March 4, 2011

"Does the Wisconsin Senate have the power to compel absent Democratic senators to return to the senate floor if they re-enter the state of Wisconsin? Yes."

Says Jim Lindgren:
I would hope that those who rely on the arrest clause of the state constitution would deal with the fact that the privilege against arrest applies “in all cases.” These commentators might try to argue that the drafters of the Wisconsin — and by implication, US – Constitutions meant “in all instances” when they wrote “in all cases.”

As implausible as this interpretation would be in the abstract, in context it would not pass the laugh test. After all, the phrase reads: “in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace.” In context, the framers’ language clearly meant court cases....
That interpretation would conflict with the compulsory attendance provision (Article IV, §7) of the constitution, Lindgren says:
Reading the two constitutional sections together, the courts can’t meddle in legislative affairs by arresting legislators in a civil court case, but each house of the legislature “may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.”

98 comments:

Reagan said...

He fails to discuss perhaps the most important question: can the warrant be executed in a jurisdiction other than Wisconsin?

Reagan said...

Implicitly he indicates that they would have to re-enter Wisconsin in order to arrest them.

rhhardin said...

I have been appalled at the inability of the commentators to analyze the relevant Wisconsin constitutional provisions.

The superiority clause.

Paddy O said...

As long as they bring them through the right door.

Sofa King said...

That is correct. Wisconsin law enforcement have no jurisdiction in Illinois, and it is not a felony, so there is no extradition.

Sofa King said...

However, if they were indicted under 946.12, that would be a felony.

Fen said...

But the SGT at Arms has been instructed by Senate to do so by any means, so why couldn't he send Bounty Agents into Illinois?

Triangle Man said...

He also says says:

"I’m not so sure that this is a wise move by the Republicans in Wisconsin."

Revenant said...

They can't extradite, but they could levy steadily-increasing fines or other forms of "persuasion".

Fen said...

For some reason I can't find the text of the bill atm...

Bob Ellison said...

Wisconsin is a state of laws and all that, but this is way too precious. Lawyers, politicians (but I repeat myself), and law professors may find the hair-splitting interesting and relevant, but the result is garbage.

My goose-chasing dog knows what to do. Go full out, barking loudly!

Fen said...

Here we go:

"order to the sergeant at arms that he take any and all necessary steps, with or without force, and with or without the assistance of law enforcement officers, by warrant or other legal process"

Sofa King said...

I'm pretty sure that bounty hunters can only legally go after bail jumpers.

Lem said...

The sargent at arms vest is at the cleaners.. there is no rush on it.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

Bomb Threat at Walker's News Conference Last Wednesday, Protester Arrested, Big Media Not Reporting It

traditionalguy said...

That may be the trick...send in the Repo Men, and if they resist then arrest them for assaulting a working man.

Chris said...

This is a useful and interesting post-- thank you!

BTW, why does the byline of your blog claim "Neutrality"? I don't get it. Surely you aren't pretending to be unbiased in you views?

(Note that I respect your right to share your views, but not your pretense at "neutrality.")

I'm glad to read this latest post. IMHO, you were losing perspective and credibility with some or your recent posts . . .

Chris B said...

How long are these Dems content to just stay away? I mean, there must be other legislation to deal with. Do they expect the people to just be ok with their absence? Well, they are politicians so that may have been a dumb question...

Lem said...

"Does the Wisconsin Senate have the power to compel absent Democratic senators to return to the senate floor.."

To sleeping bags?.. I thought that's what the protesters were for.

edutcher said...

Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office isn't a felony?

Interesting how things get twisted around when politicians are involved.

(Of course, the others may be covering their own you-know-whats down the road)

Fen said...

Surely you aren't pretending to be unbiased in you views?

Please point to an example of what you consider biased.

Chris said...

Sorry, I won't take the bait.

I'll assume that you believe that you are "unbiased" as well.

ricpic said...

Fine them into penury.

Ut said...

Hang them. And hang them high.

These Democrats are attempting to thwart democracy by preventing the people's representatives from voting.

Arrest them. Try them. Convict them. Then hang these fucking treasonous bastards.

Lem said...

Green Bay Packers Tickets?

Fen said...

Chris: Sorry, I won't take the bait.

See, someone asking in good faith would provide examples to back up their claim. While some Libtard trolling from HuffPo would cry about a simple request being "bait".


I'll assume that you believe that you are "unbiased" as well.

Nope. I'm against the Unions.

And you're a pathetic coward.

kent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris said...

Fen,

Why are you getting personal about this? Calling me a coward for asking a question. Hmmm. You've forfeited your claim at being "unbiased."

Next, please.

Fen said...

What happens if one of the 14 is killed in Illinois? Does the Gov have the power to appoint a replacement until a special election can be held?

Chris said...

Kent,

I don't understand your metaphor between my asking about bias and the Wisconsin Senators who absconded to Illinois.

Please explain?

kent said...

Sorry, I won't take the bait.

The verbal equivalent of: "Is this Illinois? I'm from Wisconsin! For God's sake, HIDE MEEEEEEEEE -- !!!"

Pffffftt.

Ut said...

"Do they expect the people to just be ok with their absence?"

Hahahaha. What a joke! These Democrats don't work for the people. They could give two shits about representing voters.

They're bought and paid for by Democrat Party unions. And they'll stay bought and they'll stay gone until they are dragging kicking and screaming like little pussies into the Senate chamber to watch their union owners get it hard up the keister.

It's not a matter of if.

Only when.

Fen said...

Chris: Why are you getting personal about this?

You made it personal when you questioned my integrity - "I'll assume that you believe that you are "unbiased" as well."

Calling me a coward for asking a question.

No. I'm calling you a coward because when I politely asked you to back up your claim with an example, you ran away.

You've forfeited your claim at being "unbiased."

Idiot. If you read my reply again, I clearly state that I am against the Unions, ie I claim that I am biased.

Libtards. Yes, they really are this stupid

Chris said...

I see that Kent withdrew his comment.

My question to Kent will stand, if anyone cares to comment.

Thanks!

Paul Brinkley said...

"But the text means what it sayyyyyys..." (said in a whine)

Half-seriously, this is one of my pet peeves, esp. given my current profession. Words mean things, true, but the trouble is that they mean multiple things, and they're often not disambiguated enough. Someday I'm hoping we'll write laws so well that a computer program could interpret them correctly, and point out automatically whether they need to be made more precise. A formal model of the law, in other words.

Until then, it's keeping lawyers and judges in a bit of a make-work job.

Paul Brinkley said...

.

Chris said...

Fen,

By trying to turn this on me, you are avoiding my question.

Again, I won't take the bait.

Why are you taking this personally?

How does being "unbiased" threaten your integrity?

I'd appreciate an honest answer.

kent said...

I see that Kent withdrew his comment.

I see you're sitting there feverishly hitting "Refresh every two seconds. Stop; take a deeeeeeep breath; and another interpretation of the facts in evidence will (God and your cerebral synapses willing) occur to you, sooner or later.

Fen said...

Libtard: I don't understand your metaphor between my asking about bias and the Wisconsin Senators who absconded to Illinois.

1) fleeing when asked to support your "asking about bias" with evidence, because you already know you will lose.

2) fleeing when asked to provide a quorom for a vote, because you already know you will lose.

Clear?

And oh, turning Kent's comment into your own Strawman may work on Huffpo, but it won't fly here.

shiloh said...

AA, WI isn't the only state. If your political blog's purpose is to be all about WI exclusively, great. But if this blog is supposed to be a national political blog, you're fallin' a tad short in the current affairs category ...

solo estoy diciendo

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Logo- Link

Logo-Link


WV: suptin

Suptin is up but it's not what you think.

Fen said...

Again, I won't take the bait.

All thats being asked is that you provide an example of what you claim is Ann's bias. You refuse to because you can't.

Why are you taking this personally? How does being "unbiased" threaten your integrity?

Damn you are stupid. You attacked my integrity by claiming I would lie about having a lack of bias.

Irrelevant anyway, as I've already said I am biased against the Unions.

So, last chance Libtard - you assert Ann is biased in her coverage of the Wisconsin protests, provide an example to back up you assertion.

Or run back to HufPo with your tail between your legs.

Chris said...

Kent still hasn't answered my question honestly.

Instead, he hurls insults at me.

Kent, please answer the question:

Why are you taking this personally? Are you afraid of something?

Chris said...

BTW, why does the byline of your blog claim "Neutrality"? I don't get it. Surely you aren't pretending to be unbiased in you views?

It refers to Althouse's vow of cruel neutrality during the 2008 presidential campaign. (Or was it "neutral cruelty"? Sometimes, it's hard to tell.)

It's not about having no bias. It's about not using the blog, and the ongoing discussion, as a platform for advocacy. (Outside of fundamental principles, like free speech, and men wearing shorts.)

Lem said...

In exchange for their return, Walker has agreed to become their butler.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Chris, you need to brush up on your communications skills. In order for your question to Kent to stand, you first have to pose your question to Kent.

If your question to Kent is supposed to be implied by your response to his since-deleted post, I don't see a question there. Regardless of the question mark, I see statements.

Perhaps those statements could be read as a question if we saw Kent's message to which you responded. That's a pretty generous assumption, but I might give it to you -- if I could see Kent's message.

If you really want a response, I suggest you rephrase the question in the form of a question, with enough context for us to understand it.

Paddy O said...

Chris, I think your problem is that you are assuming "unbiased" equals "neutrality"?

You can be neutral in a fight, but have particular biases on different issues. Or, you can have such positions as makes you unsuitable for consistent labeling.

Or, you can be neutral in approaching each issue on its own terms, and assessing it according to logic, analysis, and indeed your own pre-established biases.

Or you can be neutral in that you are a contrarian, so tend to critique in whatever setting, though if you are in a setting that is predominantly leaning one direction (say like a law professor in Madison Wisconsin), you may seem to be non-neutral.

All of these, and probably better explanations, are likely true in this case.

Chris said...

Chris,

Thank you for explaining.

I appreciate your insight.

It sounds like Althouse is not claiming to be without bias. (I don't think anyone could.)

As I said before, though in some instances I may disagree with some aspects of what Althouse says, I respect her views.

shiloh said...

Chris, you need to brush up on your communications skills. In order for your question to Kent to stand, you first have to pose your question to Kent.

If your question to Kent is supposed to be implied by your response to his since-deleted post, I don't see a question there. Regardless of the question mark, I see statements.

Perhaps those statements could be read as a question if we saw Kent's message to which you responded. That's a pretty generous assumption, but I might give it to you -- if I could see Kent's message.

If you really want a response, I suggest you rephrase the question in the form of a question, with enough context for us to understand it.
~~~~~


lol MLS, don't know what the exact definition of (((minutia))) is in the dictionary, but your reply certainly is trivial ...

Chris said...

Mr. Shoemaker,

I did not repost Kent's question, but paraphrased it.

Your comments are well taken, and I will follow your recommendation in the future.

Thanks.

kent said...

1) fleeing when asked to support your "asking about bias" with evidence, because you already know you will lose.

2) fleeing when asked to provide a quorom for a vote, because you already know you will lose.

Clear?


Ah. As Fen, plainly, readily grasped the obvious meaning, sans any prodding whatsoever, then I'll assume that others (applying honest effort) can do so, as well.

Should they genuinely desire to, of course, He Stipulated Belatedly.

Kent still hasn't answered my question honestly.

Instead, he hurls insults at me.


Vaudevillian pearl-clutching noted. Cite 'em, by all means.

Why are you taking this personally?

Not even remotely doing so, thanks awfully for asking. (... failed attempt at Argument By Assertion duly noted, as well. Tsk, tsk.)

I did not repost Kent's question

Kent did not post any "question" of you whatsoever. Strike Three.

Bored now.

shiloh said...

There's no such animal ie (((neutrality))) in political discussion ...

carry on

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Chris,

Maybe it's my communication skills; but when I read your statements, I just can't see a question there to respond to. Again, I might if I saw them in the context of Kent's comments.

Chris said...

Kent deleted, but then reposted at 5:15.

Kent's comment was:

"The verbal equivalent of: "Is this Illinois? I'm from Wisconsin! For God's sake, HIDE MEEEEEEEEE -- !!!"

Pffffftt."

My question was:

Kent,

I don't understand your metaphor between my asking about bias and the Wisconsin Senators who absconded to Illinois.

Please explain?

Kent, can you explain, or was the first thing that popped into your head 14 Democratic senators in Illinois?

Revenant said...

Martin,

Chris's question is "how much of a rise can I get out of the commenters?"

Chris said...

It is very hard to post comments or ask questions on this blog without being attacked.

Why is that? Is there a certain amount of "groupthink" taking place here?

Mr. Shoemaker: Kent initially deleted, but then reposted his comment at 5:15. (My error for characterizing his statement as a question.)

My question to Kent is posted at 5:14 (unlike Kent, I did not withdraw my post, which came after his initial post.)

PaulV said...

Chris, you understanding of neutral is flawed because of your prejudice. From Wiki on neutral point of view.
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"
AA has been fair to both sides if you would only read what she has written with a neutral point of view. You are proof of the saying "None so blind as those who will not see."

Chris said...

I see that my comments are no longer being posted.

Apparently, Althouse is afraid of people asking questions on her blog.

Groupthink indeed.

Good Bye.

Lem said...

You know.. I know we make fun of president Obama here quite a bit.. But, unlike these so called Senators.. Legislator Obama did vote present many, many times.. he never, never ran away.

May it never be said that I never said anything positive about our president.

kent said...

ME: Cite 'em, by all means.

CHRIS: Good Bye.

'Nuff Said.

Ut said...

"Obama never, never ran away."

He ran away from his promise to close Gitmo.

He ran away from his promise to oppose the individual mandate.

He ran away from is promise to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

He ran away from his promise not to raise taxes on Joe The Plumber.

He ran away from Mi 'Chelle when she learned about that whore Vera Baker who was polishing cock when she wasn't looking.

No ... wait ... that was Michelle who ran away to Paris.

You're right, Obama's never run from any issue.

Revenant said...

I see that my comments are no longer being posted.

Which raises the question "what made him think we would see that?"

One of the more amusing lefty flounce-offs in recent memory, though.

shiloh said...

I see that my comments are no longer being posted.

It's probably just a technical glitch and not censorship as google blogs often have problems, especially when 2/3/4 people post at the exact same time ...

PaulV said...

Chris has a problem understanding why his fleebaggers look bad by cutting and running and refusing to uphold their oaths to faithfully executed their office. I saw his post whining about being his posts being excluded. It seem he is deluded, not excluded

Lem said...

Will the fleeing senators pay be deducted for the days they have skipped work?

Or did the vote themselves that sweetheart deal too?

Maguro said...

Bitching about Althouse not living up to the cruel neutrality banner is former law student's schtick, anyway.

Pretty presumptuous of Chris to come in uninvited and try to work a union brother's shift.

SCAB!!!!!11!

kent said...

Which raises the question "what made him think we would see that?"

"If a troll whines in the forest while no one's around to hear it, does it make any actual sound?" ;)

David53 said...

Shiloh said,

If your political blog's purpose is to be all about WI exclusively, great. But if this blog is supposed to be a national political blog, you're fallin' a tad short in the current affairs category ...

Not speaking for Althouse but next to her picture it does say,


"I'm a law professor... and sometimes I write about law."

She blogs about a lot of things. I'm guessing that you just got caught in the vortex and don't know which way is up.

Fred4Pres said...

Wisconsin GOPers abandoning Walker?

Traitors.

Fen said...

Dear HuffPo,

If you're going to send us trolls, please send some with a little more meat on them. Or at least, one capable of defending himself.

kent said...

Dear HuffPo

I don't think that one was a Huffie, in all honesty. It more readly displayed all the favorite rhetorical twitches and tics of the garden variety DUer, to my eyes.

shiloh said...

"I'm a law professor... and sometimes I write about law."

Is a personal description and not re: her blog.

and yes, AA is in a perpetual winger time/warp continuum ...

take care, blessings

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly....."

Wait, boiling things down that succinctly is no good, these days adding complications make the arguments sooo much better.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Fred4Pres said...

Wisconsin GOPers abandoning Walker?


I've been thinking that Walker should have struck while the iron was hot, the Dems have now wasted 2 weeks time on theatrics while the flatfooted unions mobilized.

Paddy O said...

Chris, don't blame Althouse.

It's Blogger.

I'm losing about a 1/4 of my posts these days with various errors. Blogger is getting increasingly bad.

But, this is a curious example of people finding confirmation of their own biases with the least possible evidence.

David53 said...

"I'm a law professor... and sometimes I write about law."

Is a personal description and not re: her blog.


So you think she's not talking re: her blog? No wonder you're lost. But don't worry, keep reading, your comprehension will increase with practice.

Fen said...

Chris has retreated back to a venue that doesn't allow for direct feedback. The real world is just too demanding of him. He must be Union.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Chris, a little perspective...

If Jeremy and Shiloh and AlphaLiberal aren't getting bounced around here, then there's no way you're getting bounced. By their standards, you're positively congenial, and practically right wing.

Fen said...

"Please point to an example of what you consider biased."

Thats the request that sent little Chris away.

shiloh said...

@David53

Very, very lame retort ~ but as you say, keep trying ...

MayBee said...

Legislator Obama did vote present many, many times.. he never, never ran away.

State Senator Obama stayed in Hawaii rather than return to the Illinois Senate for a vote on a gun control bill.

Senator/Candidate Obama tried to stay out of the debate/vote for TARP. He wanted to remain in Florida and issue a joint statement with McCain that they hoped for a solution.

Fen said...

/from the link:

"Reading the two constitutional sections together, the courts can’t meddle in legislative affairs by arresting legislators in a civil court case, but each house of the legislature “may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.” Given that force was traditionally used to compel attendance and is still used in the US Senate (which operates under similar Constitutional provisions), there would have to be a reason that I haven’t seen yet why this provision does not authorize force if necessary."

Trooper York said...

Chris you are not being deleted.

It is a blogger problem and it happens to me here all the time. And in my own blog where I have to search out the spam folder to repost items that were lost.

Sorry to tell you buddy but you ain't all that important.

Think of yourself as a pimple on the ass of the Althouse blog. Since the blogger lady doesn't delete carbuncles like AlpaLiberal or boils like Jeremy you are not all that.

Get over yourself dude.

Fen said...

He knows he wasn't deleted. He's using that as a device to save face while he withdraws back to his echo chamber.

Revenant said...

you're fallin' a tad short in the current affairs category ..

Where a Garage or an AlphaLiberal would provide a DailyKos or MediaMatters link to prove that Althouse Just Won't Cover the Real News, shiloh prefers a coy suggestion that there are important stories out there that aren't getting addressed.

I take this as a hint that Althouse needs to tells us about this season's "American Idol".

AprilApple said...

Why are we fighting this battle? This battle against the union/democrat machine?

Look at California:

"[In CA] Medium-term unfunded liabilities for government employee pensions are pegged by the Legislative Analyst’s Office at $136 billion—and that’s a lowball figure. Legislative analyst Mac Taylor acknowledges in his current fiscal outlook report that the estimate leaves out billions in funding shortfalls at the pension funds for public school teachers and University of California employees. In the next 10 years, taxpayers will most likely be on the hook for somewhere between $325 billion and $500 billion. (Over the past five years, state revenues averaged $94.5 billion per year.)

How did this happen?

California’s state and local governments employ somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million workers, representing 4 percent to 5 percent of the state’s total population. When they retire, all of those employees are contractually entitled to generous pension benefits—so generous that, collectively, they can’t be paid even by a pension system that ladles out more than $20 billion a year and is one of the largest investment pools on Wall Street.

California is not the only state infected by pension liabilities, but the size of its economy (generally described as the eighth largest in the world) and its union-dominated politics make it a gravely stricken, and potentially contagious, patient. Organized labor contributed tens of millions of dollars to Brown’s campaign last year, and public-sector unions have long been the largest donors to the Democratic politicians who control the state.

“The unions have a stranglehold on this state,” says Marcia Fritz, a Citrus Heights accountant who serves as vice president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a pension reform lobbying group. “To engage them you need your biggest strategy. It’s like trying to topple a communist government.” But like communism, which eventually ran out of other people’s money, California is teetering on fiscal implosion. "

-Reason Magazine

shiloh said...

By their standards, you're positively congenial, and practically right wing.

Interesting concept, political standards at an internet blog. One could easily argue AA has no standards as re: to moderation.

hmm, you want rules and regulations, hell no you don't lol.

Interesting dichotomy political sites w/rules and no rules, eh.

btw, at my 1st political blog, as you can see by the rules, bad language ie profanity would get you instantly banned, end of story!

>

Full disclosure, I lasted (3+) years at Jokers 2003/2006 and when I was finally banned it was pretty much a life achievement award ;). There are many posters here who would get permanently banned fairly quickly, so thank your lucky stars AA is a firm believer in free speech.

>

Also, Jokers was a reality tv site which just happened to have a current affairs political forum, so I was just banned from the political forum, not from the entire site ...

Trooper York said...

Revenant.....
Where a Garage or an AlphaLiberal would provide a DailyKos or MediaMatters link to prove that Althouse Just Won't Cover the Real News, shiloh prefers a coy suggestion that there are important stories out there that aren't getting addressed.

I take this as a hint that Althouse needs to tells us about this season's "American Idol".


Well if that what he means than he is exactly right. In my humble opinion what makes this blog interesting is that it is not all dry political bullshit. The posts of photo's and American Idol and pop culture tid bits is what makes this different from Little Green Footfungus and boringheads. Unrelenting reportage of the overturned ant farm that is Wisconsin has a limited appeal.

But that's just my ignorant knucklehead take. Don't let me stop you boys from debating the proper disposal of Kotex and the lingering effects of duct tape on marble.

That's some riviting shit right there. Just sayn'

Revenant said...

Hey, don't blame ME for the litter and duct tape arguments, I had nothing to do with them. :p

Trooper York said...

Hey I am not blaming you....I just want to hear the stories about the girls you tied up with duct tape and put a kotex in their mouth so they won't scream and put them in the van and then....err...err....well nevermind about that one....lets change the subject.....Hey did I tell you lately that the Green Bay Packers won the Super Bowl?

Hagar said...

Can the WI senate declare the fleebaggers' seats vacant if they do not return to the floor within some time limit?

M.Z. said...

Illusory Tenant rips into the analysis pretty hard.

http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/03/volokh-conspirator-has-been-appalled.html

kent said...

I just want to hear the stories about the girls you tied up with duct tape and put a kotex in their mouth so they won't scream and put them in the van and then....

Ahhhhhhhhh. My old high school's Senior Prom theme.

bagoh20 said...

The Fleebaggers' behavior should cost them reelection, but it won't. That's the voters fault. If it was clear that the voters would punish them, this would not have happened. The voters have a very important job next round, but I bet they will not do their duty either. In short, we suck, which is why our representatives do. Take responsibility liberal Cheeseheads - you make government suck.

rmblam said...

The lead attourney on this had a lot to say about it.

See the Jim Troupis link for audio.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/pages/mckenna_blog.html

"The legislature has independent authority"

"All they will have to do is threaten to leave. And the Republic has broken down"

"Democratic Senators thought this was a cute tactic" "Democratic staffers still laughing about it"

"Yesterday, the Senate acted on it" "There may be more action by the Senate in order to clarify it even more; if anyone doubts it"

"Chris Larson's comments, on his facebook page, is mocking it"

"Some of these guys are willing to stay out their whole term"

"a private citizen has to rely on the Senate itrself to enforce its rules" - judge ruling, regarding the private citizen case against Senator Halperin. That is what forced this to ramp up.

"Trust me. There are more steps, but you hope that you don't have to get to them"

"What happened in the Senate is not about the budget anymore"

“It is very much about whether a minority, in a Representative Demcoracy, can frustrate the will of the majority permanently”

Chris said...

Trooper York,

Thanks for your comment. I'll put it in perspective.

I respect Althouse's point of view, and am trying to learn more about conservative views.

I appreciate the observations by the folks who didn't just try to shout me down for asking a question. Thank you!

Trooper York said...

No problem Chris.

Don't be one of the guys who take themselves too seriously here. There a ton of the them and they get boring really quickly. New perspectives are welcome but you have to back it up and just asking questions like you are Professor Kingsfield just won't cut it. You have to up your game. I mean you can find your way to reply....I prefer posting links to hot chicks and sandwiches but you have to find your own way.

Welcome and I hope to hear from you soon.

Charlie said...

Me and my friend were arguing about an issue similar to this! Now I know that I was right. lol! Thanks for the information you post.

bentley-parts