William F. Buckley Jr., in the words of the New York Times, “marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse.†Many people probably know Buckley, who died today at age 82, for being the longtime host of the “Firing Line†TV show — and because of the comedians who imitated his urbane speaking style and slouched posture. But he also wrote at least 55 books and founded the National Review magazine. Buckley’s biggest achievement was legitimizing modern conservatism and shaping its intellectual framework.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
93 Comments
I heard Buckley once, in person.
He spoke at a Wichita Bar Association lunch, at Century II.
He is one of the smartest people ever to be involved in public debate.
He will be missed.
To those who do not know this, Buckley is responsible, in large measure, for seperating Conservatism from conspiracy kooks and fringe groups.
Buckley openly denounced those that he thought were beyond the mainstream in their views.
He had more fun being a rich guy than anybody I’ve ever seen. I disagreed with his politics, but I enjoyed a great many of his books.
He was a person who exemplified George Will’s comment that: There is a universal duty to be as intelligent as possible.
He was intelligent, interested and interesting and welcomed anybody along for the ride.
Paul, I don’t think I’ll ever see the day you’ll take words out of my mouth again, but you sure did this time.
So-called “modern-day” conservatives would do well to learn from him.
One of a kind man.
I remember watching him on TV. He would do his usual start of “aaaahhhh, long pause, say something, you see that…” then promptly wait on a response.
I agree with Dennis in that Buckley had more fun being an intellectual and rich, than any man I’ve witnessed.
Mr. Buckley handled life well and we all are richer for him contributing his wisdom.
Who’s Paul?
Mr. Buckley did more to add to my meager vocabulary than any class in school, etc., ever did. My father was a devoted watcher of his television program, and if he wanted to watch something, we all did, or went elsewhere. Armed with a dictionary, I’d try to figure out how the multisyllabic words he used were spelled, and then to the dictionary (when the show was over) to determine the meaning thereof.
mrc, you and I are in total agreement: ‘So-called “modern-day” conservatives would do well to learn from him.’
Fleet
That would be me.
I dont care, I only use this nick to protect my Retirement Planning business.
Some really cute posters once said something about placing the elderly on icebergs, in order to cut down on social spending — then put my name under the false post.
Not very good marketing, for a guy who works in the Senior market.
So, I came up with this NIC.
“Some really cute posters once said something about placing the elderly on icebergs, in order to cut down on social spending”
I (along with Don Geronimo) am working on Leisure Camps for the Elderly.
Icebergs could work, though.
My company’s retirement plan is the SYM system.
Along with the $1 per week on the Lottery.
I have absolutely no idea who this is. He looks vaguely familiar, but that’s all.
You have to had been an early “Baby Boomer” to have seen a lot of Buckley, TDT.
He was a staple of PBS Firing Line for a long time, it was networked at one time, but don’t recall which network it was that ran firing line. ABC?
“Econ101″ notes Buckley’s passing with –
“…Buckley is responsible, in large measure, for seperating Conservatism from conspiracy kooks and fringe groups.
Yeah, and Reagan got ‘em all back together again.
They don’t make conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater anymore. Pity.
Regular, you beat me to it re: TDT’s question. I fear my response would, alas, been a bit more blunt, and in the form of a question, to wit: Just how young are you, TDT? :-)
“They don’t make conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater anymore. Pity.” So true, MonkeyHawk; so very, very true.
Now they make them like fleettwood and KHAN!
As, yes, William F. Buckley. He had that show Firing Line on, what was that network again?
PBS.
Liberal dog.
Above said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.
Buckley had a sense of humor and was enjoyable to watch, even though I generally (but by no means always) disagreed with him.
I guess the passing of time does not insure progress.
I used to see Buckley on the Dick Cavett show. He was always very entertaining. I have heard he felt uneasy with the fame and celebrity he obtained.
When David Brooks was a freshman or sophomore at the University of Chicago, he wrote a parody of Buckley. Bucklely read it, liked it and asked him to be a summer intern for the National Review. That was a pretty good summer gig for a 19 yr old kid.
[from NPR today] Brooks is to write a column about Buckley Friday.
Doesn’t Liberal PBS also host that other Liberal McLaughlin?
Ben:
I only wish I could say… “WRONNNNNNGGGGGG!”
Kudlows take:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Kudlow_A_Great_Man_Passes/2008/02/27/76095.html?s=al&promo_code=460A-1
I have never ceased to be amazed by Buckley. One of the most amazing things I’ve ever heard about him was, English is his second language!
He lived in South America and went to school in Spain before coming to the US. (if my memory serves me correctly)
I always found listening to this fellow rather like observing flies in the act of procreation.
Well J R,
Of all the posters that have ever graced the BLOG with thier wit, you’re the only one that I believe would while away his days watching flies procreat.
No disrespect to Mr. Buckley, but, if ones purpose is to communicate, using “big” words might defeat ones purpose. Indubitably.
Hey fleettwood,
I used to watch him all the time. I learned a lot by looking up his words and trying to figure out their meaning.
There was a lot more ‘purpose’ to him than trying t communicate. He was intellectually challenging to several generations! Without any vacillation!
“fleettwood” offers –
“No disrespect to Mr. Buckley, but, if ones purpose is to communicate, using “big” words might defeat ones purpose.”
It wasn’t about “big” words but the *right* word.
If Buckley ever used a word you didn’t understand, “fleettwood,” it wasn’t his fault that you’re ignorant or undeducated.
One of the undercurrents of contemporary “conservatism” has been its appeal to ignorance. “There’s no Global Warming,” despite the science. “There’s no evolution,” despite the science. “There’s no consequences to a trillion-dollar debt,” despite the math. “George WMD Bush knows what he’s doing,” despite all evidence to the contrary.
Karl Rove once told “The Texas Observer” that the key to political success was understanding that, by definition, half the people in the world are stupider than the other half. “And if we can combine them with the greedy, we have a perpetual majority!” No wonder George WMD Bush was his dream candidate. No wonder the Republic Party is it the situation it’s in.
Even stupid people can learn. The crazy and the greedy will always be with us: the perpetual Republic Party minority.
““fleettwood,” it wasn’t his fault that you’re ignorant or undeducated.”
You seem to have much hate in you. I agree he used the word that fit. I do stand by my point, though.
Monkey
I typed “Rove greedy stupid texas” into my browser.
You would think that something would come up, to validate your claim of Rove’s comment, in that regard.
NOTHING!
Perhaps you might want to give us a link?
Rush Limbaugh never had a good thing to say about Buckley.
Probably because Limbaugh makes his vast fortune by repeating the same five ideas over and over again to the same ten million people who so desperately want them to be true . . . even though they are not.
fleettwood
Posted February 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
“No disrespect to Mr. Buckley, but, if ones purpose is to communicate, using “big” words might defeat ones purpose. Indubitably.”
‘fleettwood’, Mr. Buckley wasn’t trying to communicate with YOU. He didn’t have that much time to waste.
Capn
YOU are WRONG, Buckley actually held Limbaugh in HIGH regard, as did Limbaugh, towards Buckley.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Rush_Limbaugh_Buckley/2008/02/27/76077.html?s=al&promo_code=460A-1
Econ101: Rush had a great eulogy for Buckley today. I remember hearing the story before.
You wonder whether folks like CapnA and Monkeyhawk just pull stuff out of their butts. The ends seem justify the means in the leftist world. It’s the only explanation for the constant misrepresentations and disregard for the facts.
CALLER: What I wanted to say is that Mr. Buckley is philosophically senile. He looks at these events — Iraq, Israel, Lebanon — he looks at them one at a time. He tries to relate them backwards to a world that was, and not forward to the world that is going to be and the real battles we are going to have to fight.
RUSH: A lot of people agree with you on that. You know, well, when you say philosophically senile, I’m not talking about his age, you’re saying in a different way than I did. You’re talking about cold warriors, you’re talking about guys — I mean Buckley was profoundly instrumental in instigating this nation’s fight against the Soviets and making sure that someone actually took it to them rather than appeased them. …
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml
CBS) President Bush ran for office as a “compassionate conservative.” And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.
But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley.
. . . .
Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.
“If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says
Asked what President Bush’s foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says “There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush.”
And reaction to that [playing classical music on the show] from the audience was – was interesting.
Some of them thought that it was good, that is was representative of a good Conservative – back then, 1984, Conservative was thought to be, ah, William, ah, F. Buckley and Firing Line. That’s what Conservative was. So that’s what I thought I should duplicate. And then after a while I said, “You know what? This is just too staid.”
Limbaugh may have dissed WFB in the past, but today there was a waaaay long eulogy. I know because I was sitting in my car, eating a sandwich and listening for about 20 minutes. I thought it’d never end. (sunny and almost 60 here today, fwiw)
It was obvious that Limbaugh held WFB in extremely high regard, though. In fact, he echoed Vaughn and Econ101 here that WFB’s television program and Rush’s dictionary were inseparable.
I was also surprisingly touched by Limbaugh’s knavity re: The National Review subscriptions. Credit where credit is due: Limbaugh send WFB out in very high style today. (I mispelled knavity on purpose, just for you fleettwood) (because I know you get a kick outta that kinda stuff) :D
Oh, and WFB. As my old logic prof used to say (the one who by the end of lecture managed via a prodigious olfactory display of half-digested hops and spent barley to convince even the very back row, where all the cheerleaders hung out in terror, of just how much suds he’d had the previous night….mighta been the previous hour since the display was a r-e-a-l-l-y spectacular one most days), most public-sector conservatives were incoherent, but WFB never was. And it’s true, he was a joy to listen to.
RIP, WFB.
Thanks for the update, Pedant.
No doubt now that Bill Buckley is dead, Rush has nothing but high praise.
Years ago, he used to dis him on a pretty regular basis, using Rushisms that mean “snooty” and “high-faluting.”
Rush knew well that you don’t become a billionaire by over-estimating the mind of the American public.
WF Buckley was a great linguist and had an opinion worth minding,……at least when Nixon was still in office.
Reagan thought WFB was great,…..when he could remember who the hell he was.
However, his counterpart on the far left, Noam Chomsky, would always come away from the mental olympics with the gold!
If you are a Limbaugh fan old enough to remember those debates you will feel that it was the other way around. But then again, if that’s the case, I’m sure you’ve never read a thing Chomsky ever wrote.
public figures tease each other and comment on each other.
That, alone, is not “disrespect” — not at all.
Buckley draws a stark contrast to what passes for the conservative spokesman of today. His was a charming, engaging, and intellectual bent, now all you hear is screaming, witness rudeness and a general dumbing down of dialogue. Republican ideology, how far you’ve fallen.
BTW, now that Rushball is a billionaire, I wonder if he ever paid back the two years of welfare we taxpayers provided for him.
I’m guessing no . . .
Rushlimpballs can’t open his mouth without disrepecting someone. That’s why I return the favor.
Capn, my Pa took Rush and his Pa on a canoe float about a zillion years ago when I was a kid living in Missouri. His daddy owned the local radio station, thus Rush’s geniius roadio boy credentials.
“If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says”
Actually, you would have had a vote of no confidence long ago, and he would have been fored out along with his cabinet.
Figures Rush had a nepotistic start.
Phantom…..(in my best parlimentary voice)
HERE -HERE!
HUZZAH!
OK, so I gotta bring it up.
Anybody here remember Chomsky and Buckley on Frontline debating the VietNam war?
Here is one of Buckley’s final works, on this Earth.
It is about Obama vs Hillary, but it is classic Buckley:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2FkMjBjNzAzM2E0NmY1YjQyYjk5MDM1NWQzMDkxN2I=
No intended ill of the dead meant, but Buckley always reminded me of a snake. His tongue slithered in and out like one. IOW, he gave me the creeps, so I didn’t watch him. Didn’t like his voice, either.
Now, all the above is personal opinion and nothing more. I’m sure he brought much to many more. May he rest in peace…and keep his tongue where it belongs. ;)
Something for everyone.
William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky (2 parts)
Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 1 of 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI&feature=related
Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 2 of 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samvw6Z08&feature=related
Saw Buckley in an airport once; LAX, I think.
He floated by, half-pickled, with his expensively-dressed, fading wife, and a black porter managing an expedition’s worth of luggage.
He loved being himself. And why shouldn’t he? Every privilege was his.
I think it is safe to say Buckley never said “Newcueler” LOL
Buckley was a true Master >>>>
You could use as his motto:
If you cant Dazzle em with Brilliance, just try to baffle em with B S!! LOL
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.”
— William F. Buckley
Nov. 24, 1925 – Feb. 27, 2008
I think Buckley probably provided the best arguments that his brand of conservatism could muster. And he had a sense of humor–something would should be minimized in importance. Ira Glasser (former ACLU director) loved to argue with him on “Firing Line”! :)
The problem, of course, is that the “kooks” that he supposedly drove from the movement never really went away. Some of them, alas, even work for the National Review now. But I suppose I overstate the case: the serious kooks are–righfully–consigned to talk radio and Fox news.
Rest in peace, Bill.
“shouldn’t” be minimized (oops). . .
I found him dull.
“Some of Buckley’s best lines were uttered in court during a lengthy libel trial in the ’80s against National Review brought by the Liberty Lobby, which was then countersued by National Review. (The Liberty Lobby lost and NR won.)
Irritated by attorney Mark Lane’s questions, Buckley asked the judge: “Your Honor, when he asks a ludicrous question, how am I supposed to behave?”
In response to another of Lane’s questions, Buckley said: “I decline to answer that question; it’s too stupid.”
When asked if he had “referred to Jesse Jackson as an ignoramus,” Buckley said, “If I didn’t, I should have.”
Buckley may have been a conservative celebrity, but there was a lot more to him than a bow tie and a sailboat.”
The above are Ann Coulter’s take on Buckley
what an idiot.
anyone who takes pride in remembering some drivel ann coulter has said isn’t far behind.
KP
Ann Coulter was quoting other people, including Buckley.
You have a serious attitude problem if you can not learn from people you do not agree with.
Econ101
Posted February 27, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
public figures tease each other and comment on each other.
That, alone, is not “disrespect” — not at all.
lol
yeah, that’s it.
Buckley’s brand of conservatism was best suited for the agrarian society of the past.
It’s only place in our time serves to accumulate wealth and power to the few at the expense of the many. And so it is no longer “conservativism” at all. It is more a form of plutocracy.
JR,
I’ve learned that no matter how much I care, or how much I try and understand them, some people are just assholes.
You never seem able to climb above that, and only aspire to exist as a parasite wanting to live off the labors of others.
“Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples’ money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security.”
. . . conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., a.k.a. the scourge of American liberalism
And a further shadow of doubt falls on “WS”.
For me anyway. Goodnight.
I must admit, it is rather funny watching you liberals turn on each other because of mere disagreement on Presidential candidates.
“And a further shadow of doubt falls on “WS”.”
That is funny, J R, I have been a Democratic activist for forty years – you have been a “Democrat” for what – ten minutes?
Why don’t you just campaign for John W McBush.
It wouldn’t hurt your credibility in the least.
“I must admit, it is rather funny watching you liberals turn on each other because of mere disagreement on Presidential candidates.”
Almost as funny as the CONservatives calling McBush a liberal and stating that they would vote for Obama or Clinton rather than the choice of their party.
Funny stuff, these CONservatives……………
We only have one traitor – you folks have a whole convention of them.
Its late, but somewhat in Fleet’s defense I understand what he was saying about the usage of “big words” when communication. Twice I received a lesson in choosing my words, the first was when I started allowing others to read my writings. The most common critique was that I wrote at too high a level, I should write at a third grade level of understanding. Using more common words and simple to understand phrases involving simpler thought.
The second was shortly after moving to Oklahoma, I was called on my verbiage usage, “Why do you use “ten dollar words?”. I responded that I was sorry if I was saying something he do not understand. He lowered his eye brows and said “I did not say I did not understand you, I am saying you are just coming off as a Intellectual snob”.
Buckley as you may guess is one of my inspirations, I grew up watching him out of choice and not it being forced to. LOL in some aspects he reminds me of being at a family reunion, many in the family naturally used such words in everyday conversations. I had no choice but to come to understand them and use them as a natural speech pattern. But to the point in defense of Fleet, when I was a child it amazed people that a ten y.o. had such an extensive verbiage . AS an adult it has set some off on me, making them think poorly of me and hardened the conversations.
Listening to most of the current crop of those claiming the Conservative mantel, it does make me wonder where the intellectuals in the party went? They seldom show any intellectual thought and seem to revert to a third grade school yard form of debate. It hard to take them serious when they are saying what amount to “I know you are but what am I?”.
He was a racist and a low life as are most conservatives. Just because he has died is no reason to sugar coat the scoundrel he was.
The only thing I CAN say for Buckley is that he DID make you argue with him. He did have some intelligence (which makes me wonder why he was a Republican). That is more than I can say for Hannity, Rush and Coulter.
And, as the architect of modern conservatism, you Cons’ roots as racists come straight from Buckley:
“The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”
—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957
But one should only say good of the dead.
William F. Buckley is dead.
Good.
The Monkey posted;
“But one should only say good of the dead.
William F. Buckley is dead.
Good.”
And one day it will also be with you. Monkey, you should try and prevent the same kind of obituary for yourself you give Mr. Buckley, but I am confident you will be unable to do so. Shame.
I was wondering how long it would be before libs stoppped saying nice things about Buckley, got marching orders from their websites, and started to trash the man. In fact, I’m surprised that they had initially shown some class.
That about right Monkey?
The above are Ann Coulter’s take on Buckley
Then they didn’t happen.
outlander,
Sorry that your delicate sensibilities have been bruised by having to see recounted the things that Buckley said and did. He was a bigot who supported segregation in the United States and apartheid in South Africa.
If my stating of those facts offends you, outlander, the fact that you want to spin the characterization of facts as “speaking ill of the dead” says a lot more about you than it does about the “libs” on this blog.
Buckley was my ideological enemy and an enemy of democracy in the broader sense by serving as an apologist for class privilege and the inheritance of power by those ranked as “natural superiors.” Those were the things he fought for, and the meaning of his life. I happen to think these were the very worst sort of things to defend, and consistency, on my part, dictates that I continue to stand against them even now that Mr. Buckley has gone on to his reward–whatever that may be.
Coming from a lock-step reactionary like you, outlander, who are so predictable in your resopnses that I could set my watch by you, the epithet “marching orders” is all the more ludicrous.
And, to go one better, three years ago, Buckley again endorsed tattooing people carrying the HIV virus. Here he is.
“The boundaries of the new campaign, let alone the niceties, haven’t been resolved upon, but not much thought is being given to concerns of privacy. Murderers need to be stopped, and if this means opening their mail, well — such things happen and you can take comfort that you may be saving a life.
The objective is to identify the carrier, and to warn his victim. Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration.”
It’s from the NRO in 2005; I won’t link to it. You can find it for yourself.
As Patty and Selma say on The Simpsons, “we are richer for having lost him.”
“The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”
—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957
That about right, “outlander?”
Monkeyhawk,
Keep ‘em coming!
What a scumbag, Buckley. All the expensive suits and empty pseudo-intellectual posturing in the world can’t cover it up.
“who are so predictable in your resopnses that I could set my watch by you,”
———-
Yeah, whatever. And you aren’t? Look in the mirror, CF. Not that predictability is a bad thing. Unless you play poker.
I stand by my comment though, on how predictable the timing of the hate from the left is. Not necessarily your timing.
Hmm. 1957. I wonder what Robert Byrd was doing about that time Monkey?
Hell, I don’t know Buckley well. His attitudes evolved, like everyone else’s. But don’t try to tell the haters on the left.
outlander,
“Yeah, whatever.” What would Buckley think of such a pedestrian response?
As for my “predictability,” well, outlander, let’s just say that on this blog I push back against what may be perceived as the Democratic “party line” way more often than you EVER push back against the Republican version. Ask JR what he thinks of my choice for the Democratic nominee for President, or ask ksfarmgrrl what she thought of my opposition to legalized gambling in Wichita.
But all this is merely a distraction: I don’t get why anyone who values democratic virtues would have remembered Buckley with any fondness. He was an unapologetic, psuedo-intellectual, democracy-hating, would-be autocrat. For me, such persons neither deserve to be celebrated while alive, nor mourned once dead. They deserve to be opposed, and pointed to as cautionary examples.
outlander,
“Hater”; the last refuge of a right wing scoundrel–not that you’re a scoundrel.
As for whether Buckley’s views “evolved” (and isn’t THAT blanket excuse the other refuge of a right wing scoundrel), see my post above from 2005.
Actually
We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic!
Those who say they value the Constitution need to understand that our Constitution does protect the rights of the minority —
Even if the minority happen to be White!
But all this is merely a distraction: I don’t get why anyone who values democratic virtues would have remembered Buckley with any fondness. He was an unapologetic, psuedo-intellectual, democracy-hating, would-be autocrat. For me, such persons neither deserve to be celebrated while alive, nor mourned once dead. They deserve to be opposed, and pointed to as cautionary examples.
Just for the record: I was being as nice as I could to the cons, seeing how Buckley could at least occasionally be polite, a virtue that’s absent from the modern, mouth-foaming right. But I essentially agree with your assessment of the man, particularly the ‘pseuedo-intellectual’ part.
I recall seeing a dictionary definition of “buckley”:
1) To take a series of right turns until one returns to the original position
2) Using intellectual language to the point of being incomprehensible.
Buckley delighted in trying to look smarter than his audience. Too bad his underlying arguments were so often vapid.
****
P.S. Paul, America is, at least in theory, a democracy and a republic. Quick: Someone get this man a dictionary!
Rage
A pure democracy is dangerous.
We have a Republic. A representative Republic, but a Republic!
Study:
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Nice tribute in “The Nation”, which sounds a tone of civility note seen way too little these days.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=291671
Democratic Republic.
I once had a universty prof who was lauding the future use of computers to vote on bills with everybody voting on it.
That’s what I would call “Rule of the Mob”.
Heh, an amusing read, Outie.
I will just state the truth- the HOTTEST corner of HELL is reserved for Republicans- and rightly so.
One Trackback
Cash Loans…
Easy loan program for online cash advance for US residents….