Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Political Threads

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
In '04 however, I'm going to vote Democrat. Whoever they nominate has my vote. I just don't believe this country can withstand another 4 years of Dubya at the helm.

I really could care less about who will get the nomination for the democrats.. Wdumbya has turned this country into a complete discrace and a laughing stock.. It is sad that we are currently in the state that we are in and you will still have people who continue to slurp that oh so bitta kool aid and believe that we are "safer" and in better shape. What a joke in itself and they they will come back and say "well by golly if we had a democrat in office during 9-11 then who knows what would have happened." Come on.... 04" will bring change.

If only people would take the heavy blinders off

3 5 0
 
Thanks, Mar

I'll look into the Green Party. I haven't honestly paid much attention, but I think I'll look. Still gonna vote Democrat for President in '04, but there's other elections to look at as well.
 
Last edited:
I love it...

You're right, 350. I love it when people confidently, with an all-knowing tone in their voice, say "What if Al Gore had been President instead of Bush"? Did I miss the part where Al Gore was given a trial run as President? Did he somehow prove that being able to speak in complete sentences would make him less resolute in the face of adversity? I love all the junior Miss Cleos running around with their crystal balls...it's great for a laugh, if nothing else.
 
Typhoon1244 said:
Gentleman, I have achieved greatness. I have received a P.M. from an individual who thinks I'm a "flamming conservative a__hole in disguse [his spelling]" because I agree that Bill Clinton was a liar.

Does that make me a "moderate?"

Anyway, one thing I have noticed from browsing Flightinfo.com for a while: moderates and liberals are generally more secure in their beliefs than conservatives. You don't see them constantly posting threads that bash and belittle Republicans. Conservatives, however, apparently find it necessary to constantly thump their chests and assert their intellectual superiority. It's as if they're afraid we'll forget what their views are if they don't continuously remind us. It's a little sad.

And it's probably making generaltso really mad! :D
It's funny how perception morphs according to your beliefs. In your post, you could swap the words liberal and conservative, and that would reflect exactly how I feel. I think a lot of conservatives would agree with me.

For what it's worth, I'm on the central side of conservative. Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz to see where you fall (not just you, Typhoon, I mean anyone who wants to).
 
Pappy O'Daniel: "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! You don't tell your pappy how to court the electorate. We ain't one-at-a-timin' here. We're MASS communicating!"
 
Bush's to do list...

1.Find Osama.
2.Find WMD in Iraq.
3.Find Hussein.
4.Let the nation know what Iraq will REALLY cost in terms of $$ and lives.
5.Restore trust between the U.S and countries who once supported us.
6.Learn to speak in public.

That's just for starters.
I'm waiting for people who once said the president should not be blamed for the troubles in the economy to start saying, "see, our president is restoring our economy." :rolleyes:

That would really be hypocritical.

I sure hope more people wake up and realize this man causes more uncertainty, than terrorism alone.
 
Timebuilder: I must go on the record *ONE MORE TIME* and inform you that I consider your previous post in bad taste and generally ill informed.

I'm not surprised, but I will ask you to do something. I want you to refute what is "ill informed" in my post. Without going into another long historical tome, I can say with 100% confidence that I know the homosexual movement inside and out from my broadcasting experience. When you work next to people every day, and see the political handouts and newspapers, and have the endless conversations, and listen to the specialty radio programmming with titles like "Sunshine Gaydream" and (get this one) "Amazon Country" you can speak, as I do, with a certain degree of authority on this subject.

But hey, if you disagree, let's hear it. Or just call me some names. I certainly don't expect any substantive debate from 350, but I do expect one from you, ol buddy.

Just because the frickin' thread is titled "Political Threads" does that mean you can just arbitrarily pick any topic that flies into your head?

Last time I checked, this is still a country where free information and discusssion is the bedrock of freedom.



and before you know it there's this feeding frenzy of collective opinion based on nothing more than a group of fears/prejudices/hates or just sheer laziness.

If you want to do a James Carville impression, you'll have to try harder. Runabunchawordstogether like you're tlaking really fast, and stick a few keywords like "y'all" in every once in a while.

But right now, all you are doing is throwing stones at people, people who are talking about issues, which is a completely American thing to do.



But speaking for myself I have always maintained that we are individuals first. The very first sin in critical thinking is to begin from a position of generalization.

It's not a sin, it is the very heart of how humans think. It is a neccessity to separating ideas out of chaos.

Certainly, it is a very small element, but it is something we need. For instance, if a street attack is reported by the victim to be a small asian man with a knife, you don't go out and make a sweep of tall black men. Generalizations have all kinds of importance in issues, too, becuase we are social animals, all of us, and birds of a feather DO flock together.

Generalization a "sin"? No.

Free from tradition
Freee from dogma
Free from fear

I don't know what kind of a liberal you might be, but in over 23 years as a liberal democrat I saw nothing of this mantra.

There is a tradition of separating people from their money for liberal programs.

There is a dogma of worshipping government as a "god".

There is a fear that people will stop voting for them if they truly learn to be self sufficient and productive.

They're right. They will probably become republicans.

But don't take my word for it. Read Zell Miller's book. A demoract all his life, and a senator. If that isn't good enough for you, than I don't know what will satisfy you.



If you're conservative, well, then that says to me you're happy with the way things are and you'd prefer them to not change.

Horse hockey. When have I every given you the idea that things need not change?

Kids go to school in gang colors?
A tweleve year old girl gives head to a thirteen year old boy in a Texas science class, and their mothers want the whole thing covered up and painted over?
Our proponents of a "colorblind society" agree to the idea of "race being used as a factor" in college admissions? Is that racism or did I miss something in Dr. King's speeches?

You want a bigger list? I could go on...



Spew disrespectful nonsense and use language that diminishes a fellow American and I'm sorry but I must retort.

I'm calling. Ante up. You have no cards. You must fold.

I'll tell you why. I never bet unless I have the cards.


I'm old enough to remember when the republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. These days, we have Clinton with a budget surplus, and Bush with record deficits, while engineering the largest increase in the size of government in US history. How times have changed.

Not only have times changes since I walked to the polls with my father, wearing my little "I like Ike" button on my jacket on that chilly November evening, but extraordinary events have happened to our country.

The Clinton budget surplus was based on a peacetime economy that was set to go "bust" because stock prices were based almost 100% on their speculative value.

The 9-11 attack meant that we had to not only give back tax money to stimulate the economy, which I predict will improve even more than the recent ecpouraging numbers, but it also demanded that we we spend a lot more in old areas and even create some new areas. "Providing for the common defense" is a primary function of government.

This spending isn't for a meals on wheels program for elderly illegal aliens, it is to defend our freedom and our very nation against terrorism.

Deficits for now? Yep, they're a neccessity. We'll get over it.

Honestly, I vote Libertarian more than any other party. I truly believe we need a third party in this country.

Even as a liberal, I thought the idea of a third party was a good thing. I still do. However, in its current incarnbnation, the third party tends to draw off more people from the republican party that the democrats. I'll cite the recent Bill Clinton victory over Bush when the little general ran as a third part candidate.

In other words, the third party is a spoiler party.



I really could care less about who will get the nomination for the democrats.. Wdumbya has turned this country into a complete discrace and a laughing stock.. It is sad that we are currently in the state that we are in and you will still have people who continue to slurp that oh so bitta kool aid and believe that we are "safer" and in better shape. What a joke in itself and they they will come back and say "well by golly if we had a democrat in office during 9-11 then who knows what would have happened." Come on.... 04" will bring change.

The laughing stock days were the Clinton days.

But you knew that. I have met Al Gore, and he is a very nice man, not nearly as wooden as he always appears on camera.

But president? No, we are far better off with George Bush than any other current contender for the White House that I have seen. That's an opinon based on my experience in politics, and draws heavily on my experience as a democrat.

Do you have as much experience as I do, 350? I don't think so. Have you seen the inner workings of both major parties?

I have.

While not "safe" (how can anyone be truly safe?) we are far more secure due to the actions taken by our president and his administration.

I can say this because I know that the democrat approach would be to take American security and sovereignty and turn it over to the United Nations, where the enemies of America sit on comittees that are a best, a joke. The democrats would seek to coddle, talk, coddle, plead, coddle, beg, pacify, appease, placate, and mollify our enemies, enemies that have their only goal being our destruction.

Now, ask yourself: has any of this worked before with this bunch? Did it work for Clinton with the North Koreans? Sadaam? Osama? No. It didn't.



You're right, 350. I love it when people confidently, with an all-knowing tone in their voice, say "What if Al Gore had been President instead of Bush"? Did I miss the part where Al Gore was given a trial run as President?

Thankfully, we ALL missed that part!! :D

I'm waiting for people who once said the president should not be blamed for the troubles in the economy to start saying, "see, our president is restoring our economy."



Bush inhertited a failed economy built on stock speculation. The accounting fruad at Arthur Anderson and Enron was already fully underway during the Clinton administration.

There are two paths we could have chosen: one without tax rebates, and one with them. We chose the second path, and the results are showing up right now, in the recent economic numbers.

We would not have those gains if we had not returned that money to Americans, particularly those Americans who pay over HALF the taxes in America.

That's about as simply as I could put it for you.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the simplification

So are you saying that the war on Iraq did not contribute to the economic downturn?
Bloated stocks, and 9/11 were not Bush's fault. I'll give you that.

But declaring war on Iraq "was" the Bush administration's doing.
Besides all the controversy it caused worlwide, in this nation, it promoted uncertainty.
Businesses braced themselves, they cut back on jobs, and were afraid to invest. People did not know what to expect with Bush's half-baked propaganda to go to war with Iraq so they also became more cautious with how they spent. Jobs were just not secure.
I believe this "uncertainty" is what was putting a choke hold on the economy. Even more than terrorism alone.
I would not like to see another four more years of this.
Who will Bush want to go after next?
Will it be credible this time?
Those tax rebates will only hold the economy up until the next attack or war. Something I feel is very possible if Bush gets re-elected.
I got $400 from the rebates. I have not spent them yet.
I'm sure others who got the same amount bought a TV or something. Does the president really believe if everyone in the U.S. buys a TV, our economic problems will be solved?
We need to have steady employment. We need to get people back to work. Wars and untrustworthy government officials don't help this cause.


BTW, I'm not defending any political party,just expressing my opinion.


:)
 
Thank you for flying Greyhound

Greyhound--Thanks for the backup. I couldn't have said it better.

Timebuilder--Thanks for the response. It was sincere, respectful and well thought out.

Here's what I've learned about you in almost five years of reading your posts: You're sort of a chameleon. And the problem I have with most of your posting is that it reeks of CNN Crossfire or a Point/Counterpoint format.

It takes a serious effort on my part to draw you out of that mode. Thankfully, you're mostly amenable but it ain't easy.

I blame this broadcasting background of yours. I realize it's the nature of the business but it drives me *up the friggin' wall*!!!

I much prefer the interview format (Charlie Rose is a favorite).

But listen, I'm not going to ignore your questions but I just want to say up front that I refuse to debate the politics of homosexuality on this BBS. It's a very complicated and emotional issue and I simply won't do it.

My response: I don't listen (have never heard of) those shows you mention. I don't watch prime time TV. I don't get canvassed with leaflets in Fairbanks, Alaska.

I have gay friends and family members and the only thing that comes into my mind when I read what you wrote is that you are being suffocated by polemics.

Child molestation?
Promoting AIDS?

PLEASE! Be reasonable!

This is like the "Liberal Hypocrisy" thread. Are only Liberals hypocritical?

Don't straight people molest children?
Haven't straight guys deliberately infected women?

You know what the answers are.

Like I said, I don't want to (I refuse to) debate homosexuality. I'm trying to make a point.

The point is: Serious middle ground is lost when only the most extreme and perverted facets of an enormously complicated issue are offered for discussion. Usually this done in the interest of expediency. You know, the 30-minute show. Or we just need to fire back something before the commercial.

Another big barrier to honest discussion is the "They're Taking Over" mentality.

Conservatives often criticize Liberals for being 'Victims Waiting To Happen.'

Indeed, there's the old joke about the Conservative just being a Liberal who got mugged.

How cynical. How frightened.

Is that how you want to go through life?

Scared of the Lefties/Commies/Pinkos?
Scared of the Homos?
Scared of the Ragheads?
Scared of losing "Our Way of Life"?

I think it's brave to change. I think it takes a certain courage to stand up and say, "Um, I don't quite get your point but I'm secure enough to let down my guard long enough to listen."

If letting down my guard means being victimized then count me in.

It's like flying in the Bush. To be good at it you have to expose yourself to certain risks. If safety is like an onion, every now and then, in the bush, you have to peel away a few layers and become more exposed.

Sometimes people get hurt.

Usually they learn lessons and develop skills not many other people get to use on a regular basis.

Helen Keller said: Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all.

Security and Safety are illusions.

To live fully we must open up, take risks, make mistakes and get hurt.

That, or we don't grow.

This is what being Liberal means to me.
 
Time -

I respect your posts when it comes to aviation but as for your political posts they are complete Bullsh!t and nonsense... Quite frankly they reak of complete "ignorance" and whacked ideas that are pretty far off in right field however they do give quite a few on the board a few good laughs. This whole media bit that you were in and your background, you want a fuc$in cookie?? Who the fuc$ really cares?, you have no more experience in politics than anyone else on this board so get off your little high horse since it is getting old. You having to "sell" yourself on "why" you are so "informed" on each and every political thread while the rest of us are not in "the know" is a complete joke, re-read some of your responses and you will see how comical they are. Absolute nonsense and bull$hit, get off the kool aid bud.... Oops, but you met Al so you must be in the know..(no sarcasm intended)

Bush is a fuc$in idiot which is pretty clear... YOU can thank him for not having a job too present day TB.. (but I am sure you will post some sort of nonsense in response to that):D :D

Osama, Saddam, WMD, Economy, homeless. etc, etc, yeah TB Wdumbya is surely on a roll....:D :D What a complete disgrace to have this man as president of this great nation.


Keep buying into the propaganda since someone must..

3 5 0
 
You should listen to 350, his positions are well thought out and demonstrate an intellect that anyone with education should admire. One certainly could never accuse him of mindlessly parroting the rantings of the intelligentsia in the vain hope that it might become believable by saying it loud enough and often enough. No, 350 states his proud positions with a clarity akin to nails on a blackboard, so that no matter how unpleasant, everyone knows what he is doing.

Way to go 350, keep it up, you just may singlehandedly subvert the causes you believe in so strongly.
 
Timebuilder

People like you are VERY DANGEROUS. Fundamentalism is just dangerous. Nothing good has EVER come of it.

And Typhoon...I love you man.
 
But declaring war on Iraq "was" the Bush administration's doing. Besides all the controversy it caused worlwide, in this nation, it promoted uncertainty.

Actually, the war in Iraq we have today was really a continuation of the Gulf War. That war "ended" because of certain conditions that Sadaam had agreed to abide by. When He didn't abide by the agreements he had made, there were sanctions and resolutions. Lots of them. He had many opportunities to allow a more transparent oversight of his activities. There are several possible reason he didn't allow this. It could be pride, it could be his sense of national sovereignty, or, and this is the important part, it could be because he was actively engaged in conitinuing he previously proven WMD programs.

You used the word "uncertainty". It's a very important word. In fact, it is because of this uncertainty that we had to err on the side of direct confrontation and inspection to determine exactly what was going on. The freeing of the Iraqi people, the possible foothold of democracy, even the end of the tortures and mass killings, are only the icing on the cake of determining exactly what was going on, and forcing an end to any posibility of WMD production or use from Iraq as a base.



Businesses braced themselves, they cut back on jobs, and were afraid to invest. People did not know what to expect with Bush's half-baked propaganda to go to war with Iraq so they also became more cautious with how they spent. Jobs were just not secure.

In my memory, jobs haven't been "secure" since the early sixties, when people retired after 25 or 30 years service with a gold watch and a pension.

Truthfully, having a war on terror isn't an idea that makes people feel secure, but it is certainly better than the feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that doing nothing brings. Most of the negatives you list, such as " braced themselves, cut back on jobs, afraid to invest, did not know what to expect, became more cautious, and just not secure" are all a part of an economic recession, ANY economic recession.

Yes, these factors are aggravated by the current environment that the terrorists have finally brought to our own shores, but it isn't the fault of our taking actions against the terrorists. The fact that the economy is recovering now is due to many factors, including but not exclusively: 1) the cyclical nature of economic activity 2) the stimulus of tax relief for those who pay the MOST in taxes, which does not depend upon the small sums that you and I recieved, and 3) the faith of the American people in the current leadership, which, unless something totallly unforseen happens, will be reelected, despite what 350 says.

Timebuilder--Thanks for the response. It was sincere, respectful and well thought out.

Thank you. Even though you make me a little crazy on occaision, I think my previous experiences help me to understand where you are coming from.



But listen, I'm not going to ignore your questions but I just want to say up front that I refuse to debate the politics of homosexuality on this BBS. It's a very complicated and emotional issue and I simply won't do it.

I responded to the post because it is important to understand the contradictory and self defeating behavior that is so deeply ingrained in the homosexual movement. If someone like myself can't speak about my direct contact and observations, then who can bring these problems to light?

One of my college roomates is dead. Not because he was an IV drug user, because he wasn't. It's because he refused to stop engaging in a behavior and a lifestyle that put him at risk of death. He believed that he had a "right" to engage in this behavior, and he saw himself as a "martyr to love" because of his willingness to take on this risk of death.

Truly, my friend, he would prpbably be alive today if he had refused to engage in this behavior.



My response: I don't listen (have never heard of) those shows you mention. I don't watch prime time TV. I don't get canvassed with leaflets in Fairbanks, Alaska.

These were not national programs, but originated at a well know ivy league radio station on the east coast where I volunteered my time and broadcasting expertise when not working at one of the commercial outlets where I was employed. Kind of a weird mix, I agree: liberal activist/hot rodder/broadcaster/writer, but hey, like you said, I can appear to be a little like a chameleon. :)



Child molestation?
Promoting AIDS?

Let's be clear: the national gay rights groups have sought to distance themselves from the controversy involving pedophiles, but their board members share the same people as NAMBLA. This does not mean to imply that all adult homosexual men are child molesters. What it DOES suggest is that the same ivory tower, ivy league APA types believe that BOTH the gay lifestyle and "man-boy love" are somehow "natural" activities which should not be "judged" or prohibited by society. I disagree with both of those positions, and I disagreed with them BEFORE I became a Christian and discovered that God disagrees with these activities, too.

I didn't use the word "promoting" AIDS, but the lifestyle in question DOES serve to continue the process of infection which has caused thousands of deaths. The size of the "AIDS quilt" in Washington that we see displayed is a testament to the unwillingness of many people to stop the behavior. How many of them were not aware of the risk of contracting AIDS?Stopping the behavior, whether it is gay sex or IV drug use, eliminates one from the possibility of being infected and dying from AIDS. There is no debate on this fact.



Don't straight people molest children?

Sure, but we don't need the APA trying to tell us that ANY kind of molestation is reasonable and acceptable, any more than we need them telling us that the gay lifestyle is normal and acceptable. Its the poeple these two activities have in common as their supporters that is a big problem for me. It destroys any credibility that the promoters of the gay lifestyle may have had.

Haven't straight guys deliberately infected women?

Yes. How did these straight men become infected? They were exposed to a population that has become larger due primarily to the failure to control behavior. In essence, these straight men had a greater chance of contacting the disease in the first place due to the irresponsible behavior of others and themselves.



Indeed, there's the old joke about the Conservative just being a Liberal who got mugged.

After I was robbed, I voted as a democrat in my first election at 18 and remained a liberal for another 23 years.

The truth of that old expression is that liberals often think of the "poor and disadvantaged" as having no choice in their fate, and see them as 100% "victims of our oppressive and capitlaist dominated system". Being mugged by someone who is making a clear choice to contuinue a life as a criminal usually jars such a person from their "wish it was so" world and makes them reconsider what they had previously thought of as immutable principles. That isn't what happened in my case, but you can see how that could make a person rethink their position.

Scared of the Lefties/Commies/Pinkos?
Scared of the Homos?
Scared of the Ragheads?
Scared of losing "Our Way of Life"?

You know, I can never understand why intelligent people might be proceeding of the assumption of "fear".

I don't know anyone, not a single person, who is "scared" of any of these things.

All of these things, however, are worthy of our attention.

We have seen the failure of left wing politics, and we know that these ideas are the antithesis of the founding principles of out system of government and our capitalist society, which have made us the one country on earth that continuse to draw people here every day. They are running away from their socialist countires and coming here at a gallop. I'm not scared.

I am concerned that there are people who continue to promote the homosexual lifestyle as a viabale "alternative" to the traditional family unit. I'm not scared.

We need to identify and be wary of those who are here to casuse death and mayhem. Some may be "ragheads", some not. Recently, all of those who seek to come to America to try and destroy us have certain common attributes, which we cannot ignore. That said, I'm not scared.

Our way of life is an important aspect of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It is worth fighting for and it is worth working to promote and protect. But, I'm not scared.

And, I am a reformed liberal.

That's my two cents. Thanks for another stimulating discussion. :)
 
Last edited:
You should listen to 350, his positions are well thought out and demonstrate an intellect that anyone with education should admire

Okay, let's have a look:



This whole media bit that you were in and your background, you want a fuc$in cookie?? Who the fuc$ really cares?, you have no more experience in politics than anyone else on this board so get off your little high horse since it is getting old. You having to "sell" yourself on "why" you are so "informed" on each and every political thread while the rest of us are not in "the know" is a complete joke, re-read some of your responses and you will see how comical they are. Absolute nonsense and bull$hit, get off the kool aid bud.... Oops, but you met Al so you must be in the know..(no sarcasm intended)

I stand corrected.

What I see is a disrespectful young man, young enough to be so full of himself that he is unable to understand that someone who has ben around longer, written on the subject, worked as a professional, and lived life on both sides of the political fence just may have something of value to say to him.

I see nothing in his posts of substance. All I find is mud throwing. Can you point out to me something he has written that even approaches the dialog of someone like Mar? If I have missed it, please, point it out to me.

350 strikes me as a Howard Stern listener from his attitude. Of course, I don't know him, but that young and cocky "I got the world by a string and I have nothin' to say" attitude almost drips with saracsm. Someone quoted some Shakespeare the other day, and I think it is appropriate here, in part:

Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

--From Macbeth (V, v, 19)

I much prefer the value of a good discussion in the arena of ideas. Most of the time, I find it. But not in the constant posts saying "in 04 there will be a change".

I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Political Threads

FL000 said:
Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz to see where you fall (not just you, Typhoon, I mean anyone who wants to).
Here's where I stand, apparently...
From www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
According to your answers, your political philosophy is centrist.

Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.
And for the record, the quiz placed me in the corner closest to "Libertarian" and "Right/Conservative."

And I answered honestly! :eek:
 
Re: I can't STOP myself!

mar said:
I believe Typhoon does an excellent job at critical thinking. Maybe too good because that poor bastard can see both sides to every coin.
Thanks...I think. :confused:
Originally posted by Herman Bloom
And Typhoon...I love you man.
Again: thanks...I think. :eek:
 
I like you too, Ty, even if Herman thinks I am "dangerous". I haven't been called that since I was an eight year old, speeding through the neighborhood on my bike!! :D

According to what that site call "centrist", I think I fall into that category, too. Except for the idea of excessive liberty. Excessive liberty????:eek:

And for the record, the quiz placed me in the corner closest to "Libertarian" and "Right/Conservative."

As I thought, we have more in common than one might expect.

Cool. :D
 
Last edited:
Timebuilder said:
As I thought, we have more in common than one might expect.
Is it okay if I still think W. is a simple-minded, arrogant sack of #@$%?
 
Sure, as long as you continue to articulate why you think so. That's more than I get from some people here.

:D :D :D
 

Latest resources

Back
Top