Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 3: Part II, More on Professor Chauncey


By Paul Hogarth

[UPDATE] 9:21 The last post was getting long, so I started a new one.  Now, Thompson is going over statistics of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Thompson: “Courts used to be able to confine homosexuals based on their ‘pathology.’  That doesn’t happen anymore, correct?”

Chauncey: Yes

T: “California, Iowa and Connecticut have all granted the rights of gay couples to marry.  Doesn’t this measure an increasing acceptance of homosexuality?”

C: “Not really.  Those court decisions went against much of public opinion.”

At first, I was glad that Chauncey answered this question that way — to show we still have a long way to go.  But again, it makes me nervous for the reason that courts are an inherently conservative institution.  Chauncey has now just admitted that CA, IA and CT courts are more the exception than the rule when it comes to jurisprudence on the issue of marriage equality, “outliers” as a lawyer would say.  Rarely — think Brown and Roe — do courts deviate from tradition and precedent when it comes to decisions.

[UPDATE] 9:32 Now Thompson is getting absurd.  He is asking Chauncey a whole line of questioning about how many religious groups and churches support marriage equality, that they are evolving.  Finally, (thank God — no pun intended) Chauncey has pointed out that the religious groups he cited — MCC, Unitarians, etc. — are not the majority of Christian groups.

Chauncey: “There’s a growing debate [in religions], but most religious groups are not with us.”

Thompson: “Most evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage, but isn’t it true that demonization of homosexuals has become less accepted?”  Now, they’re showing some video footage of Pastor Rick Warren — who said that everyone should be accepted and show “common grace to each other” but we shouldn’t be “redefining marriage.”

[Complaining that we can’t be bigots anymore reminds me of what Jon Stewart said on the “Daily Show” after Maine after voters passed Question 1 (note: I traveled to Maine, and was very involved in the “no” campaign.)  After quoting a right-winger who complained that homophobia is less accepted, Stewart says: “Well gee, if we can’t go after homosexuals — who can we?  The Irish?”]

[UPDATE] 9:40 Finally!  Thompson has brought up the 60 ballot initiatives “directed at homosexuals” — i.e., marriage amendments et. al.  “How many of those were in California,” he asks.  Thompson had asked Chauncey that isn’t true a lot of gays move to California away from more hostile places.  In other words, he’s saying that because there have been fewer homophobic measures in California than the rest of the country — that somehow we’re a gay mecca and everything’s okay.

[UPDATE] 9:43 Now, Thompson just quoted from Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope that a “special place” should be “carved out” for gay relationships — i.e., civil unions.  Because the plaintiff’s case is that Prop 8 was motivated by animus (anti-gay bigotry), Thompson is asking Chauncey if “isn’t it possible for someone to have the same opinion that President Obama articulated and is not motivated by animus?”

Because the federal courts have not recognized sexual orientation to be a “suspect class” (at least not yet), laws that discriminate do not violate equal protection as long as there was a “rational basis.”  What that means is, as long as the Court can literally dream up a rational basis for justifying the law, it is okay.  Romer v. Evans (1996) was an important case, because the Supreme Court struck down an anti-gay law — not because the only possible reason to pass it was animus, or IRRATIONAL BASIS.  So under this standard, if the defense can prove that there were other, non-bigoted reasons, for passing Prop 8 they could win.

[UPDATE] 9:51 SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart is objecting to Thompson’s line of questioning.  “Chauncey was called as a witness based on his expertise of the history of anti-gay discrimination, not what people were intending when they voted for Prop 8.”

[I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  Therese Stewart is one of the most impressive trial lawyers I know.]

9:55 AM: Now, Thompson is getting Chauncey to admit that support for gay marriage has not always been the unanimous opinion of the LGBT community.  Bringing up Gay Male Liberation opinions that they didn’t approve of marriage.

T: “Some gay liberationists felt that marriage would dishonor the intimacy of these relationships, correct?”

[Obviously, Thompson is getting Chauncey to admit there are reasons for opposing gay marriage that are not based on hatred of homosexuals.  If the defense can prove that not everyone voted for Prop 8 because they hate gays, they can try to distinguish this from the Romer case.  But I’d say that most of the evidence Thompson is raising is historical — that the LGBT rights movement in the Sixties had a lot of radicals who didn’t approve of marriage.  Did gays who don’t want to get married really vote “Yes” on 8?  By 2008, you can’t honestly say that the most left-wing radical queer wanted Prop 8 to pass.]

Chauncey: “The right to marry evolved and became a more widespread and deeply held goal of the gay and lesbian community.”

[Thank God!!  Now, Thompsons is asking for a ten-minute break.  Chauncey’s answer clearly caught him off guard.]

[NOTE] Following the break, I’ve moved to a new thread here. Join the commentary over there.

Tags: , ,


  • 1. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:40 am

    I actually very much appreciate your interpretation of "why" a specific line of questioning is ocurring, and I think you separate it from the facts well.

    How much of a part has the Judge played in the courtroom this morning? Yesterday he was quite active with questions (or so it seemed from the blog), but this morning as of yet it seems he is silent.

  • 2. Micha  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Please put comments in [brackets] or {braces} or something. Should be easy to do on the fly, and clearly identifies reporting from opinion.
    (We do value your opinion!!! Just want a bit more clarity!)

  • 3. Robyn Elaine Serven  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:44 am

    This would be a good place for someone to pull out some of the junk from Focus on the Family.

  • 4. Riya Suising  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:44 am

    When Lincoln passed the Emancipation Declaration to free slaves, it was a very unpopular decision, and against popular opinion at that time…

  • 5. Warren  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Yes, but the Dredd Scott case was decided in favor of slavery by the supreme court just a few years before…

  • 6. country lawyer  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Prof Chauncey has failed to mention the later raid on bar in Atlanta, which occurred in Sept 2009, and is now the subject of a lawsuit against the Atlanta police chief and several officers. This could be brought out on redirect by plaintiffs' counsel.

  • 7. Michael  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:58 am

    This was discussed yesterday afternoon actually. briefly, it seemed, but he did point out that these bar raids are not completely a thing of the past.

  • 8. country lawyer  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:14 am

    I saw earlier Fort Worth raid mentioned but not later Atlanta raid. Atlanta resulted in a few arrests which may still be pending so may not be worth raising.

  • 9. Mykelb  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Thank you for doing this. I was deeply disappointed in the SCOTUS for blocking transmission. Are they going to rule by COB today?

  • 10. annoyed  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:50 am




    If you feel compelled to talk about your feelings, do so in separate posts, when the trial isn't actually happening.

    I'm very thankful for this blog – it is my eyes/ears into the trial – but please just let the trial happenings speak for themselves.

  • 11. Dan  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Annoyed — you can read more detailed, almost question-by-question coverage here:

  • 12. sam  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:07 am

    This link is great – almost a transcript, thanks Dan.

  • 13. DonG  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Many of us like the editorializing. If you want a transcript-like blog, go to
    and they will meet your needs.

  • 14. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Its a hard job to write everything you hear, and it would be impossible to type out every word that goes by… he HAS to summarize, and in doing so his own perspective shows. This is natural, please don't attack him for it.

  • 15. Nick  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:57 am

    For those of us who aren't super geniuses who know everything, the explanations and editorial bits can be quite helpful.

  • 16. Nicki  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:12 am

    i second that, lovingly – and agree, it IS super that that line of questioning got objected to. Theresa is kicking butt. Your process recording is fine – with me and i am grateful for it !

    Thompson has a Lizard Brain – and you are soo right about the focus , judges are conservative, in that they need and are being shown promise – Dr. Cott made it crystal clear yesterday that things are that are very suspect of being actively harmed by hatred motivated prejudice, are occuring still. and john stewart rooocks.

  • 17. James Sweet  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:00 am

    "The votes are in". 183,528 people want to hear the helpful and clearly minimal commentary provided by Paul, and 26 annoyed people don't.

  • 18. Jim McLemore  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:03 am

    nicely put.

  • 19. Ryan  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Speaking of feelings…There are some of us who value the explanations of what is going on. He is not a stenographer and cannot be expected to get every uttered word. Before you start judging the quality of the blog and whether or not it is meeting your criteria, why don't you take time from work, travel to San Fran and try doing this yourself.

    Paul, you're doing fine. Keep up the good work. Please don't allow individual opinions on formatting distract you from the task at hand.

    Many Thanks

  • 20. Bruce  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Hey annoyed – SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! And stop shouting.

  • 21. John Kusters  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Please do not include me in your declaration that nobody cares about the blogger's feelings. I'm somebody and I appreciate the insights the blogger is providing. Therefore, you claim that "nobody cares" is flat-out wrong.

  • 22. Rebecca  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:05 am

    This guy is there spending his precious time providing us with vital coverage which is unattainable elsewhere and all you can do is complain- in caps, no less?

    Way to be a jerk, "annoyed." Duck off.

  • 23. J  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:33 am

    ANNOYED: How much did you pay for access to this blog?

  • 24. elw  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:54 am

    This is a BLOG not the Associated Press, editorializing is ok and majority of readers here appreciate the POVs.

  • 25. Kenton Smith  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Brian, could be that he either a) finds the line of questioning clear and compelling enough that he doesn't need to ask questions, or b) the line of questioning is clear enough but not very compelling and so he doesn't need to ask questions. Could go either way.

  • 26. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:56 am

    I guess thats what I was fishing for, it whether or not he is currently asleep or actively scribbling notes, lol.

  • 27. Lisa & Denise  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Thanks for doing this. I find your legal background and comments to be enlightening. (BTW: I graduated from Golden Gate, too, but the graduate business school not the law school.)

  • 28. christina  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:54 am

    yea it's a bit hard to understand whats being said and whats not. i've been confused a bit from day 1 lol

  • 29. Jessica  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Just wanted to express my agreement with Brian @1 above (and disagreement with annoyed @8): the interpretation from someone who seems to understand how these questioning strategies work is actually really helpful.

  • 30. Jamie  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:55 am


    Your analysis of the legality of it all including former trials that could relate to this is FASCINATING and better helps us to understand the magnitude of what is happening.

    You're doing a great job and your legal mind is extraordinarily helpful!

  • 31. HeatherR  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:57 am


    Personally, I appreciate the analysis. It helps to know why the attorneys are pursuing a particular line of inquiry.

    If you want a live transcript, that is available here:

  • 32. Kelly  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:58 am

    For anyone interested, Mercury News is also posting a love blog on the trial.

  • 33. Kelly  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Paul- I forgot to thank you for the wonderful work you are doing here today!

  • 34. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:58 am

    a love blog? =)

  • 35. Kelly  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Oops! *live

  • 36. Jim McLemore  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Paul, I enjoy the commentary and I think you are doing a good job of providing frequent summaries of the coverage. Just maybe let "annoyed" skip over italics sections, unless you think it is hampering your ability to provide accurate coverage. Keep it coming!

  • 37. chuck  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:03 am

    heterosexuals don't all want to get married, either. just like them, there are segments of the GLBT community that dont want to get married.

  • 38. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:03 am

    I hate that line of reasoning: not all gays want to get married, so why should we let any of them?

    Not all straights want to get married, either, so on that basis, they should all be denied the right, as well.

  • 39. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:03 am


  • 40. Dalton  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Oh goddess I love the editorializing – whether it's legal opinion, or opinions about culture/society in general or the blogger's personal experiences.

    This play by play is amazing and fascinating!

  • 41. James Sweet  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:04 am

    FWIW, I would have no idea what the hell Thompson was trying to get at if it weren't for the commentary…

  • 42. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Is anyone else having trouble focusing on work while this is going on? I feel like the short kid at the back of the crowd jumping up and down and begging for a crate to stand on or something, lol.

  • 43. missdk  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Brian, I'm actually a little thankful it's not live! I'd probably get fired 🙂

  • 44. Mykelb  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:38 am


  • 45. Kim  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:05 am

    What I am wondering about is the difference earlier that a child needs a father and a mother, and that therefore, gay marriage should be rejected. Now he is trying to say that they should give them civil unions, which would make no real difference for the kids.

    The kids issue is bullshit anyway, because gays will have children regardless.

  • 46. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:09 am

    and plenty of straight marrieds won't . . .

  • 47. Pat  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Who is who?
    I'm willing to make a video with pictures of who is who in this trial. Please direct me or post a list with names and status. THANK YOU!

  • 48. Rhonda Ross-Brooks  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:55 am

    In response to 46 Pat above — >>I’m willing to make a video with pictures of who is who in this trial. Please direct me or post a list with names and status<< — Personally I'd love to see an image of Hak-Shing William Tam.

  • 49. Lymis  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:10 am


    I can tell from this line of questioning that when they get their own witnesses on the stand, I for one will be spending significant amounts of time shouting at the computer screen.

    As to what the judge is up to, I think that he made it very clear somewhere along the line that he feels it is his job to get everything on the record and neatly lined up for the inevitable appeals up the food chain.

    If that is so, it is also at least partly his job to make sure that even the insupportable (or maybe even especially the insupportable) arguments get in the record so that they can be explicitly dealt with as to why they don't work.

    For good or ill, he needs to make sure that both sides have a chance to make their best case. If "Hey, California is better than Arkansas, so shut up and take what we give you" is the best they can come up with, these people are going down in history along side the "if God had wanted the races to intermarry, He wouldn't have put them all on different continents" people.

  • 50. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:22 am

    I know, its going to be painful watching the defense call their own witnesses. Then again, there are people everyday who preach the same thing, so merely hearing it one more time is certainly worth having it said on a stage on which it can be legally scrutinized.

  • 51. AB  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Was Therese Stewart's objection sustained or over rulled?

  • 52. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Is there anyone here who has an idea about the "suspect class" issue? I know that Paul mentioned that homosexuals were "not yet" recognized, but I guess my question is… what stands in the way of that? Is it merely another battle that we have not yet had time to fight, and should theoretically be pursuing?

  • 53. Mykelb  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Suspect class

    Definition – Noun
    : a class of individuals marked by immutable characteristics (as of race or national origin) and entitled to equal protection of the law by means of judicial scrutiny of a classification that discriminates against or otherwise burdens or affects them <a>
    see also suspect classification
    Suspect class and suspect classification are often used synonymously in regard to a group of persons, but suspect class does not refer to the process of classifying itself.

  • 54. Clayton  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:19 am

    First, thank you for your coverage. Second, the coverage yesterday better met my needs because it did not contain as much editorializing.

    this website is providing, in some ways, a historical archive of the event. This archive is already given through a specific lens (that of your website). To make your material more valuable for audiences in the future (and now), I recommend delivering information, and trying to place it in context, without the personal commentary.

    Kudos to Rick Jacobs, whose live blogging of day two was fantastic!

  • 55. elw  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:59 am

    boo. don't agree.

  • 56. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:19 am

    We're not a "suspect class" because our sexuality is ALLEGEDLY a choice, and therefore does not deserve protection.

    This, of course, is the exact opposite of religion being a "suspect class," because religion is most definitely a choice.

    Our foes essentially want different interpretations of what makes a "suspect class" so they are covered and we are left bare.

  • 57. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:25 am

    I can understand that, in recent history, homosexuality was considered a choice. But nowadays that wouldn't fly at all… in fact they aren't even trying it here in this trial.

  • 58. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:31 am

    It's a big part of the enemy's argument against gay marriage, though:

    A "suspect class" must be an immutable characteristic.
    Homosexuality is a choice
    Gays can choose to be straight.
    Therefore, they are not a "suspect class" and do not deserve marriage rights.

  • 59. DonG  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:24 am

    To be considered a suspect classification in the United States, the statute at issue must target:

    1. a "discrete" or "insular" minority who
    2. possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion),
    3. share a history of discrimination, and
    4. are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

    If you keep this in mind, you will see why certain questions are being asked by our team–it's to show that gays are a discrete minority who possess an immutable trait, who share a history of discrimination, and who are powerless to protect themselves in the political process.

    The political powerlessness is flexible; blacks are a suspect class and their political power is substantial; women are a "quasi-suspect" class and their political power is gaining and is substantial.

  • 60. Brian  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:27 am

    That leads me to believe that our pursuit of suspect class status is becoming more and more important every day. I understand that our team in this trial is bringing that up, its wonderful. Ultimately we would need to pursue it through another venue….. but I'm afraid of the last requirement, especially with openly gay politicians taking office (Houston) at this point.

  • 61. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:34 am

    If we had the power our enemy's claim, the question of our right to marry, join the military, adopt, not get fired, etc., would be moot, as we would have stomped down our foes.

  • 62. Mr. HCI  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:35 am

    DAMMIT: enemies, not enemy's

  • 63. matt  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:40 am

    The argument in defense of Proposition 8 has taken the course of arguing that homosexuality is a choice, rather than an “immutable trait.” Luckily, the plaintiff’s attorneys are attempting to prove that it is, indeed, an immutable trait. When Kristin Perry was called up to testify, she was asked several questions regarding her previous marriage to a man, which lasted 12 years. She reveals that her previous heterosexual marriage “didn’t really make sense” and that she “couldn’t really relate when other people said they were in love.” When asked by Ted Olsen if she believed she could change being a lesbian, she replied, “I’m 45 years old, I don’t think so.” Proving that homosexuality is not a choice is central to the upheaval of Proposition 8, however difficult it may be.
    Perry is a key witness in the case, not only in her testimonial of homosexuality not being a choice, but also to the argument for the so-called protection of American children. While defendants may argue that legalizing gay marriage would degrade and jade children of today’s social understandings of right and wrong, Perry negates this entirely. “She works for a govt. agency. She works in child protection, prevention of child abuse, supports family.” ( How could someone with a profession like this ultimately be a perpetrator in destroying the family unit?

  • 64. Paul  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Transcription please. Context and commentary are appreciated and welcome. But if a choice has to be made between transcribing what’s said, and telling us what it means, please transcribe. None of the others are transcribing. If you stop, then no one will be doing it. That having been said, thank you for doing this for us.

  • 65. Jeremy  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:25 am

    I agree that I appreciate the interjected comments as it helps me to understand the arguments being put forth, or the reminders of cases past that dealt with similar arguments. The comments are a great help – perhaps as one poster mention put the comments in [brackets] to separate them from the trial relaying as I've been confused a couple of times when something was a comment by the blogger or was part of the relayed testamony.

    Great job and a thousand, million, thanks for doing this so we can know what's going on in this trial!

  • 66. David Shorey  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Thank you for for the blogging. A request – You have exclaimed "Thank God!" a few times over the course of your posts. Unfortunately the strength of this exclaimation does not seem to be supported by the lines directly connected to it. It is almost out of context. As you know God has been used a a tool against our community and indeed is a word with negative connotations. In addition some of use worship the Goddess and others Gods and Goddesses.

    My request is that the exclamation be used sparingly in in a more limited context with a statement that could be connected with something happening in the courtroom that could have the weight of diety.


  • 67. elw  |  January 13, 2010 at 5:49 am

    you have got to be kidding

  • 68. Gus  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:25 am

    a lot of attitudes changed during the AIDS crisis. Life Partners were cast aside by institutions and families because there were no protections.

  • 69. Pearl  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:26 am

    I also would like to see if the objections are sustained or over ruled. It's kinda hard to figure out once the questioning resumes.

  • 70. Anaguma  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Your editorials are helping those of us who are pretty dumb about the whole legal process, and how to interpret things said between the lines. Keep it up! 🙂

  • 71. TampaAgainstH8  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Please continue with the commentary. I really enjoy your explanations about what he's trying to get at with certain questions directed to Chauncey. I hope you disregard some people's comments stating they're "annoyed" and continue the commentary because, I think in this case, the majority of readers really appreciates your knowledge on the subject and thoughts about what's going on. Thanks again 🙂

  • 72. Rhonda Ross-Brooks  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:30 am

    As has been suggested, "annoyed," you might want to check out if you require more of a transcript format.

    I AM, in fact, a stenographer and find Paul's work to be amazing in that he's not using a steno machine to write realtime and we are all being provided with the gist of a question and answer. As far as his commentary so that those not intimately familiar with the law will understand why a particular line of questioning is being pursued — PRICELESS!!

  • 73. cASEY  |  January 13, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Thank you for this blog, editorializing and all.

    Did all you "annoyed"s write Cameron asking him to use less CG after you saw Avatar, too? We live in an age of Media Choice – if you want a dry court transcription, go somewhere else!

  • 74. The Golem  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Two points, with the understanding that I'm not a lawyer.

    1) Suspect class. Just because many LGBT people are successful in their careers does not negate the barriers and even blatant discrimination that others of us experience.

    Do President Obama and Justice Sotomayor remove Blacks and Latins from being suspect classes.

    2) I find the comments and reactions useful. When I want amore purely simple facts account, I go to the Twitter one.

    Keep up the good work!

  • 75. Manny  |  January 13, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I like the editorializing. Thank you! Honestly, some of this legal stuff goes way over my head and it's great to have an informed person clarify these things.

  • 76. remix  |  January 13, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Too much commentary! More coverage! I like hearing your thoughts, but would rather you sum up with commentary at the end of the day. We want to know what's happening for now!

  • 77. Liveblogging Day 3: Early&hellip  |  January 13, 2010 at 9:42 am

    […] Liveblogging Day 3: Part II, More on Professor Chauncey […]

  • 78. Marjorie  |  January 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Another vote FOR the editorializing. What you said about suspect classes was a key point that I didn't know, so it adds more to my understanding of what's happening in this case than a court transcript would. (Thanks for italicizing your editorializing so it's easier to follow what's what.)

  • 79. jack  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:34 am


    I love that we as a community are fighting against people who try to speak for us, and yet you feel it necessary to speak for the rest of us as far as the editorializing on this page.

    Obviously by the responses, the vast majority (including myself) prefers the editorializing. Maybe you understand the meaning of every single legal phrase being used, every reference to every other case that applies to this one, and the specific reasoning for certain lines of questioning being used. I'm certain that the editorializing must frustrate you then, considering your apparent vastly superior intellect.

    Guess in that case, I'll speak for the rest of us too…Shut up.

  • 80. tires rack&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:18 am

    Blog Browser…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

  • 81. 849475  |  September 26, 2011 at 11:57 am

    849475 beers on the wall. sck was here

  • 82. Spinner Rims  |  October 25, 2011 at 1:11 am

    It’s really a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you shared this useful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!