David Shuster had been temporarily suspended

[Patsy Stone]

for his comments regarding the Clintons "pimping out" Chelsea.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080007

[SeattleGirl]

1. Much as I like him, I am glad MSNBC did that.

That comment was sickening.

[Patsy Stone]

2. Not good at all.

Nice that he apologized, but he never should have said that.

[RavensChick]

3. Holy Shit!!!

That is truly messed up! I know Keith is being real careful now. He's gone through that one time too many. Well Dave, nice knowin' ya.

:-(

[CC]

4. As much as I like David that

was so stupid and unfair. I think it comes from frustration that Chelsea won't do interviews or take questions but she is old enough to say no to them. And smart enough. Had he claimed all candidates "pimped" out their adult kids on the trail he probably would of been ok. Then again the so called journalist are not dieing to ask those kids the questions they would throw at Chelsea.
If I were to single out any candidate kid for the pimping out comment it would of been Mary Cheney that got paid by dad's campaign to fight against her own lifestyle.


:hi: Everyone. I have had the flu for the last week and still fighting it so usually wrapped up in blankets watching Keith and wishing someone would just shoot me or let me feel better already.

[Patsy Stone]

5. But calling the Clintons pimps

is not necessarily calling Chelsea a whore.

I see both sides, and I wish it hadn't happened.

Sorry to hear you're under the weather, CC. Feel better soon. :hug:

[CC]

6. Thanks, I am getting there

and shouldn't complain. It has been so long since I have had the flu I forgot how miserable it is.


Also I wasn't calling David a so called journalist, I like him. Actually seems more appalling that it came from him than say Billo who you would expect it from. I just re-read that and thought oops sounds like I am slamming David. More the ones that can't wait to ask Chelsea her take on dad's infidelity. If she grants one interview the semi to non-journalist would cry foul if she didn't parade herself in front of their inquisition.

[Berry Cool]

21. You can complain if you want. It's human when you feel like crap.

Yeah, I seriously doubt David Shuster wants to talk to Chelsea about Monica. Especially given his Keith-like lack of stomach for reporting on it for Fox Noise 10 years ago...from what someone who knows him better than I has said on DU.

But I can see where if she talks to Shuster, that opens the gate for others asking her whatever the hell they want to.

Then again, I believe Chelsea is old enough to speak the phrase "No comment."

[SharonRB]

7. I was just coming to post about this

I just got this e-mail:

Dear Sharon, Stop Sexist Election Media Coverage

As more state primaries fast approach, demand that the media stop sexist coverage!

Email the News Network Presidents Now!

Good News! NBC News President Steve Capus just announced the suspension of commentator David Shuster for his sexist remarks last night about Chelsea Clinton and apologized to the Clinton family. Please email Capus immediately to thank him for his swift action and to tell MSNBC and the rest of the TV news networks that sexist coverage of this historic election must stop.

Last night, as guest host of Tucker Carlson's show, Shuster asked whether Chelsea Clinton was being "being pimped out in some weird sort of way" by the Clinton campaign because she was working to support her mother's candidacy.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Already, MSNBC's Chris Matthews has had to apologize for his sexist remarks during this election. But, as Capus has recognized, apologies are no longer enough.

Sexism in the media, however, is not isolated to MNBC. Feminists and people concerned with social justice have been dismayed by the coverage of this historic election.

The media is losing its credibility as it is holding on to an old-fashioned formula to stir up false debate. It must retain commentators that reflect the diversity of both the US and this historic election. As one of the most important elections of modern times, the nation deserves and demands a more serious presentation of the issues and campaigns.


As the next round of state primaries is fast approaching, tell the news media that we don't want more of the same. Women must be taken seriously.

For equality,


Eleanor Smeal
President
The Feminist Majority Foundation

Kathy Spillar
Executive Editor
Ms. Magazine



I had no idea. Guess I missed that. Of course, I did. It was on Tucker's show. For a Michigan man, that wasn't very bright, David.

[Berry Cool]

8. Oh, My. God.

How would you feel if Keith said something this stupid?

Would you assume he was a sexist?

Or would you assume something dumb and ill-thought popped out of his mouth, as it sometimes does out of ALL of our mouths?

David Shuster has no preestablished reputation as a sexist. What he said was stupid and offensive and he shouldn't have said it. From what I hear, his apology wasn't so great either.

But does he deserve the pile-on from Clinton supporters and feminists? NO.

Why? Because this appears to have been a thoughtless anomaly...not a part of a pattern.

It's like when the golf commentator said Tiger Woods' opponents would have to lynch him to beat him. Stupid? Yep. Thoughtless? Absolutely. Offensive? You bet.

But did she say it because she's a racist? I don't know her, but I don't get the impression she did.

She deserved to be suspended. I would not agree with her firing.

Same thing here. If this were a pattern in Shuster's reporting, yes. But it's not. And now he's getting piled on as if it is.

Remember when Keith put up the Billo mask and gave a Nazi salute? Remember how Olbermann Watch tried to get every anti-defamation group in the country to protest and get him fired for being anti-Semitic?

Do you think Keith is anti-Semitic?

I rest my case.

(Edited to make it clear this is not aimed just at Sharon, but at everyone. Asking honest questions here. Giving honest opinion. That's all.)

[Botany]

9. I just watched "it" .... the word wasn't bad ..... Schuster's thoughts were stupid

Yes the wording was awful but it was not meant in a hurtful way .....
pimp has become part of everyday vernacular slang ....

pimp mobile ..... he is looking pimp ..... I was pimping for the music stores .... wanna a C.D.?
Pimp Daddy ...... low rent yes but hurtful .... no. Now the words Ho, bitch, and others yes they
are meant to hurt ..... sadly pimp has become a part of our day to day lexicon.

What was stupid on Schuster's part was his dismissive a way about what Chelsea was doing ....
pure stupid ...... SHE WAS WORKING THE PHONES FOR HER MOM'S CAMPAIGN ...... BIG FUCKING
DEAL.

[Berry Cool]

11. I agree. I think he tried to make too much of a young woman VOLUNTARILY

supporting her mother's efforts. From what I can see, no one put a gun to Chelsea's head to make her do anything she's done.

That being said, I'm not in favor of hanging Shuster.

[Patsy Stone]

10. I've already been in a fight about this

Some in GDP seems pretty pleased about "getting" Shuster. Oy.

[Berry Cool]

12. That's what worries me. It's getting scary out there, people.

We're not alone in our concern, luckily; Keith still has plenty of supporters. But sheesh.

If we ever wondered what will happen to Keith if a Dem is President and he dares to criticize that Dem for not doing his or her job the way Keith believes it should be done, we need no longer wonder. We already know.

There will be MASS defections. HUGE numbers of threads with titles like "I used to like Keith Olbermann, but..." Followed by lengthy, petulant, heartfelt essays about how he "used" to be "on our side," but now he has "gone over to the dark side" and is "defending Republicans" and "bashing Dems" and so on and so on and so on.

There's a lot of immaturity on DU...a whole lot. I knew that before, but boy, is it showing itself now.

And that's not to say that liking KO is the only way to demonstrate maturity. It's just to say that those who REALLY appreciate the work of any journalist will not be so quick to accuse him of shilling or selling out the second he says something they don't like or understand. Because they don't expect him to agree with them on everything anyway. And they do expect that he will have a higher cause...the truth, wherever he finds it. Even when it hurts.

A lot of people used to recognize Shuster was essentially a good guy...maybe not perfect, but a good guy. OK, so he jumped the gun thinking Rove's indictment was imminent, but he wasn't the only one, and look how many people believed Jason Leopold more readily than they believed Shuster, merely because Leopold writes for a blog and therefore must be a more noble, truth-dedicated journalist than anyone who collects a paycheck from the corporate MSM, right? Both ended up with egg on their faces over Rove. Yet I still see DU'ers every day more willing to believe what they read on a blog than what they see on MSNBC, CNN or anyplace else on their TV.

Now they want to hang Shuster from the highest tree, because he said something extremely stupid and ill-thought. ONE thing.

In the meantime, know what Glenn Beck said about Keith the other day? If you listen to Stephanie Miller, you do. "If I saw Olbermann standing on the subway , I might think for a moment about pushing him, but I wouldn’t.” Wow. Mighty big of ya, Glenn. And what does Keith say to that? "The subway remark summarizes who Glenn is. If he (or anybody else) fell in front of a train, I hope I’d have the courage to emulate Wesley Autry and try to save him.” Good on you, Keith.

I worry about Keith. I always knew he had wingnut enemies who would love to get him off the air, but now I realize he's going to have a lot of progressives who will want him off the air any time he says anything that displeases them. Between the two of them, he's going to have his hands very full.

Right now, he's probably safer than Tweety. Even if he said the stupidest, most thoughtless and asinine thing on the air Monday night, the worst he'd probably have to do is apologize. Just like Tweets. This, because right now, Keith IS MSNBC, as far as ratings are concerned.

But let his ratings drop even the slightest, and he too could get suspended. Let a movement be fomented against him to get advertisers to boycott MSNBC, and he's gone. That fast.

I wasn't all that shocked when it happened to Imus, and I sure wasn't sorry--what with his reputation and the way he got off scot-free for what he and his posse did for so long, his comeuppance was late, if anything. It was well deserved as his lifetime achievement award for his repeated acts of assholiness. But this Shuster thing (along with the golf/Tiger Woods thing, in which the offending speaker was suspended ONLY because Al Sharpton threatened to picket The Golf Channel) has only served to illustrate how precarious the situation is for an on-air personality.

Get the right person, or people, with enough clout to take just one stupid thing you said and express high dudgeon over it to the point where it costs your employer serious money, and it doesn't matter whether what you said is a true expression of who you are as a person or not. It's over for you. It just is.

[Patsy Stone]

22. In my perfect world

Everyone would be required to take a class in logic -- cold, unemotional logic.

Here's a perfect example: I responded to a post which asked if I would have been as outraged if these comments were made about Vanessa Kerry in 2004. I said the situations were not the same, and it was a bad analogy because Vanessa granted interviews, and Chelsea did not, which was what started David on his tear.

The responses I received told me that not granting interviews was not a valid reason for calling Chelsea her a whore. I never made a judgement about Shuster's actions in my post, yet the responses all had to do with his sexist actions against Chelsea. No one responded to my actual point regarding the OP's faulty logic.

Also, as I've said before, the concept that he could call the Clintons pimps without calling Chelsea a whore is completely lost on the outraged masses.

What.Ever.

[Berry Cool]

25. Sounds like an EXCELLENT idea.

I mean, I took exactly one logic class in college, and I know I don't always follow its precepts, and I do make illogical arguments sometimes because everyone does. But dammit, it gets me mad when people make arguments right off the top that defy ALL logic and they just don't even care.

No one responded to your point because they did not want to admit that David Shuster might be justified in being frustrated that the Clintons were playing it both ways: allowing Chelsea to campaign for her mother yet protecting her from the media. They just wanted to throw it back up in your face: "But he said PIMP. But he said PIMP. That was SEXIST. That was WRONG."

Of course, that was not your point, was it? But that was the point they could win on, so it was the one they chose.

I've had similarly ill luck in my reposting of Keith's comments re the Imus firing situation. All I have is lwfern on my ass dredging up every stupidass "Keith is sexist and misogynist and besides that, he HATES WOMEN" argument she can think of, from not muzzling Musto when he goes on too heavy with the trampy-celebutard stuff to his statements about Jennifer Wilbanks' eyes. Yes. Did you know that commenting on a woman's eyes is now automatically "gendered" and "judging her on her looks"? Yep. Give that one an A in Women's Studies 101. I kept waiting for her to talk about "the inherent coding of the male gaze" or some such nonsense. It's enough to give a REAL feminist the fits.

Anyway. Something occurred to me while all this was going on, and it has inspired me to a new Clubhouse thread. Look for it.

[Botany]

13. GDP and GD have become sewers ....

Trolls, Flame Baiting, Freepers, Hillbots, some Obama supporters, and
God knows what else.

BTW I was told that I hate women because I oppose Hillary .... I pointed
out that I worked at least 200 hours and gave over $300.00 to women running
for Congress in 2006 ... I was told that didn't matter.

Shuster said something dumb .... and that is it. F***ing Bill O'Rielly said that
a 15 year old boy liked staying with a man who raped and kidnapped him
and told him if he ran that he (the kidnapper) would kill his family .... Bill,
"he was having fun" So of this "outrage" is maufactured."

[Patsy Stone]

14. I tried to point out

that logically his saying the Clintons were pimps was NOT the same thing as explicitly calling Chelsea a whore. I even said would indeed be as pissed if it was Rush's head on the chopping block instead of Shuster's, because I saw it more as a dig at the Clintons not Chelsea, which is a fair opinion. If he had said the Clintons "exploited" Chelsea for their own gains instead of "pimped her out", they would still probably have called for his head since he dared to insult the Clintons at all.

If this is nothing more than manufactured outrage by the Clintons to get out of that MSNBC debate, the one she begged for, I will be extremely upset.

[Botany]

15. The MSNBC Debate was to be in Cleveland .... 70%+ Black

Shuster was dumb how he handled it but "pimp" has become
everyday vernacular.

I am sure some Obama people are doing it too but some
"semi-pro" Hillary supporters are working overtime to
"pollute" DU.

BTW Tuesday was a huge win for Obama because
Hillary's team was planning for super tuesday to be
a K.O. and then coast into the D.N.C. in late August
but with Obama fighting her to a draw (not really
his #s and support from that day show real power)
Obama has now put Clinton on the ropes

* $

* Obama will win almost every state until Ohio on March 4
which will give him real momentum.

* The "back game" plotting of team Hillary i.e. wait till Ohio
and Texas to make a comeback is much like Rudy's "I'll wait
to Florida to fight." The news will be filled w/ Obama wins
and Hillary will be way down in the delegate count by then
.... will she carry Ohio & Texas by 70% margins to make up the
difference?

[Berry Cool]

16. I know. And it may not happen now.

Don't get me wrong, that's not what concerns me most. What concerns me most is what the greater implications of all this are for media figures.

Now they won't get a single mulligan for anything dumb they happen to say...ever.

And now, here come the emails. Why do I feel as if it's deja vu all over again?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FC2902B9-3048-5C12-0094F2AEC2A275D8

Seems that one of Hillary's aides got into it with Shuster in email about Chelsea's role...Shuster was unhappy that the Clintons are trying to have it both ways with her, in which she actively campaigns but the media aren't permitted to talk to her.

I can understand his being upset about this.

Does it give him the right to accuse her parents of "pimping her out"? No. But it does seem unfair to the media to play it so coy.

As for Keith, who has already had his email troubles...warning. Just because you no longer accept them from the general public, or reply to them from the general public, doesn't mean someone corresponding with you professionally who doesn't like something you said in them can't take it off someplace and get it published for all the world to see.

[Botany]

17. Hillary debating Barack in Cleveland

:rofl:

[Berry Cool]

20. You think she's skeered?

Not only that, but at Cleveland State. Not exactly your ivy-covered, isolated campus out in the country. An urban university with a high percentage of nontraditional students. Not the kind of place trust-fund kids go to spend four years getting drunk and pissing away Daddy's money.

But then again, what we're always hearing is that Hillary attracts the beer-and-brats blue-collar voters, while Barack attracts the chai latte and Chardonnay drinkers. Heh.

[Berry Cool]

19. Bot, do you think Hillary will win Ohio? And does she need to win by that much

to beat Obama?

It seems to me like a lot of people are just conceding Ohio to Hillary already. I agree she's better known here than Obama, but if the effect of his visits here when he makes some more of them are anything like the effect he's had so far elsewhere...look out.

Sure, you have people like the governor, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, etc., banging the drum for her, but it remains to be seen whether that alone will be enough.

And it sure would be interesting if the Cleveland debate had to be canceled because Ms. "I Want A Debate Per Week" refused to do any more debates on MS/NBC.

[Botany]

23. She might win but it will be close

Labor .... breaking for Obama
Black vote ..... Obama
Male voters .... high negatives
youth voth ..... Obama
Edwards/Kuinich voter ..... Obama
Dems who want change ..... Obama

female vote .... Hillary
Hispanic vote ..... Hillary
older voters ...... Hillary
traditional party voters ..... Hillary


Obama is running a very smart campaign and by 3/4 he will have big
momentum his way.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4497147

[Berry Cool]

26. Same here. I follow you.

And I think he was digging at the Clintons as opposed to Chelsea. And if he'd said "exploited," they'd have less of an easy time working others into a state of high dudgeon, but they'd still be in one, as Clinton supporters. They'd still want his head.

[Patsy Stone]

28. Here's the thread in question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4497361&mesg_id=4497361

Enjoy the absurd logic contained within. The OP was balanced and sane. Sadly, I can't say the same for the respondents.

And I'm not sure, but I think I was told I had a "room temperature IQ" because I wasn't outraged to my core and could see several sides at the same time. :eyes:

[Berry Cool]

32. Phew, what a thread!

Armstead, the OP, was trying to make the point that there are plenty of hypocrites in DU who think saying anything about the Bush twins is OK but who think Chelsea Clinton is sacred.

Not so much luck, eh? "Oh, maybe others, but not ME...I am ALWAYS consistent..."

Armstead believes the Clintons are trying to have it both ways, just as I said. But no one wanted to listen to Armstead or to you. Too bad.

You know what bothers me, too? There seems to be an attitude that somehow the Clintons have a "better" right to get outraged at anything negative said about them by "The Media" (and I use that term because that's how they are regarding Shuster, as a monolith known as "The Media" rather than as an individual) because they were so abused during Bill's term in office. They somehow have a better right to get angry and fly off the handle than others. They have the right to demand the head of anyone who looks as if they might be trying to pull crap on them again.

To be quite honest, I think that's bullshit.

Yes, they DID get abused horribly when Bill was in office. Yes, they did get treated like crap. But that doesn't give them the right to cry "Rape!" every time a member of the media lays a freakin' finger on 'em. And it doesn't give their supporters that right, either. ("Those poor Clintons...everyone's always trying to bring them down...We mustn't let ANYONE get away with saying even the SMALLEST thing against them that might be construed as an insult! We must be CONSTANTLY vigilant, lest they be abused again!")

What on earth would these people want if Hillary DID get elected? What kind of media would they demand? I think I know: the liberal version of Fox News. All White House, all good, all the time. God help me, I might actually come to think of Fox News as helping to balance things out! (Which, of course, only seems to justify why Rupert Murdoch started the damn channel in the first place! I don't like feeling sympathetic toward Fox News...see what they've done!)

What place would Keith have in this scenario? He'd get to be Hillary's version of Sean Hannity. All he'd be allowed to do is praise her White House to the skies. No watchdog role. No trying to make sure she did what she promised, or that what she did was for the good of the country. He'd be reduced to White House lapdog.

If he didn't like that role--and he wouldn't--they'd quickly drop him for someone who would fill it better.

I wonder if even Keith is becoming aware of that.

[Berry Cool]

18. You got it, Bot.

Billo is allowed to accuse a boy kidnapped and raped by a child molester of "liking" his captivity...and all that happens is he gets uninvited to a speaking engagement.

Billo slanders WWII soldiers by accusing them of slaughtering Nazis at Malmedy when it was actually the reverse...no outcry from anyone that results in anything.

Billo gets slapped with a lawsuit from a woman who accuses him of sexual harassment on the job...and he buys her silence with a settlement and goes on with nothing but perpetual loofah and falafel jokes as punishment.

He'll never be pulled off the air...he's too big a moneymaker for Fixed Noise. He could eat a live baby on air and nothing would happen.

But if Keith did all those things...he'd be gone.

[polmaven]

24. Botany, to be fair...

Shuster and Billo cannot be compared because MSNBC and F***s Noise can't be compared.

MSNBC is a legitimate network which tries very hard not to show a bias. Only Billo and maybe Roger Ailing would even try to say the same about F***s.

That said, I do think Shuster made a very biased remark, which was at it core sexist...at least the root of the term "pimping out" began as being sexist...and he deserved to be suspended. He also deserves to come back to his job and show that the lesson has been learned.

[Berry Cool]

27. Then you're showing a lot more calm and logic than some people.

And you have a Hillary avatar, so I can only assume you support her. Ah, if only there were more like you.

My problem is not with the suspension. It's with the people who want to hang Shuster, and who wouldn't mind adding Keith to their lynching party along with Tweety, Tucker and Joe Scarborough. They want to throw ALL of MSNBC under the bus for this.

[polmaven]

29. To be very honest,

If anyone tried to say Keith should be taken away from me, I would be needing a new keyboard from hitting the alert button so hard. It HAS to be against DU rules to dis Keith in any way. Smatter fact, it's unconstitutional, isn't it? Gitmo may be harsh enough.....!

In any case, we are Democrats. We are better than anything on F***s Noise. We also really, really need to be careful not to cut the advantage we have this year out from under us by all the infighting we have....Democrats are Democrats.

I support Hillary. If Obama is the nominee, I will support him. He is a Democrat. He is a Democrat. He is a Democrat.

Period, the end.

Oh, but.....DON'T TRY TO TAKE MY KEITH AWAY FROM ME!!!!

[Berry Cool]

33. LOL! Being a strict freedom of speech defender, I'd have to defend even the right to dis Keith.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to spring to his defense when people do, or call them idiots if I see it that way.

Of course, I would also say "Try to take YOUR Keith away?? But he's MINE..." :rofl:

[polmaven]

35. Well, I may be willing to SHARE,

but ......well, we'll have to see!:7

[RevCheesehead]

30. Suspension = time out for bad behavior.

He'll be back, in all his stripey glory. The poor guy could probably use a break. They've all been working pretty hard, and when you're tired, it's easy to slip and say something you later regret.

I heard him say it at the time, and it NEVER struck me as sexist. In fact, I think the point he was trying to make was "and now, here comes Chelsea, whom we haven't seen at all, until her mother's campaign appeared to be in trouble."

Mountain, meet mole hill. :eyes:

[Patsy Stone]

31. It's just because you're too stupid to see the truth

about the slime bucket that is David Shuster. We tolerate no interpretations of things other than the only interpretation of things. We live for extrapolation to the nth degree. You will be assimilated!

I don't care if people have a difference of opinions on this, it's the virulent intolerance to accept the fact that other people may interpret a situation differently and have valid points which should be discussed that's whack.

:hi: :hug:

[Berry Cool]

34. Your point about "the slime bucket that is David Shuster" was excellent.

This is another thing that bothers me: the willingness to believe, at the drop of a hat, that anyone who says anything stupid, unwise, etc., about someone one likes is a complete slime bucket, and deserves the harshest punishment possible.

David Shuster was liked by many on DU because they saw what a decent job he did reporting on the Plame case. But now that he let one dumb word drop about Chelsea and her parents, all of a sudden he's Satan. All of a sudden, other things he's said are being dredged up as "proof" that this is "part of a pattern of misogyny" with him. All of a sudden, MSNBC as a whole is being indicted as The Sexist News Channel, full of misogynist men. All of a sudden, everything KEITH has ever said that people have not liked is being dredged up as "proof" of this.

Is anyone trying to take Shuster as a person into account, and what he really meant? Not many. Too big a rush to condemn both him and his whole network.

And no, this is not the same as me getting mad at Randi Rhodes because she's gone on this kick of saying veiled bad things about Keith and accusing him of stealing her material without crediting her. For one thing, Randi's developed a pattern of doing that, over time. For another, the way she's treating some of her callers has been bothering me too, for quite some time. I think something in her is changing, and I don't know why.

No, it's more like if, say, Rachel Maddow, whom we in the Clubhouse generally appear to like and respect, said something about Keith one night that struck us as nasty and unfair and ill considered--and then we all jumped on her and said she was a piece of crap, we wanted MSNBC to fire her, she was stupid, we wouldn't listen to her on the radio anymore. Would we do that?

Or, conversely, if Keith said something about Rachel that sounded negative or stupid (let's say, it could possibly be interpreted as an anti-gay remark). Would we be shocked? Yes. Would we be angry at him if it appeared intentional, or even just thoughtless? Sure. Would we expect him to apologize, and genuinely? Yes. Might we even support his being suspended, if it were offensive enough? Yes. But would we call for his firing? Would we want him drummed out of television?

What if there were a whole legion of gay activist groups calling him homophobic, and demanding he be fired? The firing of the man who time and again has denounced homophobia in others, and said that his attitude toward people being gay is "What's it to ya?"

I think people deserve to be judged based on their track record as individuals. Not punished for the sins of their employers or of their profession, or because of who they supposedly attacked. (As in, we don't care if you insult Peter--you can insult Peter all you like--but you better keep your hands off Paul, because he's been insulted too much, and the next time it happens, whoever did it is gonna pay for all the other times!)

[RevCheesehead]

36. Oh yeah??

Well, at least I don't waste my time watching American Idol.
I don't even OWN a T.V. :P


:evilgrin: