Greenspan's book.

Agnes Selby · Post by **Agnes Selby** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:05 pm

Somewhere in a cave bin Laden is smiling. He knows
he has defeated America. A divided nation is a defeated nation,
I am sorry to say. Alan Greenspan's new book is another nail in the
coffin of Democracy. There are just too many "actors" airing too many
opinions against their own country for the benefit of its enemies.
Had it been so during World War II, today the Nazis would rule the
world.

Regards,
Agnes.
-----------------

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:32 pm

Agnes Selby wrote:Somewhere in a cave bin Laden is smiling. He knows
he has defeated America. A divided nation is a defeated nation,
I am sorry to say. Alan Greenspan's new book is another nail in the
coffin of Democracy. There are just too many "actors" airing too many
opinions against their own country for the benefit of its enemies.
Had it been so during World War II, today the Nazis would rule the
world.

Regards,
Agnes.
-----------------

*****

There were a lot more discordant voices during WWII than the myths circulating today would show.

Disagreement isn't an American weakness-it's a powerful strength. Danger to Democracy i here can only come about, as Lincoln said, from within, never from external enemies.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:16 pm

Ralph wrote: Danger to Democracy i here can only come about, as Lincoln said, from within, never from external enemies.

And some of see far more danger from within than others of us do.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:19 pm

Ralph got here before I did, but Greenspan, an untouchable character politically for decades, is entitled to air his opinions. I see no connection with foreign enemies, and though I have yet to find his book, I don't envision Osama bin-Laden quoting him.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:23 pm

jbuck919 wrote: I don't envision Osama bin-Laden quoting him.

I don't know. He's been quoting Marx lately (without attribution). Must be some obscure footnote in the Haditha . . .

Agnes Selby · Post by **Agnes Selby** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:47 pm

Ralph wrote:
Agnes Selby wrote:Somewhere in a cave bin Laden is smiling. He knows
he has defeated America. A divided nation is a defeated nation,
I am sorry to say. Alan Greenspan's new book is another nail in the
coffin of Democracy. There are just too many "actors" airing too many
opinions against their own country for the benefit of its enemies.
Had it been so during World War II, today the Nazis would rule the
world.

Regards,
Agnes.
-----------------
*****

There were a lot more discordant voices during WWII than the myths circulating today would show.

Disagreement isn't an American weakness-it's a powerful strength. Danger to Democracy i here can only come about, as Lincoln said, from within, never from external enemies.

--------------

Dear Ralph,

As I see it from the distance of Australia, the danger to America
comes from "within". Charlie Sheen and his ilk are dividing the nation
and Greenspan's book is adding more fuel to the dissension. War was
declared on America on 9/11. We must not forget that the Israelis bombed
Saddam's nuclear facility. The Israelis reported rumblings of trucks from Iraq to Syria. All this while the UN "slept".

I am not an American and therefore I should not say a word on this matter on this forum. However, I see the politics in America turning against its own nation and national interests. Just like in a family, dissension is detrimental.

As for disunity during World War II, I agree. Churchill could foresee
Stalin's European ambitions. However, during the fighting, the Americans
stood together united against the enemy. Now the enemy is benefitting from the propaganda Americans are inflicting on each other.

Regards,
Agnes.
------------------

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:55 pm

Agnes,

If you study American history you will discover vigorous dissension at all critical periods. Lincoln fought both the Confederacy and those within the Union who doubted his war policy could succeed.

The country is not being torn apart by dissenters but many are forced to think which isn't a bad thing. And many do not believe that Iraq ever was a threat to the United States. We have invested billions along with almost four thousand lives for, in my view, almost nothing (and I opposed the Iraq war from Day One). One reason the Taliban is resurging in Afghanistan is that we did not have and do not have the assets to truly pacify that country.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:03 pm

Dissension and policy and strategic argument within the framework of post-Enlightenment democracy is different from dissension against post-Enlightenment democracy itself, as I consider PC and its ilk to be.

To think it's all the same as it was before multiculturalism because we had disputations then as well is head-in-the-sand stuff, IMHO.

Agnes Selby · Post by **Agnes Selby** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:22 pm

Just an aside. Brendan, did you read Mr. Hoffman's review
of Kathy's and Li-wei's concert in the Canberra Times today, 17th September?

Regards,
Agnes.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:42 pm

Not yet - I'll make sure I read it shortly, and sorry I missed them. I've tagged the SelbyandFriends URL for the 2008 season, and may even make it in November if I'm free.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:59 pm

Brendan wrote:Dissension and policy and strategic argument within the framework of post-Enlightenment democracy is different from dissension against post-Enlightenment democracy itself, as I consider PC and its ilk to be.

Damn! I wish I'd said that. Good job, Brendan.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:02 pm

Ralph wrote:And many do not believe that Iraq ever was a threat to the United States. We have invested billions along with almost four thousand lives for, in my view, almost nothing (and I opposed the Iraq war from Day One).

Incredibly mind-numbingly shocking in an educated man who considers himself neither liberal nor conservative. I guess you would have to have them show up on your doorstep with a Koran and a prayer rug and an AK 47 to impress you even a little. Forgive the rest of us if we don't want to wait till that happens.

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:46 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:And many do not believe that Iraq ever was a threat to the United States. We have invested billions along with almost four thousand lives for, in my view, almost nothing (and I opposed the Iraq war from Day One).
Incredibly mind-numbingly shocking in an educated man who considers himself neither liberal nor conservative. I guess you would have to have them show up on your doorstep with a Koran and a prayer rug and an AK 47 to impress you even a little. Forgive the rest of us if we don't want to wait till that happens.

*****

A purely emotional response, reflective of the blind fear of Islam that so many embrace. Go after and kill the killers, not fabricate enemies who pose little threat to us while our campaigns against them denude our resources, perhaps disastrously.

I'm not worried about anyone showing up on my doorstep with a Koran and an Ak-47. I am worried about fairly clever terrorists who can easily penetrate our society as we hunt the wrong people.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:39 pm

And multiculturalism/PC hasn't contributed to the ease with which terrorists can move whilst hampering efforts against enemies? Real head-in-the-sand stuff again, IMHO.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:06 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Brendan wrote:Dissension and policy and strategic argument within the framework of post-Enlightenment democracy is different from dissension against post-Enlightenment democracy itself, as I consider PC and its ilk to be.
Damn! I wish I'd said that. Good job, Brendan.

You have to be kidding. That is complete gibberish. Exactly what are you agreeing with?

As for your comment on Ralph, he is a broad enough man not to wish to have labels put on him. (I don't mind being called a liberal.) His comments about Iraq make sense, unlike anything in Brendan's post.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:23 pm

The point is very simple - and obviously beyond you. No surprises there.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:09 am

jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
Brendan wrote:Dissension and policy and strategic argument within the framework of post-Enlightenment democracy is different from dissension against post-Enlightenment democracy itself, as I consider PC and its ilk to be.
Damn! I wish I'd said that. Good job, Brendan.
You have to be kidding. That is complete gibberish.

Hardly! If you didn't find it true or funny, you didn't have to say anything at all. I found it both true and funny. Maybe you should reread it. Or maybe not.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:22 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
Brendan wrote:Dissension and policy and strategic argument within the framework of post-Enlightenment democracy is different from dissension against post-Enlightenment democracy itself, as I consider PC and its ilk to be.
Damn! I wish I'd said that. Good job, Brendan.
You have to be kidding. That is complete gibberish.
Hardly! If you didn't find it true or funny, you didn't have to say anything at all. I found it both true and funny. Maybe you should reread it. Or maybe not.

Oh, come off it, Corlyss. What the F is "post-Enlightenment democracy"supposed to mean? If you want pseudo-erudite thinking that is merely obscurantist, I could give you a thousand quotes. I've been guilty of it myself, but unlike Brendan, would admit it if it were brought to my attention.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:48 am

jbuck919 wrote:Oh, come off it, Corlyss.

You're just lookin' for a fight, aren't you.

greymouse · Post by **greymouse** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:31 am

I gotta agree with Ralph here. Greenspan's book is a nail in the coffin of democracy? That sounds very exaggerated. America is definitely strong because we argue and have always argued bitterly about what's best and what's right.

We need to argue about foreign policy all the time, and if Greenspan thinks we did something wrong the country isn't going to crumble because of his opinion. Heck, he's not even an expert anyway - he's only an expert in economics. If this country got all lockstep during foreign crises, I would consider it a pretty crappy country to live in - indistinguishable from any tyranny in the history of the world.

A little more optimism for the future, people!

America is going to be fine.

Agnes Selby · Post by **Agnes Selby** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:54 pm

greymouse wrote:I gotta agree with Ralph here. Greenspan's book is a nail in the coffin of democracy? That sounds very exaggerated. America is definitely strong because we argue and have always argued bitterly about what's best and what's right.

We need to argue about foreign policy all the time, and if Greenspan thinks we did something wrong the country isn't going to crumble because of his opinion. Heck, he's not even an expert anyway - he's only an expert in economics. If this country got all lockstep during foreign crises, I would consider it a pretty crappy country to live in - indistinguishable from any tyranny in the history of the world.

A little more optimism for the future, people! America is going to be fine.

--------------

Sir, Greenspan's book is not the nail in the coffin of American Democracy. I live in a Democracy and would not have it any other way. It is not Greenspan's book that is the cancer in American
Democracy. His book is just one more fly in the ointment.

Sir, you are allowing your Empire go the way all great empires went.
Do you see anything in Italy that reminds you of the Roman
Empire except for its ruined buildings? How much of the Greek Empire
is left in Greece except for crumbling monuments and shards dug up by ploughs in the spring. These Empires disappeared when dissent overtook
reason.

I was referring to real and ugly dissent where half of America's populace would like to see its President behind bars. I was referring to the instigators who NEED TO BE HEARD no matter what garbage they spout. Moore, Sheen,you name it. Insecure men who cannot be elected to the presidency but need and want to control the Empire. They make America the laughing stock of the world. They feed their hateful family feuds to the world and in return, expect Americans to be respected and loved. They feed amunition to the enemies of America. Hence, I said
bin Laden is laughing in his cave. He really has no need for further action,
all he needs is patience to watch how America eats itself from within.
How entertaining it must be for bin Laden to hear that it was the
American President who personally sent those planes crashing into those magnificent buildings and killing 3000 American citizens!

Sir, too many cooks spoil the broth and you have so many cooks
you may just overdo the cooking.
-----------------

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:11 pm

Agnes Selby wrote: ... Hence, I said
bin Laden is laughing in his cave. He really has no need for further action,
all he needs is patience to watch how America eats itself from within.
How entertaining it must be for bin Laden to hear that it was the
American President who personally sent those planes crashing into those magnificent buildings and killing 3000 American citizens! ...
-----------------

A friend sent me a copy of poll results, I believe from Pew, that showed what I thought was a staggering number of Americans who believe their own government either knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing to stop it or were actually involved in planning the attacks. I venture to say the people who believe that aren't conservatives, just like the ridiculously high number of people who believed the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered weren't liberals.

We've gotten to the point where way too many Americans don't just disagree with the opposition; they think they're monsters.

Then there was the article I read on the Brit Muslim who led the subway bombings in London. The article mentioned how he and his co-horts used to laugh when Brits, both commentators and average citizens, would blame the attacks on British foreign policy; as if to say they deserved it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:39 pm

BZ wrote:

that showed what I thought was a staggering number of Americans who believe their own government either knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing to stop it or were actually involved in planning the attacks.

Which just goes to prove what I've always said: People are generally imbecilic--To wit again

on't forget, no Jews were killed on 911 because they all stayed home that day--
As for Greenspan, something tells me that the most influential economist in modern times, (embraced by both Dem and Rep administrations) might know a little bit about our Oil driven motivations

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:46 pm

Ted wrote:BZ wrote:
that showed what I thought was a staggering number of Americans who believe their own government either knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing to stop it or were actually involved in planning the attacks.
Which just goes to prove what I've always said: People are generally imbecilic--To wit again on't forget, no Jews were killed on 911 because they all stayed home that day--
As for Greenspan, something tells me that the most influential economist in modern times, (embraced by both Dem and Rep administrations) might know a little bit about our Oil driven motivations

Ted,
One thing I've never denied is that oil is the underlying reason for our strong involvement in the Middle East. I've come right out and said so on more than one occasion. I also think a lot of the people who scream "no blood for oil" would be among the first to start bitching when the price of gas goes up to $6 per gallon because we've lost control of the region to those who would have no qualms about seeing western economies go down the tubes.
Wars have been fought over economic reasons for many centuries, and they will be for many more to come. No great power is going to stand idley by and allow their national standard of living to be damaged by outside actors who don't have their best interest at heart.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:50 pm

Relax Barry, I wasn't arguing with you--Nice going this weekend---The big Sweep!

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:53 pm

Ted wrote:Relax Barry, I wasn't arguing with you--Nice going this weekend---The big Sweep!

I wasn't arguing either, Ted. Simply stating an opinion.

The Phils.........ah, the Phils. They had a great weekend in NYC, yet gained no ground whatsoever in the wild card race. And they're still probably too far out to have a chance of catching the Mets for the division. They take it down to the last week of the season every year and fall just short of making the post season. It's an annual right of early autumn in this town.

BTW, on the polling and crazy conspiracy theories, it makes my blood boil that there are probably hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe the Jews were tipped off in advance on 9/11 and there was actually a Zionist conspiracy that day. So imagine how disappointing it is to see that millions of Americans are just as nuts.

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:06 pm

As if we need any more evidence on how out-of-hand our political discourse has gotten:

Manilow calls Hasselbeck 'dangerous'

Sept. 17, 2007

U.S. recording artist Barry Manilow canceled a planned appearance on "The View" because he doesn't like conservative panelist Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

"I strongly disagree with her views," Manilow said in an exclusive statement to TMZ. "I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her."

Manilow was due to stop by Tuesday's show to promote his new album "Greatest Songs of the Seventies."

© Copyright United Press International.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:40 pm

Manilow and Hasselbeck --That's a regular Algonquin round table

As for the dolts who don't believe this or believe that, don't forget, Armstrong was in a studio somewhere in New Mexico when he took that small step for mankind

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:41 pm

Ted wrote:Manilow and Hasselbeck --That's a regular Algonquin round table
As for the dolts who don't believe this or believe that, don't forget, Armstrong was in a studio somewhere in New Mexico when he took that small step for mankind

I remember a movie based on that Moon landing conspiracy theory. One of the stars was..............O.J.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:50 pm

One of the stars was..............O.J.

I wish someone would tell me( in light of the OJ behind bars 24 hour a day new cycle) just what kind of world we live in

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:52 pm

Ted wrote:
One of the stars was..............O.J.
I wish someone would tell me( in light of the OJ behind bars 24 hour a day new cycle) just what kind of world we live in

I usually have a TV near my desk tuned to CNN without the audio on at work, but not today. Have the all-day news networks been going Juice-crazy?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:56 pm

Have the all-day news networks been going Juice-crazy?

You're kidding right? It's non-stop and intense

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:17 pm

Ted wrote:
Have the all-day news networks been going Juice-crazy?
You're kidding right? It's non-stop and intense

No. I really haven't checked in on one of the all-news networks since Friday.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:49 pm

Barry Z wrote:A friend sent me a copy of poll results, I believe from Pew, that showed what I thought was a staggering number of Americans who believe their own government either knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing to stop it or were actually involved in planning the attacks.

I saw that poll too. I think it's somewhere between 30 and 40%. This is the gift of Watergate that keeps on giving.

We've gotten to the point where way too many Americans don't just disagree with the opposition; they think they're monsters.

I certainly understand this sentiment. I tried to explain the strength of the American system to Rosie and the others who weren't Americans on Baldrick's board. It's not that your side wins often enough to keep you engaged. It's that you have a reasonable assurance that when you lose, you can still rely on a certain degree of fundamental continuity and that your opponents won't dismantle everything and reconstitute it in their own image. That's not true any more. I watched with horror the Democrats reaction to their loss of Congress 12 years ago. They talked like Nazis had taken over the government. I listened to them defend their cozy programs for enslaving inner city blacks, knowing full well those programs did nothing for the blacks and merely guaranteed a stable voting population for the Democrats. I watched them challenge the election results in Florida, something that even Nixon wasn't venal enough to do. They fight like street thugs; their leaders are craven organized criminals. They denigrate everything accomplished by the Republicans because the latter began to pick apart the frauds on which so much Democratic rule was based. They talk like a Republican in office is an offense against nature, not because the Democrats do great things for the middle class, but because they aren't in a position to maximize their opportunities for profitable corruption. I despise Democratic "leaders" and believe that the ran and file are fatally ignorant or they wouldn't vote for the miserable SOBs.

The article mentioned how he and his co-horts used to laugh when Brits, both commentators and average citizens, would blame the attacks on British foreign policy; as if to say they deserved it.

Many of the most visible people on whom the Democrats rely for donations and fund raisers believe the same thing about America. The Democrats don't care. They don't have a Sister Solja inspiration among them. They don't care what their whoring after these contributors has done to American politics. Take money from the Army of the Peoples' Republic of China? No problem. Let Moveon.org slime their way thru the campaign? No problem. All that matters is keeping Republicans out of office.

I consider this a struggle to the death for the soul of the nation, the result of which must be the utter destruction of the Democratic party and all their practices and programs for the last 80 years.

John - You once asked me how much of a partisan I was. This should answer your question.

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:33 pm

It's a two-way street. I know you agree with me that the Clinton impeachment was a sham. But the GOP went after him right from the minute he took office and were determined to take him down at any cost. It enrages me to think of the extent to which they tried to undermine the electoral process by which Clinton fairly won office, no matter what you think of his policies.

Then the Dems, enraged by the GOP treatment of Clinton and the Florida vote fiasco, turned around the did the same thing to Bush. Both sides only recognize the authority of the president if its a president from their own party. It's pathetic and it's doing a lot of damage to the country in terms of national security.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:00 am

Barry Z wrote:But the GOP went after him right from the minute he took office and were determined to take him down at any cost.

I don't agree. You might have a point about talk-radio, but there was no widespread effort to delegitimize Clinton in 1993 analogous to what I have seen from the Democrats efforts to delegitimize Bush the instant he took office. The Democrats ran Congress for Clinton's first 2 years. His failure to court the Congress run by his own party have been well documented, just as is that Congress' disinterest in Clinton's agenda.It wasn't a Republican Congress that delivered the devastating loss on health care. It was the Republicans that helped deliver NAFTA when Clinton's own party voted against it in large numbers.

The impeachment was a direct result of two occurances: Clinton's lying under oath; and the rancor resulting from the Government shutdown. I continue to believe it was worth the effort to learn if the American public
can tolerate a president, a lawyer, and the highest law officer in the land, who lied under oath in a matter of personal consequence. Once it was known, I don't think the Congress had any choice but to impeach. If the Republicans had been any good at message, it would not have ended so badly for them. Now we know that the American public don't give a rip about a president lying under oath. I'm sure that will be a great relief to every subsequent office-holder.

It enrages me to think of the extent to which they tried to undermine the electoral process by which Clinton fairly won office

I think you have misremembered the history of that period, Barry, and your rage is unjustified.

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:11 am

We won't be agreeing on the GOP's treatment of Clinton any time soon. Although I don't think it excuses the irresponsibility of the way the Dems have behaved with regard to Bush the past few years. It's even more unforgivable during war IMO. But again, it's also unforgivable for the President to use the war as a political club, rather than a unifying tool. Based on what I read about Rove when he quit, that was probably his doing. Both sides have plenty of blame for the current political atmosphere in D.C. and the country at large.

Anyway, with regard to the Greenspan quote on the war and oil that many Democrats are having a fit over (I'm speaking generally.....not on this site), this tidbit from Jonah Goldberg's daily column:

<<<Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential." >>>

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:07 pm

Barry Z wrote:We won't be agreeing on the GOP's treatment of Clinton any time soon.

We have to have something to disagree about!

Both sides have plenty of blame for the current political atmosphere in D.C. and the country at large.

Very conciliatory of you, I must say. It's not enough for me, given how long the Dems have had to do so much damage. I'm not yet at the point where I think Republicans have to prevail by "any means necessary," especially since they are the only party with any ideas about the desirability of freedom, but I can't say I won't get there one day, especially if I have to put up with 8 years of Hillary Clinton doing George Soros' evil work.

Anyway, with regard to the Greenspan quote on the war and oil that many Democrats are having a fit over (I'm speaking generally.....not on this site), this tidbit from Jonah Goldberg's daily column:

<<<Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential." >>>

I'm glad you ran this down and put it up. I was going to try to find it and post it later today.

The Classical Music Guide Forums

Greenspan's book.

Greenspan's book.

Re: Greenspan's book.

Re: Greenspan's book.

Re: Greenspan's book.

For Brendan

Greenspan

Re: Greenspan

Re: Greenspan

Who is online