Thursday, March 1, 2012

On Hypocrisy...

A while back, in one of his comments, William accused me of two things.
He said I didn't honestly answer his [goofy, IMHO] question about aborting homosexuals, and that he really wanted to know how I felt.  Well... that's odd, seeing as how I've written extensively on both topics over the past three years, and have permanent tabs at the top of the page on both Abortion and LGBT Issues, giving a quick rundown of my feelings on both of these matters, if anyone is interested.  So I don't know if this accusation comes from either laziness or illiteracy, but there is little more I can say about Abortion or Gay Rights at this point that I haven't said a dozen times already.  So... RTFB, if you honestly can't understand the answer I gave you.

He also accused me of HYPOCRISY.  See... I guess I say a lot of BAD THINGS about people that I think are bad people.  No.. .I take that back. State it more honestly, I should say that I take GREAT PRIDE in the things I say about VILE, BIGOTED, GREEDY, DISHONEST People.  And by some wild universal coincidence, it seems that 90-some percent of these people are Conservative, or Right-Wing, Public Figures.

OMFG! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!

Now I get the hypocrisy accusation a lot.  I do. And I invite it.I really do. Because in truth, I'm fairly outspoken about the fact that there is scarcely a vice I can't tolerate, save for hypocrisy.  I loathe hypocrisy above all else. I could even forgive a murder, and yet happily kill the accused myself, should he walk out off death row on a technicality and then go on to become an agressive death penalty proponent and fourth ammendment opponent.  And so: Should anyone ever manage to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy... WELL, HEY... They've WON, haven't they?  And typically lacking any actual evidence to support their arguments, that remains the ONE WAY, the one SUREFIRE way, that a Conservative could actually BEAT ME in an argument.

So I'm not shy about the fact that I get that. A LOT. The problem is?

Conservatives don't understand the first fucking thing about hypocrisy.  They couldn't properly  identify hypocrisy if it turned itself into a snake and bit them in the ass.  Which is probably why their more prominent spokespeople are all such raving, intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITES.

But what about me?

Well...  IF I UNDERSTAND his accusation correctly - and I'm sure he'll need no encouragement to clarify things if I'm missing something - it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people.

And, yeah, I suppose that can look like hypocrisy... if you're an idiot.

Because to follow that logic? You can never judge ANYONE!  Suddenly, magically, ANYTHING GOES! Someone could go around calling every Black person he saw a Nigger right to their face, and no one could say that this guy was being an ignorant racist, jackass, because THAT... would be hypocritical.

But... of course that's completely idiotic.

The fact is? That there is no hypocrisy in calling a vile person, a vile person. When they say vile things about otehr people, you do not become a vile person in pointing out that they are a vile person! DUH! One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to avoid hypocrisy.  Now... I'll give you a BE-YOU-TIFUL example of what I'm talking about...

Starting yesterday, and continue on to today, Rush Limbaugh actually had the audacity to refer to a Law Student, who was advocating up for women's health care a "SLUT" and a "PROSTITUTE."  His misogynistic vitriol continued today.

Limbaugh: "I Will Buy All Of The Women At Georgetown University As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want"

Limbaugh Lectures Georgetown Student: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?"
Limbaugh Demands Women With Contraceptive Coverage Post Sex Videos Online "So We Can All Watch"
Limbaugh To Sandra Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?"  (holy fucking crap!)
Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk" (OMFG!)

Limbaugh: Five Dollars For A Month Of Birth Control? "That Makes PMS Almost Worth It" (Really, Rush? Really?)

So... here's my answer: Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic SCUMBAG.

Now... let recap: Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke.  And I said some mean things about Rush Limbaugh for doing that.  Shame on me?  Shame on my hypocrisy?

Did you have a fucking brain tumor for breakfast?!

READ THOSE.  LISTEN TO THOSE. EVERY ONE.  And you know what? If you do that and DON'T come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag? Then, sir or madame, YOU are a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag!

I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog. (Or chastise people over either foul language or typos.) Well, sir, you will be waiting alongside Adlai Stevenson until hell freezes over, because I am not a misogynist, and I am no hypocrite.

All I can say is that I hope Rush's fourth wife was listening. This is who you married sweetheart. I hope it will be worth it to you. (That's NOT mysoginy, BTW. I don't think she's a bad person. I'm merely pointing out her abysmal taste in men.)

25 comments:

  1. " it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people."

    So? Do you believe YOU are a bad person? Well, if you think you are not a bad person for calling so many people bad things then you are, in fact, being hypocritical. (BTW, you analogy was stupid and does not fit your argument). However, if you are one of the 10% (as you number yourselves), then you are not being hypocritical for calling bad people what they are while you are a bad person yourself. Which makes you an equal to every right-winger you mentioned in that post. Are you the same as Rush and the rest?

    Your idea that a liberal can call a conservative names but conservatives are vile because they call liberals names is very hypocritical. I'll bet if Rush (or any of the others you mentioned) called Bush or other republicans vile names you would support his (their) antics, but since they are right-wingers and they call left-wingers names you are offended by their use of the type of language that they use. Again, yes that makes you a hypocrite.


    "I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog."

    Well, you do that on virtually every post you make. So, welcome to the club you say only right-wingers belong to. Oh ... wait ... you NOW add a disclaimer into all of this: "misogynistic". So, you've changed the location of the goalposts and now claim you are only calling conservatives vile names if they are "misogynistic" and YOU never ever use THAT kind of language in your blog. You are a talent to be reckoned with!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congratulations, William, you've finally gotten something right. Eddie's analogy was pretty weak.

    On the other hand, your self-serving use of the word hypocrisy to attack everyone you disagree with (liberals in general, Eddie, Classic Liberal and me in particular) brings to mind the old 'mote' and 'beam' song. Someone who makes a habit of writing, "What you're saying is..." and following with a screed which is the exact opposite of what his adversary actually said, while at the same time making a habit of calling his adversaries liars, should really avoid the word 'hypocrisy.' Glass houses, you know.
    As far as Eddie's 'hypocrisy,' goes, when you can show me any ad hominem attack he's launched against anyone who's advocated a position with which he disagrees, but has done so honestly and within the bounds of civil discourse, I'll agree that you might have a point. Most of the people he colorfully castigates have a history of engaging in vicious, ad hominem attacks, similar to the ones he references above. And you will note that all of those obscene, libelous personal attacks Limbaugh levels at Ms. Fluke are in response to her having the nerve to actually advocate for her own interests, and the interest of the vast majority of women (and men, to be honest) in this country. The man is trying to intimidate her, and others who might agree with her, into sitting down and shutting up. Well, that is bullying at best, and a danger to democracy at worst. You bet he's a scumbag. I'll use a hockey analogy, as you once mentioned you like the game.
    I've played it for decades, and always, by choice, straight up and clean. If, however, you start laying the lumber on me, you can expect to pick up a few splinters yourself. Liberals have been demonized, with increasing vitriol and hysteria, by right-wingers for at least four decades. Now that some of us are fighting back with some of the nasty techniques so long used on us, the right is whining, 'no fair.'
    Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is indeed hypocrisy to insensitively attack a conservative for being insensitive. It's not hypocrisy to insensitively attack a conservative for being wrong.

    If you believe in civility, then you'll condemn atrocities in dry, statesmanlike language. You'll also be an idiot. Civility, like humility, is a falsely noble barrier to accuracy.

    A conservative new to politics and misguided should be treated gently. A stupid conservative should be called stupid. A conservative in a position of power working hard to ruin the lives of millions of people should be castigated in the strongest possible terms.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Glass houses, you know."

    I'm not making any kind of denial. Are you?


    "As far as Eddie's 'hypocrisy,' goes, when you can show me any ad hominem attack he's launched against anyone who's advocated a position with which he disagrees, but has done so honestly and within the bounds of civil discourse, I'll agree that you might have a point."

    "There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid. One lies and the other buys."

    "Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney won't get MY vote or backing. But come on! Newt Gingrich?! One of the most despise politicians in American history?! Rick Santorum?! That fucking DOUCHEBAG?! Rick Perry...? Who's learned the hard way that the rest of America in not fucking TEXAS?! And after the revolving side show loonies - Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... Who the hell IS John Huntsman anyway?!"

    I could probably find plenty more, but do I really need to? He shows a complete disregard for half the population's opinion simply because they don't agree with him. Isn't that his main complaint he brings concerning all the right wing screech monkeys? Then goes on to name particular right-wingers who are currently the most 'questionable' and (again) uses exactly the same methodology as those he complains about doing as they do. As you said: "Glass houses".


    "The man is trying to intimidate her, and others who might agree with her, into sitting down and shutting up. "

    Eddie is including everyone on the right as being in lock-step of what Rush says. I'm not saying he doesn't have his right to distrust/dislike everyone he doesn't agree with (I do the same thing), but to insinuate that conservatives are ultimately "Evil and Stupid" for doing what they do while proclaiming his similar method as acceptable is quite hypocritical.


    " it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people."

    No, Eddie, you missed it by a little bit. It is hypocritical of you to say those people are evil because they say bad things about people while you are saying bad things about people in the same manner the others do and say your method is acceptable but theirs is not.
    In essence you are admitting you are evil, too. Then I get reminded of that old saying: "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" while you rant about all conservatives being "Evil and Stupid" because they whine about liberals being morons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who can break the symmetry William sees? Group A says X is right, Y is wrong, and attacks group B. Group B says Y is right, X is wrong, and attacks group A.

    This conundrum is so sticky that I gotta ask William a couple of direct questions:

    Are there possible sets of statements X and Y such that X is objectively right and Y is objectively wrong? If so, is group B objectively stupider than group A?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke."

    So what? You say mean things about right-wingers all the time, but you think you have a "right" to say mean things and he does not. Is that what you're saying?


    steeve, Answering your "direct questions": No and depending on who is who.


    Conchobhar said: "Now that some of us are fighting back with some of the nasty techniques so long used on us, the right is whining, 'no fair.' "

    Well, at least you're admitting the hypocrisy that you liberals are bringing into this discussion. BTW, we're not whining "no fair" that you USE that "technique", we're whining that you are a hypocrite for saying YOU can use that "technique" while whining that others are EVIL for using that "technique". At least Eddie admits he takes "GREAT PRIDE" in his hypocrisy. You still deny it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Something for anyone talking with William to keep in mind -- he denies the existence of objective reality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, I'm not admitting hypocrisy at all. As usual, when you characterize something either I or anyone else on the site has said, you get it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gee whiz, steeve. You got me figured out :o


    Conchobhar, what part of anything did I get wrong? Don't worry, I expect you to bring the same proof of facts that classicliberal fails to bring in each article I ask him to. Which is none. In other words, you merely speak to hear yourself make noise and to please the other like-minded people here. So, I really don't expect too much from your side of a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You got wrong, William, what you consistently get wrong. The word hypocrisy is one you throw around a lot, (along with liar) usually inaccurately, and one which you never own up to yourself. The classic example would be your calling me a hypocrite for stating that I would vote for President Obama again, even though I'm greatly disappointed and have strong disagreements with some of the thing that he's done and failed to do. The fact that he's closer to my idea of what a President should be than anyone on the right doesn't get through to you.

    In your assignment of motive to my posts, you merely show yourself to be consumed with prejudice and bigotry, incapable of actually arguing from facts and with logic. You can't possibly know what is in my heart, but it makes you feel good, I guess, to castigate me and others in that way. Well, as lawyers say, "when the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table." For conservatives, when the facts and logic are against you, you pound on the person.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The fact that he's closer to my idea of what a President should be than anyone on the right doesn't get through to you."

    The fact that Obama is not much different than Bush doesn't seem to get through to you either. Make sure you vote for the guy who authorizes killing US citizens without a trial, and has kept Gitmo open, and has increased the debt $5 trillion, and has increased the unemployment, and has been good friends with the oil companies and who has continued using Super-Pacs and ....


    "The word hypocrisy is one you throw around a lot, usually inaccurately"

    Hypocrisy: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel ▪

    Actually I use it a lot because it is being exhibited by liberals a lot. I haven't used it inaccurately, yet.



    "and one which you never own up to yourself. "

    I point out typical liberal hypocrisy. If you want to point out mine, you go ahead and do it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Me: "Are there possible sets of statements X and Y such that X is objectively right and Y is objectively wrong?"

    William: "No"

    That is a direct denial of objective reality, assuming that English still works.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Actually I use it a lot because it is being exhibited by liberals a lot. I haven't used it inaccurately, yet." Self-satisfied silliness. You use it inaccurately constantly.

    The most egregious example of your own hypocrisy is your statement, from a couple of months ago, that you don't judge people, you just agree with the judgment of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's really good, conchobhar, I bring examples of liberal hypocrisy on a near daily basis, and the best you can bring is AN example from a couple months ago without any quotes or context to back up your claim.


    steeve: ass/u/me

    ReplyDelete
  15. The denial of objective reality stands, and you add a denial of English.

    I repeat these 100% solid deductions from your own words to give you a chance to say that you misunderstood something.

    ReplyDelete
  16. William;
    You bring bigoted rants about what you inaccurately or disingenuously call 'liberal hypocrisy' on a regular basis.

    I referenced the 'most egregious' of your hypocrisies. The context is here on site. Look it up yourself. And, by the way, it is the HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY for one who accused me of consistently 'misquoting' him and, when challenged to provide 'quotes and context,' could only come up with the single word, 'much,' which was not only NOT in a quote, but in a paraphrase, and had been withdrawn and corrected when you objected to it. You can look this exchange up yourself, on site, also.

    Which reminds me: one of your favorite lies about us is that we 'don't take responsibility' for mistakes we make. I have consistently argued honestly with you, and corrected my language when you've shown me to have been wrong. You have never done so when shown to be wrong. Of course you, like Limbaugh, are never wrong in your own mind, or you hate us liberals so much you can never admit it in our presence. That, sweet William, is hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I have consistently argued honestly with you"

    No, you haven't. You change subjects when you no longer can defend your position and continue to argue on the changed subject as if it were the subject before you changed it. You lack context to your references and expect all to do their own research to verify what YOU say is fact. You demean and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you. Yet you feel you are treating people "honestly".

    You're like steeve who asked a question, where there are a multitude of possible settings and answers for, without using ANY examples, and expected an answer to fit within his tiny expectations. When the answer didn't fit his criteria he claimed lack of knowledge by me. Maybe he was talking about X equaling liberals being morons and Y equaling conservatives being stupid? Who really knows what he was talking about because he doesn't explain himself, he simply spouts something and expects all others to agree with him or you're dumb.

    Like your use of hypocrisy. You say because I hate liberalism I am a hypocrite when I can show how liberals act hypocritically on a consistent basis and not admit IF I am ever wrong. I provided the definition of hypocrisy for you to use. I'm sure you looked it up yourself (but couldn't find a description that allows you to whine about how I'm using it wrong anymore). So you change the subject to one where I am a hypocrite because I hate liberalism while not admitting I am wrong. Thanks for proving my point about how liberals act.

    Show me where I was proven wrong and failed to acknowledge it.
    Provide context for your whines and proof for your claims of fact. Don't do like classicliberal does by running away (like a little girl) when asked to provide proof of factual claims he made. Maybe he's still looking for video proof of that Vet getting shot in the head by police. Since the video he brought does not show that. At least he uses the correct name (for here), since he does act like a "classic liberal". Providing proof for myself why I agree with Michael Savage that "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder".

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm advocating for my own views. Steeve and CL can answer for themselves. But, really, "running away like a little girl?" Do you grind your teeth when typing crap like that?

    "Show me where I was proven wrong and failed to acknowledge it."
    Show me once where you have acknowledged it.

    Have you forgotten our exchange in which you accused me of parroting a line I'd seen in Media Matters? I responded that I hadn't seen anything on that topic in Media Matters and challenged you, if you weren't just making a wild assumption,to link to the article I was 'parroting.' Your non-response response? You linked to the site itself, and not the (non-existent, I'm guessing) article. Never responded when called on it. Basic honesty would have required at least an "OK, I was making an assumption." If you did that, I missed it.

    "You lack context to your references and expect all to do their own research to verify what YOU say is fact."

    Example? Context? Reference? I don't see any. Hypocrisy? Oh, yeah. I see that.

    How about an example of this? "You change subjects when you no longer can defend your position and continue to argue on the changed subject as if it were the subject before you changed it."

    I call you out on your hypocrisy for a number of reasons, and you've just highlighted one of them. Much of your hatred of liberalism echoes the hate radio playbook, which accuses us of believing things we don't, and wanting things we don't. Of course, you've denied listening to that crap, but you've just outed yourself. You're quoting one of the most over the top and hate filled of all the bloviators, Michael Savage. In so doing, you're living proof that modern conservatism is a character flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What part of "are there possible sets of statements" was hard for you? Geez.

    X isn't "liberalism", it's anything you can possibly think of that has the property of objective truth. You can tell, because I used the words "Are there possible sets of statements X and Y such that X is objectively right and Y is objectively wrong?", and that's as plain as plain can be.

    So here's what you do. First, admit that your failure to read was entirely your fault. Do it in this thread explicitly, using plain language. Then, next time you're asked a direct question, don't answer the question you think might be being led up to 5 posts later. Answer the question sitting right in front of you.

    It's like talking to a block of cheese. Here it is days later, and the existence of words isn't even yet established.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tell you what, steeve. I'll continue reading your posts even though you are blind to reality. I answered your question in the very next post after you asked it. When you act like a liberal, I'll treat you like a liberal. Good job, steeve, you get both. So, do you need a little WHINE to go with that cheese you have? Because you're sure giving a lot of WHINE away, these days. Is that what you wanted me to admit?


    Conchobhar, I asked you to show me where I was proven wrong and failed to acknowledge it. You answered with "Show me once where you have acknowledged it.". I guess we have to do this one step at a time, so the liberal can follow along with what is happening. First: show me where I was proven wrong.
    We'll worry about the next part after you do the simple things.

    When have I denied reading my copy of Michael Savage's book "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder"? When have I denied EVER listening to "that crap"? I have listened to it (unlike you) but I do not listen to any of them currently. Right now, I listen to J. Vernon McGee (you wouldn't know this person) and the Armstrong and Getty show (you wouldn't know them either). I'm over 50 years old, are you trying to get me to say I've NEVER listened to them? Only an idiot would expect that. Oops, sorry.

    You want an example of you changing the subject? OK, how about in the "good riddance" article. YOU take the conversation from the evil that Breitbart did to what YOU think is Heaven and the bribes it takes to get there while defending the evil that Byrd did.
    Hell, even in THIS article, you have changed the conversation from liberal hypocrisy to whether I listen to the radio while you are denouncing the general character of all conservatives. (that is something you wanted me to show that you do, also).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Holy crap! Another thread with 20 or more comments on it! Fuck me... William? It's not that I've stopped responding, it's just that I was used to getting just 2 or 3 at a time before you turned up. If any thread every hit double figures, half of the comments were usually MINE! I'm sorry, but I just can't keep up with all this. I do have other past-times, you know!

    ANYWAY... I will say this. You're wrong. And here's why: You are proceeding from a false presumtion. You seem to think that my problem with Limbaugh (& co.) is his incivility. It isn't. It's pretty self apparent, after all that I don't have any problems with incivility. I mean... it's not always CALLED FOR - and it wasn't in Fluke's case - but I have no inherent issue with incivility in general, merely by itself. (I may as well complain about excessive f-bombs and typos!)

    That being said? I do try to save it for those who themselves ARE truly uncivil, and thus DESERVING of it, IMHO. I wouldn't go dropping f-bombs all over a piece by Geogre Will, for exampel, despite disagreeing with pretty much everything the man's ever said (that wasn't about baseball) becuase he's about the most polite Right Winger on the face of the earth. And I do tend to resond in kind. (Likewise the late Chris Hitchens, who I disagree with about everything NOT having to do with religion: He speaks with wit and I would endevour to answer in kind... with a little colorful language thrown in, as he was also wont to use on occasion.)

    My problem with Limbaugh (& co.), is with their inherent misogyny, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and EGREGIOUS lack of intellectual honestly. That they are uncivil about it? Is practically the LEAST of my problems with them. It's right down there with the fact that they're Conservative. I have no problem engaging in honest civil deabte with people I disagree with. Witness George Will, EVERY LIBERAL POSTER HERE at some point, or OkiPoli - a self described Conservative Republican. We've ALL had our rows at some point about some issue (a point you keep conveniently ignoring when you say that I can't stand it when people disagree with me - a lie that I'm sure you find very conforting) but I dare say I don't any of them feel I've treated THEM uncivilly.

    It is not merely that we disagree, nor is it that they are merely uncivil in their style, that I judge [Limbaugh & co.] so harshly for. I judge them for, well, I've already said it: misogyny, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and intellectual dishonestly. So, yeah, if you want to make a hypocrisy charge stick? You WILL ABSOLUTELY need to catch me doing one of those. Uncivil language just expresses how strongly one feels on some matter. The moral value of WHAT YOU FEEL is stil the key issue.

    A few minor points? Not every percived double-standard is hypocrisy. (Hell, not every percived double-standard is actually a double-standard.)

    Also? "Giving someone a taste of their own medicine" is also NOT hypocritical. It may be "doing that what you;ve condemned" but the motvation behind each act is completely different, as is the likely hood that it will continue.

    And finally? My "weak" analgoy? It was meant to be analogous of YOUR argument, not MINE. So... OF COURSE it was weak. Just as most of your arguments are.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "My problem with Limbaugh (& co.), is with their inherent ..."

    What does "inherent" mean? There's nothing like putting all right-wingers in a box. I thought you didn't like that to be done to you and other liberals? But, you get to do it yourself? What is the title of this article again?


    "Not every percived double-standard is hypocrisy."

    Says the person who is constantly being a hypocrite towards anyone who dares be and/or admit being a conservative. But's that's as close to how liberals think that there isn't any point in arguing it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Before you take exception to my generalization that "conservatives are stupid," you might want to first make sure that you ARE an exception.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm not worried about myself being stupid. I'm more concerned with you wanting to put all conservatives "in a box". It wasn't long ago that you told me that you would never put someone in a box, like that. But, liberals are allowed to do what they demand others NOT DO. What do you call that, again?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anyone catch the latest Scott Olsen update? I know it isn't on-topic, but it was important enough to make sure those who defend(ed) the lies put out by OWS that it should be highlited.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/scott-olsen-lawyer_n_1349586.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/beanbag-round-hit-marine-veteran-during-occupy-oakland-demonstration-not-tear-gas-canister/2012/03/15/gIQAXbyGES_story.html

    http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/attorney-injured-iraq-war-veteran-says-police-inte/nLTmT/

    ReplyDelete