Title: Message
Starchild wrote:
SC "The duty of a
liberty-loving polity to defend human liberty vanishes completely at lines
drawn on maps by statists." Were you being sarcastic, or did you mean to say
it *doesn't* vanish completely?SC
The latter. I
inadvertentlycopied and pasted
Title: Message
I disagree with pretty much anybody who says there is only one right
institutional or tactical way to focus liberty-increasing effort. There are
wrong ways (like creating extra liberty-oriented
parties), but there is no single right way.The Libertarian
Party,the Republican
Title: Message
Thomas L. Knapp writes:
TK I don't know if I qualify as either a 9/11 "conspiracy theorist" or
an 11/22 "conspiracy theorist. I am skeptical of elements of the "official
story" in both cases, but don't necessarily have a specific counter-narrative
to offer for
Title: Message
On Thursday Aug 17 my Green opponent Carol
Brouillet invited me to be a "skeptic" on a Palo Alto community access TV show
about the 9/11 "Truth Movement". I agreed, even though I had been stunned
by the size of the 9/11 conspiracy industry that was evident in the 200-page
Title: Message
[cc'ing editors at the Guardian, as well as
my campaign's open emailforum]
Hi Carol,
As a 9/11 "Truth" activist you ask a lot of
questionsabout 9/11 -- including the questions you shouted at Rep. Anna
Eshoo when you interrupted my debate with her in Mountain Viewon Oct
Title: Message
Now that my race for Congress
includes a Green who claims the Bush administration staged 9/11, I've surveyed
the landscape of the 9/11 conspiracy funhouse. As someone who spent years debunking JFK
conspiracy theories in the pre-Web era of the Internet, I've had no trouble
Title: Message
Robert Fortewrites:
RFForgive me if I am
missing something, but it appears you have done exactly as I suspected you
would: You've publicized a private correspondence with your own "last word"
and as far I can see, you did not print my rebuttal to your reply, making
Title: Message
Paul Ireland wrote:
PI I am an EXPERT when it comes
to the Constitution and it would be a big mistake for you, or anyone else on
this group to challenge me.
PI
Yawn. It's been over six months and you
still haven't answered my Constitutional arguments at
Title: Message
On Thursday Aug 17 my Green opponent Carol Brouillet invited me to be a
"skeptic" on an Aug 21 Palo Alto community access TV show about the 9/11 "Truth
Movement". I agreed, and my concerns over a possible ambush were
greatly eased by email exchanges in the intervening days
Title: Message
"Gordon Ross" wrote at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=384:
GR Standing for Congress? With the
massive holes, untruths, half-truths and inconsistencies in this article you
should fit right in. GR
Whoops, looks like the conspirators
are trying to smear the
high". :-) BHTK Actually, no. Read it again.
TK
Istand by my statement, because I indeed am telling people that
Andrews wasn't ready to scramble armed fighters on less than five minutes'
notice on 9/11. I hope you're not going to claim that your"tells you"
literally mean
Title: Message
Kevin Bjornson wrote:
KB Very good work, Brian. KB
Thanks! In typical Libertarian fashion, I'll only speak below to the
few areas where we might disagree. :-)
KB If we minimize libertarianism to the non-initiation-of-force
principle, we don't need to sacrifice purity
Title: Message
Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
BH anyone who claims that the ZAP sufficiently defines libertarianism
is saying that libertarianism is hopelessly inadequate for governing a polity.
BH
TK Perhaps, but not necessarily so. It could also be (as a matter of
fact it is) that
Title: Message
Starchild wrote:
BHHaving an extra child
incurs a nearly-two-decade legal obligation -- and an emotional and biological
imperative -- to nourish, shelter, educate, and otherwise care for it.
I'll gladly support open immigration for anyone who can get a landowning
Title: Message
Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
BH Nothing you said contradicts my point that no single-sentence
libertarianaxiom (e.g the ZAP) can deterministically uncompress
into areasonably complete political theory. BH
TK I wasn't attempting to contradict your point TK
It sounded like
Title: Message
Steve Meier wrote:
SM Fact is the US sent troops from the USS Boston into Hawaii and then
anexed [sic] Hawaii into the United States. SM
Since you're merely repeating something you said before, I'll repeat
my rebuttal of it that you lack the intellectual courage to
Title: Message
Steve Meier wrote:
SM When you decide to move a discussion to a new location the ethical
way to do so is to tell the new audience where the debate originated so that
any interested party may review the earlier dialogs. Ohh was that over your
head? In conclussion you
Title: Message
It's one month to the
election. The D of I was written two centuries ago. I don't think
we're going to break much new ground here. The two best articles I've ever read
on the topic are:
Title: Message
Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
TK Feel free to refer me to where I called your position "pro-war." I
don't think you can, because I don't ever recall doing so.
TK
I was the only candidate mentioned by you in that paragraph, but
apparently this was a miscommunication.
TKYour
JR Conlin wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, sending out the data in what is effectively a
tight beam narrow cast awfully darn close to a significant noise
source seriously limits the sort of folks that might be able to hear
us. Kind of like me trying to get a cat's attention with a laser
Title: Message
Starchild wrote:
SCYou can substitute "several
minutes" for "several seconds" and it fits my argument just as well -- the
point being that rape is not like shooting someone dead, which either happens
or it does not, with no middle ground.SC
I'm simply
going to have
Title: Message
My Green opponent Carol Brouillet
wrote:
CB Brian Holtz should not
have his name and website linked on the frontpage as a supporter of a real 911
investigation.CB
Amen. They've now taken me off
their list. After all, 911truth.org can't risk exposing its fragile
what she believes to be a cover-up of what really
happened on Sept. 11.
Libertarian Brian Holtz, 41, a software engineer at Yahoo and resident of Los
Altos Hills, first ran against Eshoo two years ago. An advocate of market-based
solutions for education, health care and the environment, Holtz hopes
Title: Message
Re: http://www.wgla.org/Politics/initiatives2006novExcellent
work.Do you know whether the lifetime GPS and other new punishment rules
of Prop 83apply to already-convicted people and thus areex post
facto laws? Also,can you fix the opinion link for
1D?
__._,_.___
Title: Message
Karl Meyers wrote:
KM Ask George W Bush what his brother Marvin Bush's security company
was doing inside the twin towers just before 9/11? You won't get an answer.
KM
I already know the answer, but you apparently don't.You obviously
didn't read what I was quoted as
Title: Message
Dennis wrote:
DBrian, i don't have time to respond to
every piece of disinformation and misinformation in your attached postD
Then try responding to what you consider the
singlemost egregious piece of "disinformation" or "misinformation"
therein. Go ahead, make my day.
Title: Message
Karl Meyers wrote
KM It is not an urban legend about molten steel. It has been proven and
verified by scientists. They found and have evidence of thermate too. The 9/11
truth movement has solid evidence of molten steel and thermate. This is
undeniable and
Title: Message
Here are the LP-CA's recommendations for
November's ballot measures. The most important ones are 89 (campaign
finance) and90 (eminent domain and takings). 86 (cigarette taxes) and 87
(oil taxes) will have a big impact if they pass. 85 (parental abortion
notification) will
Title: Message
Under California law a party is qualified to
participate in primary (and thus also general) elections if 1) it achieves as
many registrants as 1% of the voter turnout in the last regular gubernatorial
election, or 2) had a statewide candidate win a 2% share in that
Title: Message
Alan Rice wrote:
AR "Unlawful combatant" is a dishonest term. Since the invaders
make the (martial) law, ANY combatant not on our side is "unlawful".
AR
"Unlawful" refers to the Geneva Conventions, not to the laws of the
invaded or invader. The Geneva Conventions are
Title: Message
Allen Rice wrote:
AR It required the existing uniformed
army to disband, so that wearing the uniform became a crime.
AR
Not a war crime. Again, you're inexplicably
conflating two kinds of law here. It was neverU.S. military policy to deny
POW status toIraqi soldiers
Title: Message
Allen Rice wrote:
Wiki members of militias not under the command of the armed forces-
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
WikiAR "a" and "his" are singular, hence my reading of a
"single force" AR
"Militias" is plural. The point of
whoset the level of liteness in this discussion.]
Brian Holtz
Internet Infidels
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/brian_holtz/bio.html
__._,_.___
SPONSORED LINKS
Silicon valley real estate
ausible
argument. You can either answer it, or you can't. Is what you wrote
above really the best response you can come up with?
SCHow can you even call this an
argument?
SC
My argument wasn't "Brian Holtz can't stomach
hell, therefore Jesus is proven false". My argument is quo
David Erickson makes only two attempts to cite actual facts or sources, so
I'll dispose of them first:
DE The actual quote from the book (Without Precedent) is Fog of war could
explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11. But it could not
explain why all of the after-action
Harland Harrison wrote:
HH The Iraq war weighs heavily on the conscience because it killed and
injured so many Iraqis. HH
As we found out in our discussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/862 of the Trolley
Problem, the difference between you and me seems to be that only
Gene Trosper wrote:
GT If we can begin to garner enough votes on the congressional level to be
the difference between the two major candidates, believe me...we're going to
see a change on Capitol Hill if they want to persuade the cranky Libertarian
vote time after time. We don't have to win
not sayin wrote:
Is it possible that free markets are not a 'correct' choice, but only one
side of the equation that seeks equilibrium between irrational markets and
irrational government planning ?
Yes, though I would say imperfect rather than irrational. If by free
markets you mean
The Bush Administration's first-order mistakes on Iraq have included:
1. Asserting it was plausible that Saddam had been involved in 9/11.
2. Asserting that terrorists attacked America on 9/11 because they
hate our freedoms.
3. Claiming that fighting them there makes it less
Allen Rice wrote:
AR oxymoron: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words
Of the first six dictionaries cited by onelook.com, only the best one
(Merriam-Webster) includes incongruity as an alternative to the usual sense
of outright contradiction or opposition. When people make hay
the cause of freedom.
Brian Holtz
2006 California LP Platform Committee Rep
http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html
2004/6 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org http://marketliberal.org/
blog: http://knowinghumans.net
Allen Rice wrote:
BH No other polity in human history has used its military as much as we
have to promote the cause of local democratic sovereignty. [O]ur record in
advancing human liberty is nevertheless unmatched in human history. BH
AR I don't share Brian's enthusiasm for the net record of
Allen Rice wrote:
BH Thanks to the enthusiasm of Iraqi Shias and Sunnis for killing each
other BH
AR This excuse for the situation in Iraq also crops up a lot. We tried to
force those SOBs to be democratic, but they kept sticking to their own
culture. If it weren't for that rudeness, things
Geof Gibson wrote:
BH No human languages were lost before the dawn of man. BH
GG Of course, you don't actually know that. There could have been a
dinosaur language GG
No, I actually do know that the dinosaurs spoke no human languages. :-)
GG It is the hieght of arrogance to think that Man's
Allen Rice wrote:
AR Your statement If you know of a cogent argument that some alternative
management of post-Saddam Iraq would not have ended in Sunni-Shia civil war,
I'd love to hear it. is an odd one. That is sort of my point, that the
situation we currently have was pretty much foreordained
Jose Castenada [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes Herman Goering. Jose, I couldn't
discern in your quote an argument that the LP Platform should not allow
freedom of conscience for those who believe the duty of a liberty-loving
polity to defend human liberty does not vanish completely at lines drawn on
Steve Meier wrote:
SM I am not the one advicating support for spending another 172 Billion
dollars on Military Adventurism. SM
Wrong yet again. I've been saying for six months that the Iraqis have
exhausted the reconstruction and stabilization efforts we owed them.
SM Wow, I think you are the
Joe Dumas wrote:
JD I didn't see anything in your proposed plank that advocated amending the
U.S. (or any state) constitution. JD
My proposed foreign policy plank is not in conflict with the U.S.
Constitution, as I explained here Tuesday to K Tunstall
K Tunstall wrote:
BH Congress exercised it's war-making powers in October 2002 by votes of
296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the the Senate. Mainstream constitutional
jurisprudence rejects the facile notion that the Congress has to spell out
w-e d-e-c-l-a-r-e w-a-r for it to exercise its
DrTomStevens wrote:
TS Does anyone recall how far down in line she was to be named President?
(53rd?) TS
43d. Galactica rulez. I no longer think of it as my TV. It's my device
for watching BG.
Now back to our regularly scheduled debate marathon...
Joe Dumas wrote:
JD I'm a minarchist, constitutionalist libertarian. I've yet to be
convinced that you are a libertarian of any stripe, but if you are, you are
clearly less of a minarchist than I am. JD
I don't see what evidence you have for that claim. We both apparently
support the
Allen Rice wrote:
AR the formal LPCA is a fraud, pretending to be a political party when, in
my opinion, it is actually a (mostly) white (mostly) men's (mostly) debating
(entirely) Club. AR
What does the LPC formally do that encourages debating? I can't think of
anything. Of the 15 current
Allen Rice wrote:
BH The LP's primary goal should be to use electoral politics to send the
policy-making community the largest possible signal of the desire for
increased civil and economic liberty. Winning office would help, but it is
neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for that goal.
Starchild wrote to Bruce:
SC Thanks for posting this -- could be useful for helping identify
candidates who are careerist/social climber types, spend too much time
listening to consultants rather than being themselves, and/or care more
about winning than principles. SC
Bruce, I know you try
Steve Meier wrote:
SM Brian has a term that he uses it is called libervention. I believe this
is the act of one country using its military to make changes inside another
country. SM
No, libervention means one country using its military to try to increase
liberty inside another country. Is my
Allen Rice wrote:
BH An important tactic of the LP should be to use every available race to
promote the awareness that there is a smart and principled alternative to
the tired old choice between Left and Right. BH
AR Use the word promotion rather than education, if you like. AR
There is a
Pam, I don't remember if you've been to an LPC convention, so if by chance
you weren't aware of Starchild's colorful fashion sense
(http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/magazine/001106.html), it might help
unruffle his feathers to point that out. Personally, I get a kick out of
seeing a Starchild or
Bernard Carman wrote:
BC why can't an affiliate endorse members of other parties? just because
the Bylaws says so? hell, let's change it! BC
Amen! As I wrote three years ago at http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html:
2.2. Be An Inclusive Voting Bloc, Not An Exclusive Purity Club
The Bylaws
Robert Capozzi wrote:
RC your analogy with the American Revolution seems far-fetched. It seems
correct to say that the US wouldn't
have prevailed without foreign help, yes. Those nation's motives were mixed
at best, but from what I can tell, it was the geopolitics of the time,
playing out. RC
Barnard Carman wrote:
BC National Defense: Secure our borders, maintain a strong national
defense, and require a congressional declaration of war for armed
engagements abroad. BC
I don't have any major problems with this language. My minor quibbles with
it would be two.
First, secure our
bernard b carman wrote:
BC i don't believe allowing anyone to just hop the border without any kind
of checks is wise for any country. BC
The only people I hear arguing for that are radical Libertarians. We don't
need the Platform to declare that they are wrong; we only need the Platform
to stop
Roberto Leibman wrote:
RL we should repeat this as a mantra before any LP meeting: We will NEVER
win an election until we can WIN a plurality of the votes. RL
The mantra should be: let's use electoral politics as effectively as
possible to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Your
Allen Rice wrote:
AR Once again, we begin to devolve into a parsing contest. AR
I don't agree that there is merely a grammatical difference between 1)
persuading voters to become libertarians and 2) making voters aware of what
a libertarian is so that they may recognize whether they are one
Allen Rice wrote:
RL we should repeat this as a mantra before any LP meeting: We will NEVER
win an election until we can WIN a plurality of the votes. RL
BH The mantra should be: let's use electoral politics as effectively as
possible to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Your
Art D.A. Tuma wrote:
AT Both Harrison and Dovner littered libertarian email lists with frequent
postings of anti-American nonsense. Please regard them both as recalcitrant,
perverse hecklers and follow Mark Murphy's example. Ignore their spam. Also,
if you are in a position to help others beat
bernard b carman wrote:
BC i am now very much liking a very short broad plank design that will be
compliant with the SOP, but broad enough to allow for not just ONE
Libertarian solution. BC
I agree.
BC it is not wise for a political platform to concentrate on principles,
as that's what the
Henry Haller wrote:
HH In the case of abortion, it is impossible to deduce from libertarian
principles whether the unborn child has status as a human being. Therefore,
a neutral stance would be appropriate. HH
Neutral if we can get away with it, moderate if we can't.
HH The issue of
Allen Rice wrote:
AR Political Party - A voluntary organization formed expressly to secure
and manage the offices of government by winning them. AR
You're in danger of begging the question about the LP's purpose if you
define winning office as the purpose of a political party. M-W says a
Steve Meier wrote:
SM I asked you how to cover the entire expense of maintaining the military
capabilities that your policy requires. Particularily, if the US is to be
able to act unilatiraly in any location of the globe. SM
We've had the capability my policy requires for several decades.
SM
[All but five sentences/clauses of this draft Platform consist of language
copied directly from the 1972, 2004, and 2006 platforms. The remaining five
are paraphrases or elucidations. See if you can spot them without referring
to the color-coded version and platform archive at
Steve Meier wrote:
SM The most obvious change is the dropping of the following text: The
principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between
governments. The United States government should return to the historic
libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining
Carl Milsted wrote:
CM There is a GIGANTIC gulf between the amount of meat in a reasonable LP
platform and the list of procedural reforms in the Contract with America.
CM
The LRC site says the Platform should be limited to changes that can
plausibly be enacted in the next term in office. By
Robert Capozzi wrote:
RC 1) I propose to the ad hoc committee of the LRC that we scrap Version A
B. It appears many of us agree that, in general, the Greatest Hits is a
superior solution. 2) I ask that Brian Holtz provide a list of cites of each
passage, and which cites he wrote himself. RC
Henry Haller wrote:
HH we would need to add the sections that define the issue, the libertarian
solution, and the action/transition steps to get there. HH
I'm increasingly skeptical of the issue/principle/solution/transition
structure. Can somebody take a sample plank and walk us through how
The recent suggested improvements of the Greatest Hits platform's use of
prior platform language are too good to ignore just for the sake of avoiding
textual novelty. So for reference purposes I've forked off and archived a
baseline version of the draft that has no textual novelty and leans
Henry Haller wrote:
HH The Principle and Solution sections serve to keep us on principle,
while the Transition section, if properly written, can satisfy those who
want to see a short term agenda for the next election cycle. If we choose
to ignore either of these two constituencies, we risk a
Steve Meier wrote:
SM 100 Billion won't cover the cost of maintaining the capability for
invading and occuping [sic] other countries anywhere on the planet. This is
a capability that you have advicated. [sic] SM
No, the capability I have advocated is one that the United States has
possessed
Steve Meiers wrote:
SM Your concept of freedom of consience [sic] seems to be to have the
government take a gun and rob me and others to pay for your wars of military
adventurism. SM
I don't know which is more hilarious, 1) your pretense that liberating Iraq
was merely some personal whim of
M Carling wrote:
M If a Platform is not a campaign document, then what sort of document is
it? M
Asked and answered:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/message/1927
M The Clark campaign published four white papers on various campaign
topics, such as social security, defense, etc.
Tony wrote:
T Hi I am new to this group I am tired of the other 2 major parties as they
just don't deliver much of anything except promises and nothing ever seems
to change.T
Welcome! If you are new to the LP, there is an excellent introduction to
our positions at
Harland Harrison wrote:
HH Tony says he wants a level playing field and you tell him (1) the
field tilts toward him and (2) the LP wants to tilt it the other way! HH
I told him the LP wants to tilt the field back to level. Do you dispute any
of the things I said about unions and the
A friend writes:
X Right or wrong, you probably just sent a new (now former) libertarian
packing. X
There was nothing in his message saying he wanted any more liberty on any
issue, so I'm not so sure he was a libertarian earlier in the day. However,
he might start becoming one if he follows any
Kevin Bjornson wrote:
KB The constitution offers no method for a state to secede. KB
Yes, and that constitutional defect was associated with what was by far
America's bloodiest and most tragic war.
M Carling wrote:
M I'm not saying we *need* a naked angels dancing on pinheads plank. I'm
Last year Chuck Moulton asked LRC members to document instances in which the
LP Platform was used against the LP. Are there any results to be shared
from that appeal? This evening I started searching for such instances and
documenting them at
Henry Haller wrote:
HH As I have said before, I like the Greatest Hits platform, and think it
is very principled. My main complaint about it was that it is not in the
format that we have agreed to use. More to the point, I think having a
Transition section is very important to make clear that we
Howard Pearce wrote to Bob Capozzi:
HP If you want to appeal to more voters and run and win elections without
debasing libertarian beliefs, that is fine with me. HP
Howard, can you cite anything specific in (or missing from) the Greatest
Hits draft platform at
Howard Pearce wrote:
BH In particular, does an LP Platform debase libertarian belief if it
does not call for any of the following?
* legalized child prostitution [repeal of all laws that restrict
anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods,
services, or
as too controversial to mention or as already covered by
that one statement ? HP
OK, and let's add to that one statement any sentence from current or past
platforms that most Libertarians can agree with. The result will be
something like http://marketliberal.org/LP/Platforms/2007.html.
Brian
Tim Bovee wrote:
BH The first thing the LP needs to do -- right now -- is to decide what
percent of American voters should be be able to recognize -- not be
persuaded, but just recognize -- that their ideas are closer to ours than to
any other party's. BH
TB I don't understand how there is any
Henry Haller wrote:
HH a substantial majority of Libertarians believe that taxation is theft
HH
Do you have any evidence for this? I'd wager that even a simple majority of
LP members would not agree with the assertion that coercive taxation is not
a necessary evil. I have multiple lines of
Doug Kendall (Libertarian News) wrote:
DK The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of
government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size,
scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose. DK
The Boston Tea Party's use of this language
Henry Haller wrote:
HH all members of the Libertarian Party sign a statement saying that they
do not believe in the initiation of force. Since coercive is by definition
initiation of force, then either people who join the party are opposed to
coercive taxation, or else they are confused about
I do not believe that the duty of a liberty-loving polity to defend human
liberty vanishes completely at lines drawn on maps by statists. It was
reasonable (but not necessary) for American liberty-lovers to decide to
liberate Iraq based on the conjunction of
*
Saddam's apparent
Howard Pearce wrote:
BH Do you consider taxes on negative externalities -- e.g. pollution taxes
-- to be theft? What about a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax?
BH
HP Taxes are taxes . what's the problem? HP
1) A tax on aggression -- like a pollution tax -- is not itself
scott74_us wrote:
S It deletes the cult phrase, eliminates the redundant last paragraph,
and substitutes politicians for Government a few
times. S
These are excellent changes. Why not also drop the statements about
history, which do not actually state our timeless principles and (as Harland
Henry Haller wrote:
HH My understanding of these terms is that the anarchist believes there
should be no government at all, while the minarchist believes in government,
but also believes that it should be funded through voluntary means. Thus,
neither one accepts coercive taxation. HH
Unlike
kevin Bjornson wrote:
KB no state has ever enforced or achieved a monopoly of force in it's
estate (territory). Therefore, states are a figment of
the imagination KB
No group of particles in the real world has ever conformed to the ideal gas
laws, but that doesn't mean gases are a figment of
. But if it did, I would indeed advocate killing the
fat man -- just as Harland said it would have been acceptable to kill an
innocent baby that Hitler hypothetically always kept at his side if doing so
were the only way to kill Hitler.
Harland Harrison wrote:
HH The Trolley Problem which Brian Holtz
Bob Capozzi wrote:
BC My one concern is that there are several passages in the Greatest Hits
that rely on full sentences that are NOT lifted from previous platforms. My
intent is to go through Brian's draft and find passages in old platforms to
swap in. BC
Good -- the more eyes looking for the
Susan Hogarth wrote:
BH I have to call bullshit on this canard that radicals habitually trot
out. BH
SH Such language! SH
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+call+bullshit
Even if this slang hasn't reached North Carolina yet, I would hope you at
least get Showtime there and thus
1 - 100 of 396 matches
Mail list logo
