House of Eratosthenes

The older I get, the more “government shutdowns” make me LOL. In fact, on that note…we have to look once again to the awesome wonderful link-findy goodness of Gerard van der Leun, to Sultan Knish, where we see…

“The government shut down! We can do anything we like,” shouted Sam Hasbley of Grassley, Iowa, while tearing the tag off a mattress despite an explicit warning label forbidding such a dangerous course of action. “Tear yours off. The government is shut down. It can’t stop you.”

Eyewitnesses spoke of further horrors. On a quiet street in suburban Massachusetts, a man brought out a set of highly illegal lawn darts. In Maryland, there were allegations that an entire family had begun digging ditches to collect rainwater runoff.

With the fall of the government, citizen activists took it upon themselves to chronicle the culture of lawlessness. Men played Gibson guitars made of wood imported from India, but not finished by Indian workers. Women bought cold medicine without a photo ID. Children went hours without hearing lectures about the environment.

The victims were many. In Chuckolod County, Colorado, a transgender person was denied access to the Ladies Room. Frantic calls to the Justice Department were forwarded to an answering service in Depar, India, instead of Doneparre City, Indiana. In Brooklyn, New York, an overweight Senegalese woman was unable to obtain a sign language interpreter while waiting on line to collect her free Obamaphone. In Olegon Falls, Florida, the National Museum of Native American Yarn was forced to shut down depriving schoolchildren of an educational experience and three hours throwing bits of yarn at each other.

For those who don’t quite get it…that’s good satire. Good, as in it mirrors real life.

And it made me chuckle. In these bleak, dark times…

mkfreeberg (quoting): “Those of you who blame both sides, please tell me what compromise the Democrats offered.”

Plenty of compromises were made when ObamaCare was passed, enough to get a supermajority in the Senate. Holding the entire government hostage to undermine existing law subverts the legislative process.

“BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME… and we have proof!”
http://liberalbias.com/post/2636/both-sides-are-the-same-and-we-have-proof/
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 09:19
The question wasn’t about the passage in 2009-2010. And, notably, even if it was, y’all haven’t specifically answered it.
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 09:38
mkfreeberg: The question wasn’t about the passage in 2009-2010.

Sure we did. The time for negotiations was when the bill was debated in Congress. What’s happening now is that Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage because they lost that vote. Next, they’ll take the world credit system hostage, when the debt limit comes due in a few days. It’s an unprecedented abuse of power.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 09:42
The time for negotiations was when the bill was debated in Congress. What’s happening now is that Republicans are holding the rest of the government hostage…

That is certainly one acceptable way to look at it.

There are others.
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 09:59
mkfreeberg: That is certainly one acceptable way to look at it. There are others.

Generally, when the government requires on-going budgeting, then it is destructive to allow a minority to have a veto. That’s the reason why Senate filibusters don’t apply to budget bills. Currently, the Hastert Rule allows 27% of the House to stop all progress, meaning that 27% can hold hostage the rest of the country. If they do this for the debt limit, it could be disastrous.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 10:31
…maybe…but, constitutional and legal.

Anyway, Reid and Obama are the ones rejecting the House proposals. So if anyone’s holding the country hostage, it would be them. Specifically, Harry Reid.
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 11:19
mkfreeberg: …maybe…but, constitutional and legal.

It’s distorts the legislative system, and the balance of power. It means the majority in a single chamber can tell the president to sit in a corner or kids with cancer will be turned away by NIH.

mkfreeberg: Anyway, Reid and Obama are the ones rejecting the House proposals. So if anyone’s holding the country hostage, it would be them.

Not giving into ransom demands doesn’t make one the hostage-taker.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 11:57
Zachriel: It means the majority in a single chamber can tell the president to sit in a corner or kids with cancer will be turned away by NIH.

Or rather, a majority of the majority, 27% of a single chamber can tell the president to sit in a corner or kids with cancer will be turned away by NIH.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 11:59
Not giving into ransom demands doesn’t make one the hostage-taker.

Neither does not-funding an unconstitutional law.
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 12:02
mkfreeberg: Neither does not-funding an unconstitutional law.

The law has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. It’s the law of the land, and like any law, can be repealed.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 12:07
Ah. Thought you’d say that.

So now we have to declare whether this dialogue is for the benefit of the informed, who should understand all the flaws in the statement y’all just made, as well as with its relevance; or, for ignoramuses who are punch-drunk on Obama-talking-point Kool Aid.

The House of Representatives, or at least many among those serving within, would seem to have an opinion different from SCOTUS about the law’s constitutionality.
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 12:09
mkfreeberg: The House of Representatives, or at least many among those serving within, would seem to have an opinion different from SCOTUS about the law’s constitutionality.

The arbiter of constitutionality in the U.S. system of government is the courts. Meanwhile, if Congress wants to repeal the law, they can do so.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 13:17
The arbiter of constitutionality in the U.S. system of government is the courts.

And where does it say that?
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 13:27
Did Congress delegate that authority to the courts? Or is it in the U.S. Constitution? Which article? Which section?
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 13:53
mkfreeberg: Did Congress delegate that authority to the courts? Or is it in the U.S. Constitution? Which article? Which section?

It was historical practice, and understood as implicit in the role of the courts by the writers of the Constitution. The reasoning is explained in Marbury v. Madison, that is, if there is a conflict between a law and the Constitution, the court is bound to uphold the Constitution, otherwise, the Constitution is meaningless. Marbury is foundational to American jurisprudence, and there is no reasonable possibility of dispensing with it.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 15:18
Right.

And so the penalty that the law defines, in terms of fines & prison time for Congressmen who fail to fund ObamaCare, is….

Since, y’all’s argument seems to be that the House is obliged to do what SCOTUS tells them to do. That is what y’all are saying, right?
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 15:22
mkfreeberg: And so the penalty that the law defines, in terms of fines & prison time for Congressmen who fail to fund ObamaCare, is….

We didn’t say it was illegal. We said holding the entire government hostage to undermine existing law subverts the legislative process.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 16:08
We didn’t say it was illegal. We said holding the entire government hostage to undermine existing law subverts the legislative process.

You’re fifty percent right. It is not illegal.

The thing y’all are leaving unmentioned is that when the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional…although reading through the Marbury decision, and thus the history by which the Supreme Court appropriated this power in the first place, it will become much more accurate to say the Supreme Court did not rule it unconstitutional — even that is not correct, and I’ll get to that — the premise upon which they declared Congress had acted within its authority by passing ObamaCare, was that the new rule is a tax. Since President Obama had repeatedly made assurances that the new law is not a tax, it is actually quite proper for The People to say, through their elected representatives: Well then, no dice. We were told this was not a tax.

Regarding unconstitutionality, it is much more fitting to say the Supreme Court declared certain situations within which ObamaCare would indeed be unconstitutional and therefore improper.

Finally, as far as subverting the legislative process, this is not correct. Congressmen, when sworn in, promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That is where their duty lies. They don’t promise to follow through on the actions of previous congresses. Nor do they swear any oath to fund whatever the Supreme Court does not explicitly strike down.

Other than those minor flaws, perfect analysis.
- mkfreeberg | 10/02/2013 @ 16:22
mkfreeberg: Well then, no dice. We were told this was not a tax.

That’s fine; then pass a repeal through the legislative process. But they don’t have the votes. Instead, many members have said they will go so far as to force a default on U.S. debt.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2013 @ 16:45
Yes, separation-of-powers. The American system of government is not built for dictators, nor is it built for toddlers who want to be dictators.

Seems the contention is between those who are showing up at the negotiating table, and trying to drag the other guys to that table, and those other guys who are walking away from it.

Since Obama is on record saying “I shouldn’t have to make any concessions” or some such, we know where He stands. And we know who bears the responsibility for this shutdown.
- mkfreeberg | 10/03/2013 @ 06:49
mkfreeberg: Seems the contention is between those who are showing up at the negotiating table, and trying to drag the other guys to that table, and those other guys who are walking away from it.

ObamaCare is law. There’s nothing to negotiate.

Republicans are holding the entire budget, and possibly the full faith and credit, of the United States hostage to their demands. If they were a majority, then it might begin to make sense, but even then, they have to contend with the Senate. But they’re not a majority, and the Speaker won’t allow a simple majority vote on the continuing resolution.
- Zachriel | 10/03/2013 @ 06:56
ObamaCare costs money. A lot more than we were told, when the President was selling it.

Funding, according to the Constitution, originates in the House of Representatives, which has yet to sign off.

There’s something to be negotiated.
- mkfreeberg | 10/03/2013 @ 07:02
mkfreeberg: ObamaCare costs money. A lot more than we were told, when the President was selling it.

Well, then just fund it at the levels previously allocated. There’s a bill for that called the continuing resolution.

mkfreeberg: Funding, according to the Constitution, originates in the House of Representatives, which has yet to sign off.

Sure it does, but you don’t hold the entire budget hostage to funding for an existing law. It undermines the legislative process. Or do you think it would be suitable for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed?

“BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME… and we have proof!”
http://liberalbias.com/post/2636/both-sides-are-the-same-and-we-have-proof/
- Zachriel | 10/03/2013 @ 07:23
Sure it does, but you don’t hold the entire budget hostage to funding for an existing law.

Actually, according to that whacko Tea Party zealot James Madison, you do.

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

This “hostage” talking-point looks like what it is: Propaganda for ignoramuses who don’t know the history of U.S. government. The House of Representatives has often vetoed “existing law” using its power-of-the-purse. That’s in keeping with the intent behind the original design. The lower chamber is built to be the most “hip and with-it” representative body available to us. We don’t have to wait six years for a senator to be up for re-election, or twenty years for a Supreme Court Justice to announce retirement, or kick the bucket.

If, as you imply, there was no legitimate discretion to be practiced by the House, then there would be no confrontation taking place and no crisis. And if Barack Obama had any practical experience in, let’s say, sales in the private sector, He would have realized what is instinctively obvious to all real salesmen: That yes, you do have to worry about the sales “sticking” even after the ink has dried on the contract and on the checks. If you over-promise and under-deliver, customers can complain, perhaps rescind the deal, start a protest process with the credit card company because you misrepresented the product or service. That is precisely what is happening here, because ObamaCare doesn’t live up to its billing. Aside from the fact that its implementation is turning into an ungodly mess. So yes, the “customers” want their money back, and they have every right to make the demand.

Through their duly elected representatives. Once again, in 2012, elected with a Republican majority. With ObamaCare as a main, front-and-center issue. Which means something.
- mkfreeberg | 10/03/2013 @ 15:26
mkfreeberg: The House of Representatives has often vetoed “existing law” using its power-of-the-purse.

Sorry, but the Affordable Care Act doesn’t go away simply because Congress strips funding. It still exists as law, and people and government still have to follow that law. Stripping funding only creates chaos. It creates an untenable situation, while undermining the process and the rule of law.

It’s the same with the debt limit. Refusing to raise the debt limit doesn’t make the debt go away. The U.S. will continue to accumulate debt, it just won’t be able make its requisite payments, so will be in default.

You didn’t answer the question. Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed?
- Zachriel | 10/03/2013 @ 17:29
Furthermore, the House isn’t voting to in a separate measure to strip funding from ObamaCare, but are voting to hold up the entire government if they don’t get their way. They could pass the continuing resolution, then vote on funding for ObamaCare, but they know that could never pass. So again, they are holding the entire government hostage because they don’t have the votes to enact their preferred policies. Some in the Republican caucus would even hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage.
- Zachriel | 10/03/2013 @ 17:37
Right, the House wouldn’t have a bargaining chip at all, if the government’s debt had not been continuously accumulating toward unsustainable levels.

Granted that this is a situation that precedes Obama. But it’s odd seeing a supposed “leader” throwing one temper tantrum after another, as if this was all just something that happened to Him. Especially after He went on record saying this.

You didn’t answer the question. Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed?

I notice y’all continue to do this. Suddenly, whenever y’all flat-out lose an argument, or paint y’all’selves into a corner…that’s when y’all have a question. A fektoid question, a question whose relevance would not survive a skeptical and critical inspection.

Well, tell y’all what. Y’all go along with Emperor Barry. I’ll go with Alexander Hamilton.

- mkfreeberg | 10/03/2013 @ 21:23
mkfreeberg: that’s when y’all have a question

In other words, you can’t or won’t respond to a simple question. It demonstrates the weakness of your position.
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 04:25
The answer to this question will help define your position. Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 04:35
In other words, you can’t or won’t respond to a simple question. It demonstrates the weakness of your position.

It does?

I thought, y’all’s own position pretty much imploded when it became clear that using the House’s power-of-the-pursestrings for a virtual-veto, according to Hamilton in Federalist #58, was part of the original design. Now y’all have some counterpoint to offer in the form of a question? What is that exactly? Maybe y’all should lead with that, first.

It helps to argue from an actual position, rather than scrambling for gotchas.

- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2013 @ 06:43
mkfreeberg: It does?

Sure it does, just as does your chest-thumping.

We want to examine the implications of the position you have taken. That’s why we asked a question about that position. It’s clear you won’t answer, and that shows that you know that your position has problems that become evident with the answer.

Look, if you don’t want to defend your position, then that’s fine. Not sure why you blog, unless this entire enterprise is just an experiment in trolling. We prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you always refuse to be forthcoming.

Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 07:50
and that shows that you know that your position has problems that become evident with the answer.

Since there are many other things this could mean, y’all’s own statement shows y’all’s deductive reasoning doesn’t work.

Since we know y’all can’t deductively-reason your way out of a paper bag, maybe now would be a good time to drop the “argument building, step by step” and just advance what you’re trying to build ALL AT ONCE.

Once y’all do that, I’ll assess for you whether or not it works. And explain my reasoning. That way, we’ll all know about the problems in my position…or y’all’s.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2013 @ 07:53
mkfreeberg: Since there are many other things this could mean

We mean just what we said. You made a claim. That claim has implications. You work very hard to avoid answering a simple question about your position, but won’t answer the question. It shows you have stacked out a position, that when called on it, you suddenly have embarrassing lack of answers.

Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 07:59
In other words, y’all won’t advance the whole argument all-at-once, so I can inspect it to see if it makes sense.

By y’all’s own logic, your argument doesn’t work and y’all know it.

That’s using y’all’s own logic.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2013 @ 08:06
mkfreeberg: In other words, y’all won’t advance the whole argument all-at-once, so I can inspect it to see if it makes sense.

Discussions require give and take. We staked out a position, “Holding the entire government hostage to undermine existing law subverts the legislative process.” You posted questions, and made several objections and comments, to which we responded. When we asked you a question about your own position, you refused to answer. It just highlights your inability to defend your position.

Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 08:12
Y’all’s position hasn’t even been fully revealed, but we can see already it doesn’t work even according to y’all’s logic.

It’s like assessing the sturdiness of the house by way of inspecting only the foundation. The exercise is inconclusive if the foundation is sound, since we need to look at all of it to issue a clean bill-of-health. But if the foundation is flawed, uneven, cracked or weak, the inspection is over and we can move on.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2013 @ 08:17
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s position hasn’t even been fully revealed

We staked out a very clear position, and just restated it. We then answered your questions, and responded to your objections. You have yet to grant us the same courtesy.

Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 08:30
God: “That way is North.”

Zachriel: “But is an atom bigger than a molecule, or vice versa?”

God: “Gotta run, I’m busy.”

Zachriel: “Ah hah!! You won’t answer the question! That means You aren’t confident that that way is North!”

Yes, I understand y’all have hit upon a distinct arguing-method that can be used to provide support for, or to refute, any proposition. That’s the thing about logic. The weakest strains of it are the ones that can do anything. And nobody has any time to spend on that kind of logic, except people who have nothing to do.

Here‘s something that more directly addresses the question at hand. No, I don’t think Prof. Sowell has time to answer y’all’s questions either. But facts are facts.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2013 @ 08:35
You’re claiming that our question is a non sequitur. It is fundamental to your position. You could test that by answering the question and see where it leads. But you won’t because it would reveal the vacuity of your argument.

Do you think it would be a reasonable use of power for Obama to shut down the government, or threaten to put the U.S. in credit default, if he doesn’t get his gun control legislation passed? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 09:03
Never mind. You simply won’t defend your position. Not sure why you blog, unless this entire enterprise is just an experiment in trolling. We prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you always refuse to be forthcoming. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 10/04/2013 @ 09:08
“Won’t answer our arbitrary question” means “won’t defend your position.” Interesting!

So y’all have proven that God is lying, and that way is not North.

Some of y’all might even take that situation to be proof that that way is South.

Meanwhile. Quoting from the Sowell column:

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House’s right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States.

An interesting facet to y’all’s so-called-logic, which brands it as the kind of logic that can never, ever, ever be used by anybody who has to build something that reliably works: The conclusion is ultimately based, entirely, on this arbitrary question y’all have asked. More specifically, on the fact that I didn’t answer it. So the question determines everything. Maybe it’s a relevant question and maybe it isn’t; I’ve already said, its relevance would not survive critical inspection. Y’all didn’t defend against that.

So the question, whose relevance is entirely unestablished and unsupported, determines the final outcome. We’ve been here, before, many times.

Can’t build a building in which people can walk safely, thinking that way. Can’t code a computer application that actually works, thinking that way. Can’t build a railroad on which people can safely ride, thinking that way.

Hey. Think we all just got new insight on why ObamaCare sucks so much.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2013 @ 10:37
Whoa, back up some.

“The time for negotiations was when the bill was debated in Congress”, he said.

??

I seem to have missed that debate. Could you tell me, please, when this alleged debate –the hashing out of the detailed workings of Obamacare– happened? I remember stuff like the Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback” — using taxpayer money to buy senators’ votes. I remember the Speaker of the House discussing the possibility of “deeming it passed”. I also remember she later told us proudly, “you’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.

Tell me, Kemo Sabe, more about the careful and sober deliberations this country’s duly-elected Senators and Representatives purportedly undertook on We-the-People’s behalf? I certainly have no recollection of such a thing — perhaps I was abducted by aliens at the time, and my contemporaneous memory of that general period has been totally erased. (That such a thing might be possible causes me great unease…)
- A_Nonny_Mouse | 10/05/2013 @ 21:44
A_Nonny_Mouse: I seem to have missed that debate.

No problem.

Universal healthcare was first proposed in the U.S. by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. It has been considered many times since. The concept of health care marketplaces (exchanges) was an idea supported for a generation by conservative groups, such as the Heritage Foundation. A Republican governor implemented exchanges in Massachusetts in 2006. Obama campaigned on healthcare reform in 2008, winning the presidency, signing the PPACA into law on March 23, 2010.

More particularly, the bill was published online before passage. The PPACA was analyzed by the CBO. There was widespread debate, both by the public and in Congress. Finally, it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Washington Post: “The debate has consumed Obama’s first year in office”

Fox News analyst: “Americans are now bored with the health care debate.”

O’Reilly: “Why the Health Care Debate Is so Intense”

A_Nonny_Mouse: I remember stuff like the Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback” — using taxpayer money to buy senators’ votes.

That’s what happens when you rely on the right wing echo chamber for your source of information. There was a great deal of debate about the specifics of Obamacare, including whether there should be a public option. Indeed, we quoted the text of the bill many times in the weeks leading up to it being enacted into law. Heh. Even Palin cited the text of the proposed bill.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/22/palins-death-panels-charge-named-lie-of-the-year/
- Zachriel | 10/06/2013 @ 05:53
You know the Zachriel knows what they’re talking about, you can take that to the bank.

After all, they declared the whole discussion over when I wouldn’t answer a question about a hypothetical action the President might take — which would be grossly out of scope of the authority granted that office under Article II of the Constitution. By repeatedly asking the question and then declaring that my answer was necessary for the discussion to proceed, they proved they hadn’t even bothered to read Federalist #58 or even my brief excerpt from it. Nor do they seem to know that, had the issue ever been pressed on such a hypothetical, this would be in contravention to the Clinton vs. New York Supreme Court decision of 1998.

So we’re dealing with some real scholars here. There MUST have been a great deal of debate about the specifics of ObamaCare. Even though, what we saw was Obama picking up the phone, calling His buddies in Congress and saying “just get me something with ‘health’ and ‘care’ in the title and I’ll sign it.”

I wonder why Nancy Pelosi said we’d have to pass it to find out what’s in it, if there had been this great deal of debate about the specifics?
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2013 @ 07:28
And you know you wingnutz should support it, because after all, it was Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, who proposed it. And a Republican in MA signed a similar bill. And it was the Heritage Foundation that supported it back when. Hell, even Sarah Palin — Republican — said some stuff about it. Which, of course, you’d know if you bothered to read that totally reliable, impeccably nonpartisan source, Wikipedia.

Republicans. Heritage Foundation. QED. Why don’t you quit relying on your right-wing echo chamber like they told y’all to do, and just look at the “evidence”? Won’t somebody please look at the evidence?

[Don’t worry, though — they’ll cut and paste the same block of text 417 more times if you don’t. So, you know, feel free to go grab a sandwich or watch a quarter of the Giants game or something].
- Severian | 10/06/2013 @ 09:08

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Best Sentence CXXXIITuesday, October 1st, 2013

Best Sentence CXXXII
Tuesday, October 1st, 2013