happened to all that "persoanl responsibility" that you Bushites used to talk about??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:18 AM Clinton was not brought into this discussion as a defense of Bush. It was the other way around. Ebbie, I'm having a really hard time understanding what you must be reading into my posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:54 PM WTF? We still have people comparing Clinton's impeachment and the associated investigations to Bush's shenangigans? Here is the only statistic you need to know. The Republican congress authorized $80 million dollars to investigate the blowjob, and only $5 million to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Please, please, please do not believe TIA - go look it up. Then explain to me how the blow job warranted such exhaustive investigation, while 9-11 (perhaps the most significant event on American soil since the Revolution?) got 1/16 the attention (at least in $$$, that is). You Republican defenders have got your heads stuck up there so deep you can't see straight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Ebbie Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:30 PM Man, John, you are not the person I thought you were. But we're even. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: John Hardly Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:15 PM "John -- What entitles you to cast the first, or any stone? " Um. Maybe the fact that I'm not casting a stone? I don't know. Is this a trick question? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc From: curmudgeon Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:40 PM "You suppose that (being's as that what Clinton did wasn't vile) in the back of Hillary's mind, one reason she can't wait to get into the White House is that she can't wait to fulfill every little girl's dream... ...and get down on her knees and give a blowjob to a young intern?" John -- What entitles you to cast the first, or any stone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct From: Bobert Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:38 PM Okay, John, settle down... All kiddin' aside, you are using subterfuge here... Clinton got a blow job and he lied about it = impeachement... Bush started a war based on lies which has killed upwards of a million people and *no* impeachment??? You can play all the word games but this is the story... Bobert |
