It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
If you remember a lot of senior workers at the CIA left because of the Whitehouse. The war is getting worse in some eyes and someone has to pay for it like George Tenet did.

Surely you don't think that they left because their ideals meant more than a paycheck, do you? They were deadwood - forced out.

Did you know that at that time, there were actually CIA agents tasked with the job of providing "soft leaks" to the media? I was totally flabbergasted when I learned that!. Imagine - your CIA providing leaks to the media!

Doesn't something seem wrong with that picture???


I wound where all this was when the CIA operative was released knowingly out of the Whitehouse yet no one has been charged?


Are you referring to Valerie Plame? The one who led to Lewis Libby being INDICTED over, though he was never charged with revealing her?




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by elderban
Sure, they may tout that they have captured a "terrorist" or two using this method (although I have yet to see any evidence of this), but what about all of the other stories that they DON'T tell you about? For example, since September 11, 2001, there have been over 2,500 noted abuses of the Patriot Act - instances where the Patriot Act shouldn't have been used at all or instances where they obtained information under the Patriot Act but were not supposed to. I'm sure if someone were to dig deep enough, there would probably be thousands more.


Let's make a deal, an exchange. I'll provide you with proof of two thwarted terrorist attacks and/or capture of those same terrorists made possible by this intelligence gathering. You provide me with - as you put it -

over 2,500 noted abuses of the Patriot Act - instances where the Patriot Act shouldn't have been used at all or instances where they obtained information under the Patriot Act but were not supposed to. I'm sure if someone were to dig deep enough, there would probably be thousands more
.

Five thousand instances seems fair. Deal?


What's that you say? The numbers seem unfair? Well then maybe you should be a little less dramatic, since they are your numbers. Intentionally inflating numbers for effect is not necessary or wise, since you are sure to be called on it.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Para!!! If you are still watching this thread, this is for you... Oh and JSOBecky too.

Have just watched Bushie's news conference. While I still disagree with that is going on in the NSA, there have been other and greater sins promulgated in the name of state security.

However, having said that, after watching Bushie... I think he is a common man, probably just about average, maybe, caught up in the greater acts being played out on the world stage. I will, however, based on what he was saying, stand down and give him an opportunity to do that which he says he is trying to do.

Present and accounted for, things have been pretty busy for the last day or two so you’ll have to excuse the delay. Whatever he said must have been earth shattering! In any case, glad to see the change of heart, if only temporary.

You did touch on an important point that has shaped my views about this administration though, and that is that President Bush seems to be a pretty average person. Ivy league and whatever else, he just doesn’t come across as the spear of evil entirely bent on world domination to me; he can hardly assemble an intelligent, articulate sentence off the cuff. I don’t see how so many can imagine delusional visions of absolute power and dictatorial rule dancing around in his head. And while politics might have played some role in the latest executive order, it seems to be far from center stage. As you said, he seems to be caught up in the larger events of the times and more or less acting on what seems the best course of action to him and his advisors.

Another point that many fail to address is that Bush is on his way out. Coming into the last strong third or so of his presidency, much of the legislation will be around for the next president to use or abuse, Democrat or Republican. That is why turning this into such a partisan issue makes little sense to me.




Understand this, though, the man is edging into areas where bad things can happen... I still think power corrupts, and based on things he has said, and done in the past, in my opinion, he is corrupt.

I just want you to know that I couldn’t agree with you more here, sans the corruption part. We are treading dangerous ground and must do so with the utmost caution lest we make Mr. Orwell into a prophet or repeat the mistakes of so many that have come before us. I by no means promote blanket support for the administration simply because I am a conservative, but because in this particular case I agree with the possible risks and rewards of the policy.



Originally posted by Pyros
...Intelligence is not a precise science, where you select the single point of weakness and gather only that tidbit of data that you need. Intelligence is a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking up all information so that it can be processed, categorized, sorted, and analyzed. In order to harvest the kernel of wheat, you must separate alot of chaff.

This is a very, very important point that is not brought up nearly enough. Intelligence is far from the vast matrix of absolute truth it is often portrayed as from which one can simply pull information at will. It is much more a nebula of half-truths and lies from cutouts and informants that must somehow be translated into a succinct and effective foreign policy. When it goes wrong, everyone knows about it; when it goes right it gets put in a file cabinet somewhere. I challenge any of the non-Arab critics of the human intelligence that came out of pre-war Iraq to put feet on the ground in Tehran right now shows us what kind of useful information you can generate about their weapons programs.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Jsobecky- The men in the black suits are looking for you. Something about another special assignment for you.
Do not tell anyone. You are to tell your wife you are going to Aruba. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, will be at your local post office box ####.

Good luck, and dont forget to post once in awhile.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Wait, let me see if I understand this correctly: it is not fair to jump to conclusions, especially concerning the leaker of this leaked national security and possible Constitution violation(s) issue, but on the other hand, it is simply AOK to jump to conclusions that the Bush administration has indeed violated the Constitution and the "rule of law"?


Aren't these two different things altogether? I mean isn't it on the record now that the White House circumnavigated the checks and balance system to do this? Isn't it admitted that these communications were tapped without FISA approval? So what assumption is being made?

On the other hand, what evidence is being produced about claims against the person who leaked the information?

I see two different circumstances here unless I'm missing something.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I mean isn't it on the record now that the White House circumnavigated the checks and balance system to do this? Isn't it admitted that these communications were tapped without FISA approval? So what assumption is being made?

This, as was posted before, with link to the actual FISA:


The voices of outrage misread the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person" (more on this term below); and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees. Mr. Bush says he has complied with these laws.

No Crime in Bush's Spying





seekerof



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I mean isn't it on the record now that the White House circumnavigated the checks and balance system to do this? Isn't it admitted that these communications were tapped without FISA approval? So what assumption is being made?

The assumption of guilt for starters.
The assumption laws were broken.
The assumption of circumnavigation, etc.
This was missed since I originally quoted it, as was previously posted, with link to the actual FISA:


The voices of outrage misread the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person" (more on this term below); and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees. Mr. Bush says he has complied with these laws.

No Crime in Bush's Spying





seekerof

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
*double post*

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Except for the domestic part. I believe that's the story here. We all know our government spies on other countries. We wouldn't have the CIA if we weren't doing that.

The story is that they spied on people within the United States with out following procedure. And the story as reported by the "leak" and/or "leaks" is that they knew damned well they were doing it because they voiced concerns about what was happening.

That's the story.

And you are, also, apparently wrong:


Bush's actions surprised many lawyers familiar with the court's workings, because federal law allows the US attorney general to authorize wiretaps without waiting for a warrant, as long as federal agents later present evidence to a judge.


Bush bypassed compliant court on wiretapping

And that article is worth a read since it is being revealed not only by the media, but confirmed by the legal community that the FISA court has been compliant with warrant requests for 20 years and that still wasn't good enough. The administration had to have even more power than that.


Bush and his advisers have argued that the need for rapid monitoring of international telephone calls involving terrorism suspects had justified his decision to allow agents to bypass the surveillance law.


The above argument does not give any weight to failing to inform the court AFTERWARD, as required.



[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Accordingly and apparently, to you, I am always wrong or mistaken.
Nothing new to be told by you again that I am mistaken or wrong, eh? The Rove situation comes to mind, among other topics.


Those "US persons" [also explained in a previous post by me] spied, wiretapped, etc. on in the US were those deemed as possible terrorists or linked or related, etc. The alleged illegal surveillance is not illegal at all. The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. In fact, as pointed out, it is specifically permitted under 50 USC 1802, as indicated in a couple posts by me.






seekerof

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
What Bothers Me The Most

There are procedures established by law where government employees working on classified projects can report what they may consider to be violations of law carried out under the veil of national security.

These procedures do not include divulging classified information to the press. It is my understanding that sensitive compartmented information has been leaked to the media in violation of federal law.

If this is indeed the case, I fully expect that those responsible for doing so will be investigated and prosecuted. If found guilty, I expect them to be stripped of further access to classified information and spend several years meditating on the consequences of their criminal treachery in Fort Leavenworth.

I am extremely suspicious of the motives behind this leak, and consider it prima facie evidence that there are rogue elements in the intelligence community acting outside the law -- not under presidential direction, but in violation of it.

I am increasingly concerned that there may well be a “shadow government” operating behind the scenes -- not with the complicity of the president, but in opposition to him.

These are not the good guys, and I am becoming worried that they may even try to assassinate the president if their attempts at a silent coup should fail.

I find it ironic that so many of my fellow members see fit to take the propaganda bait thrown out for them by cynical opinion manipulators and swallow it without question.

There is something disturbing going on at the highest levels of the U.S. government -- very disturbing. However, so far I haven't seen any credible reporting on the real nature of the threat.

But I know it's there.

This may not be a popular opinion to have on a “conspiracy site”, but it's my honest opinion, and it wasn't fed to me by the media.

That may not be much, but it's better than the alternative.

Question everything.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I think Magic that if it was a leak, yes they are guilty, but in the name of the sake of the freedoms of the American public they were right to do that.

Now let me turn the tables around and say that is a President that is building his own group of followers withing his ranks to aid him in taking away or strip away the rights of the people and to exercises absolute power?

Then we should be happy that is still people in higher ranks that are trying to stop what the president wants to do to the American people and our democracy.

So far we has seen to what extent a elected leader is going to exercises what he thinks is in his rights as a leader, and going around the congress that is also elected and bypassing the checks and balances in our political structure is something that even you should reconsider.

I deep inside knows something is wrong with Bush even if I voted for him the first time by the time of the Invasion in Iraq I was very worry about his intentions.

I am very good when it comes with gut feelings.

And this one smells all Bush doing not coup with Gonzales and Condi trailing no far behind.

Also from those that has been spy on, how many were arrested or prosecuted.

NONE

It was a rat chase.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Accordingly and apparently, to you, I am always wrong or mistaken.
Nothing new to be told by you again that I am mistaken or wrong, eh? The Rove situation comes to mind, among other topics.


[edit on 20-12-2005 by Seekerof]


Okay, for the sake of not furthering the above stated feelings on your part, I will restate it as follows:

apparently the information is wrong.

I'm just trying to figure out the legality of these actions. And I have to tell you that even when that issue is resolved, I personally am not okay with what has been occurring. When it comes to invading the privacy of people within the United States, I do not believe it should be done without due process that affords a review of the reasoning behind why it is about to occur.

So I'm just continuing to challenge statements that this "okay"...because I'm having a very difficult time believing that.

[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The Myth Of Altruism


Originally posted by marg6043
Then we should be happy that is still people in higher ranks that are trying to stop what the president wants to do to the American people and our democracy.

Like I said, there are procedures established by Congress to deal with these cases.

People who act outside the law and compromise sensitive intelligence operations for political purposes are not acting in the best interests of the nation.

Assuming that these leaks were motivated by “patriotism” is what those who engineered them want us to think.

I'm not buying it.

It's tempting to think that this leak somehow exposes the big picture, but that is utterly false. It is a calculated disclosure clearly intended to undermine an ongoing U.S. intelligence operation.

That's what bothers me. Someone is willing to do this for their own benefit, and they have access to sensitive information.

These leaks need to be plugged. Failure to do so would itself be criminal.

I encourage my fellow members to see behind the public lie, because the real story behind these leaks is undoubtedly much more interesting than the absurd fables surrounding them.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I encourage my fellow members to see behind the public lie, because the real story behind these leaks is undoubtedly much more interesting than the absurd fables surrounding them.


There are so many layers to this new-found onion the public suddenly has before them (we've been discussing this for some time here on ATS).

Yes... there are serious concerns over how and why the government is engaged in covert information reconnaissance and gathering on its citizens.

Yes... there is a need in our current era to be concerned about the movements of potential enemy groups operating within our free society.

Yes... there are concerns about how and why intelligence professionals would reveal the details of operations, no matter how they personally feel about them.

Yes... there are likely checks-and-balances that have been trampled.

Yes... there are likely altruistic motives in much of the covert citizen spying.

Yes... there may be altruistic motives in leaking details about the covert citizen spying.

Yes... there are likely sinister Hooveresque motives in much of the citizen spying.

and on and on and on.


There's only one important thing to remember... a free society with a high value on personal liberties must examine and hold to scrutiny events such as these. Only then can we properly categorize the reality of the situation.

My new favorite Franklin quote:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"Well-armed" in this era also means well-informed.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Here is some information that sprang to my mind upon hearing all the news on this subject.
I am surprised that no one else has commented on it here.
It is nothing new, has been going on and will continue whether legislation allows it or not.
We are not as free as many would like us to believe.

GCHQ



GCHQ provides the UK government and armed forces with signals intelligence as required under the guidance of the Joint Intelligence Committee in support of government policies.


MENWITH HILL



Founded in the 1950s to monitor High Frequency radio communications, it has been operated since 1966 by the US National Security Agency (NSA), and has grown to become the world's biggest spy base outside the US.


ECHELON



GCHQ, in combination with the equivalent agencies in the United States (NSA), Canada (Communications Security Establishment) and Australia (Defence Signals Directorate) and otherwise known as the UKUSA group, is believed to be responsible for, among other things, the operation of the ECHELON system. Its capabilities are suspected to include the ability to monitor a large proportion of the world's transmitted civilian telephone, fax and data traffic.


TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS




The Pentagon office that was developing a vast computerized terrorism surveillance system would be closed and no money could be spent to use those high-tech spying tools against Americans on U.S. soil, House and Senate negotiators have agreed on September 25, 2003.
But they left open the possibility that some or all of the high-powered software under development might be employed by different government offices to gather intelligence from U.S. citizens and others abroad or from foreigners in this country.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Uhm, I think we all need to take a look at the text of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which states that the President has the right to conduct surveillance without a court order, and that you become an "Agent of a foreign power" and are subject to surveillance if you assist the enemy.



the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year"

Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.

Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody.


Even if you don't agree with what the President has authorized you have to at least raise your eyebrows at this article by James Robbins. (As quoted from above). Read the portions of the law he's citing and you'll see that telling a suspected terrorist what the time of day is, or informing him that the temperature in New York is 32 degrees entitles the United States to spy on the rest of your communications. Furthermore, anyone you call after that fact could be seen as an "Agent of a foreign power" as well since they are having discussions with you a suspected terrorist.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Civic Duty


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There's only one important thing to remember... a free society with a high value on personal liberties must examine and hold to scrutiny events such as these. Only then can we properly categorize the reality of the situation.

I agree with SO wholeheartedly on this, as I do in far too many cases to feel comfortable about.


There are definitely many layers to this onion, and to attempt to pin all this down to a single explanation is probably an exercise in self-deception.

I consider it my duty as an American to question my government.

Let's not forget that this nation was founded on the principle of not trusting our leadership.

Anything I post which may suggest otherwise has either been posted or interpreted in error. I strongly encourage skepticism of all government actions. Always have, always will.

My warning applies to subscribing to the false notion that believing “dirt” reported about the U.S. government is synonymous with believing the “truth”.

Sympathy For The Devil

Many people in government indeed do all sorts of questionable things, illegal things and evil things. However, not all of them do -- the overwhelming majority do not.

More importantly, evil is not limited to government. There are many people who act against the government not for noble purposes, but for their own nefarious reasons.

Many false accusations are leveled against the U.S. government every day. Hundreds of them right here in these forums alone.

That does not make them true.

Certain individuals would have us believe they are acting outside the law for the good of the country.

The question is this: Which ones are they?

Is it the President, or is it those who claim to be exposing him?

I'm suspicious of both, but I am particularly skeptical of the use of leaks as a political tool, and certain people are asking us to believe they are justified to do this.

The burden of proof is on them, because they have chosen to act outside the law.

I recommend not forgetting that.

Manual At Arms


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
"Well-armed" in this era also means well-informed.

And as I always like to remind people:

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” -- Thomas Jefferson

I urge my fellow members not to let anyone sell them a bill of goods. There are no saints, only sinners.

Members are free to hold whatever opinions they choose, as well they should.

My opinion is that it would be unwise to accept this deliberately manufactured scandal at face value.

We didn't elect the people who planned it, yet they claim justification to act beyond the authority of both the President and Congress whose laws they are breaking by publicizing classified information.

I would like to know more about these unnamed people before I trust them with anything.

In my opinion, to do otherwise would be foolish.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
As was mentioned in the link in a previous post by Seeker-of:

".....The critics ignore the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress shortly after September 11, which can be viewed as a congressional declaration of war on the terrorists and a stamp of approval for the president's wartime actions."

"And if the NSA ends up spying on a U.S. citizen? The "U.S. person definition "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power," according to the same law. An "agent of a foreign power" is anyone, citizen or otherwise, who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power." Which means that people who do not help al-Qaeda or other terrorists are safe from surveillance. Anyone who does, however, forfeits his rights and can be targeted for eavesdropping."

The same members of Congress who, after 9-11 comlained that we failed to 'connect the dots', are the same ones now who are complaining about the wiretaps, and are doing so only for political gain.

It should be noted that those in Congress, from both parties, who have a controlling authority of the war powers act, HAVE been briefed on this, and in fact must vote to continue this power every three months.... so they knew about it for a long time.

Where is the outrage over the fact that US law has been broken by the Times, and in publishing this information, have given aid and comfort to the enemy, which amounts to treason?

Where is (was) the outrage over the Clintons illegally being in posession of about 1000 FBI files?

Dgtemp: you're so worried about this administration..... why no comments from you (or anyone, actually) about the Clinton executive orders I listed on page three (or four) of this thread?

Valhall..... U2U me so I can respond to a question you posed to me......



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Scene Of The Crime

Debate rages over whether the President has acted lawfully in authorizing what amounts to domestic surveillance. Based on what I know, the answer is “it depends”.

Members of Congress claim they wish to investigate whether the President has acted within the law, and I think that's a great idea. That's one of the things we hire them for, and I will feel better knowing they have looked into this.

That said, I am dismayed at what seems to be a lack of concern over what is undeniably a serious violation of federal law.

To wit:

US CODE: Title 18,798. Disclosure of classified information


§798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Emphasis added.

This is the law.

Somebody has deliberately violated this law by publicizing U.S. intelligence information for all the world to see.

This is treachery, pure and simple.

These people are fully entitled under federal law and existing security procedures to inform Congress of any concerns they may have about the legality of U.S. intelligence operations.

To wit:


§798. Disclosure of classified information
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

SO WHY THE BLOODY HELL DIDN'T THEY DO THAT INSTEAD?


This is what bugs me about this “scandal”.

If it has any basis in truth, the people who orchestrated it are felons.

What's so damn hard about picking up the phone and calling a few senators?

Am I to believe these people who consider themselves such patriots can't be bothered to do their duty and inform Congress of what they consider to be illegal acts?

You can bet your bottom dollar there are plenty of Senators who would love to hear about this -- privately -- and any intelligence professional who actually is a professional knows it.

What on God's green earth makes spilling this to the freakin' New York Times and the world better for my country than having the people we freakin' elect do their freakin' jobs?

And why the timing? This disclosure of classified information was clearly intended to influence politics in this country.

Why? Who are these unelected, unnamed political operatives?

Whoever these people are, I want to see names and I want to see their signed affidavits explaining why they acted this way.

Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that they are traitors, and possibly worse.

I refuse to accept “unnamed sources” for this.

I want to know who the hell these people think they are.

I didn't vote for these people, so why the hell are they deliberately breaking the law and playing politics with the safety of my friends and family?

That's what I want to know.

Yes, this whole business definitely bugs me.

It bugs me a lot.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join