It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


“Bush Lied?” Let’s Examine the Facts

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by donguillermo
Notice the thread fuhrer accuses me of flames, insults, defamation, thread-stalking, childish vendettas, and general abuse. My position is that, since I am telling the truth about him, all of his charges are false. I report, you decide.

GLADLY! Donguillermo, you are not interested in debating topics, relying instead on flaming posters who do not share the same beliefs as you. You continually regard speculation and opinion as facts without understanding the definition of a fact. You rely on websites that also post lies and expect us to believe that these are facts because you took them from some partisan website.

You can flame NewsMax all you want, the fact remains... IT IS CLINTON'S VOICE DISCUSSING THE OFFER FOR BIN LADEN FROM THE SUDANESE. Not some "Republican propaganda kept alive by NewsMax" as you stated. Care to refute the REAL EVIDENCE contained in the recording? What do you have to say forself?

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:18 PM
"The EPA recently began running Spanish-language public service commercials on the Hispanic Radio Network boosting the administration's "Clear Skies" legislation, . . "

"Congress's appropriations measure for the EPA prohibits the agency from using government funds for publicity purposes or to prepare or distribute TV or radio presentations designed to support or defeat legislation."

"Harrison said EPA officials, including the general counsel, believe the public service announcements are appropriate because "they inform public opinion on Clear Skies legislation," but that "they do not expressly request members of the public to contact Congress in support of Clear Skies.""

The ads clearly promoted legislation which is illegal, they try to make it sound like technically they didn't violate the law. POINT BLANK they violated the law and tried to use double-talk to mislead people about it.


posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:43 PM
Karl Rove [speaking about GWB's dividend tax cut] argued that "45 percent of all of the dividend income goes to people with $50,000-or-less incomes, family incomes. Nearly three-quarters of it goes to families with $100,000 or less family income."

In fact, those earning less than $50,000 get 14.7 percent of dividend income, and those earning less than $100,000 get 32.7 percent, according to a Brookings Institution/Urban Institute analysis.

Im sure he meant to say is 45% of the people receiving dividends are at $50,000 or below and 75% are below $100,000, and wanted to neglect telling us 67.3% of all the tax refund money goes to people of $100,001-and up incomes. Too bad he fumbled it and actually lied about it.

He meant to tell us the truth in such a way to mislead us.

The saddest thing though, is the Average american is too mind-numb or tired to pay attention, or they like being lied to by this administration.

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:02 PM
[GW Bush] 'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.'

"White House press secretary Ari Fleischer fessed up: President Bush didn't actually read that 268-page Environmental Protection Agency report on climate change, even if he said he did."
AP, June 10, 2002

He's LAZY and has always gotten away with lying rather than do the work or be honest about not doing it.

This is where the work ethic of America has gone.

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:18 PM
I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer.

I - I have never seen the president say an - anything to an - people in an intimidating way, to try to get a particular answer out of them. I know this president very well. And the president doesn't talk to his staff in an intimidating way to ask them to produce information - that is false.

Clarke and two others were in the room with Bush. The others have gone on record as agreeing with Clarke's description of the meeting. Condi was not present. I guess you can give him credit, he has someone come out and do the lying for him. The loyalty of a pack of dogs is great isn't it? well, for the dogs anyway.

And again no one seems to notice. IS ANYONE IN AMERICA AWAKE?

edit for clarity

[edit on 26-7-2004 by slank]

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:44 PM
"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."

President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war.

You know I'm not angry at Bush and his corporate cronies, they're just a pack of wild dogs tearing up the brain-dead carcass that America has become.

People can't pay attention when they are sleep-walking. Where in our culture or physiology is the thing(s) that are putting us to sleep?
Could it be the constant lies we get on TV, other media and government (maybe even religion) that has numbed our brains?

My thought it isn't Bush, it's America that is the problem. If anyone is listening, start doing the alpha strategy. I don't know if the world is going to end for all humanity, but i am thinking there are going to be some MAJOR social disruptions.

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:41 PM
Harassment, Abuse and ATS Terms and Conditions of Use

I am aware that technically this is an off-topic post, and have been reluctant to let off-topic posts take control of the thread, but it seems polite requests are outside the realm of understanding for certain ATS members.

Since I see evidence of continued disruption of this thread by donguillermo, and his interest in deliberately sabotaging topical discussion does not seem to be diminishing, I suppose I should address the matter more directly before considering it closed.

As members of ATS, we have all agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions of Use. These terms prohibit abusive and/or hateful behavior, harassment, threats and attacks.

Terms and Conditions of use of the and BelowTopSecret Message Board(s)

By using this message board, you agree to the following:

2.) You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

For those repeatedly violating Item 2, ATS offers the following expedient remedy:

ABOUT ATS: Ignoring Trolls
Sad but true, even the finest of discussion boards will experience the few idiot trolls that make our lives difficult. In the event someone is causing you grief, you can ignore them just by clicking on the IGNORE link in their mini profile (next to the VOTE button). From that point forward, you will no longer see their posts.

For reasons that should be eminently clear to anyone who has read this thread and others like it, I have with ample cause elected to exercise the option of ignoring donguillermo. I am convinced beyond doubt that nothing I can post will encourage donguillermo to refrain from his persistent and malicious attacks, harassment and abusive behavior toward me, leaving me no acceptable alternative.

While I am a relative newcomer to ATS, I am no stranger to discussion forums, understand what harassment and attacks are in this context, and, although largely tolerant of occasional infractions or long-term but moderate banter or ribbing, I do have my limits. donguillermo’s repeated, willful and malicious misconduct exceed them. Undeniable examples of the legitimacy of my complaints against donguillermo may be readily found within this thread and nearly every thread to which both he and I have posted.

More distressingly, his abusive behavior does not in any way appear to be confined to me, but rather seems to constitute his standard mode of operation. How others in this forum, particularly the moderators, can tolerate such consistent misconduct is beyond my ability to comprehend. I have seen far less malicious misconduct banned from forums far less distinguished than ATS, and remain puzzled by its apparent acceptance here, but I am new and don‘t presume to control the culture of the board outside of my own behavior.

Prior attempts to reason with donguillermo have been met with nothing but more harassment (including thread stalking, a particularly egregious form of harassment richly illustrated in this thread and several others) and attacks, and a sampling of his posts targeted at myself and others quickly establishes that this behavior is not only unpleasant but habitual, and probably incurable. I have no interest in being further subjected to having an unwanted and rabid “pet” follow me around from one thread to another, have seen this dysfunctional behavior before in other forums, know where it leads, and refuse to allow it to continue without raising objection.

Where words fail, action must suffice. donguillermo’s chronic, repeated, persistent and seemingly pathological abuse, conducted in clear violation of the ATS Terms and Conditions of Use, and with no intervention by moderators apparently forthcoming, has made ignoring him my only reasonable option. It is a sad and shameful that donguillermo should choose to PROMOTE IGNORANCE by behaving in such a patently disgraceful manner, but that is his choice to make.

Mine is to ignore him. It is a decision I was slow to make, and made reluctantly, but ultimately find myself unable to regret.

Entire forums are dedicated to flamers, trolls and net.bullies, either by their charter or due to being hijacked by inconsiderate netizens. I don’t log in to ATS for any of that nonsense, though others may, and see no reason to tolerate it here when I can enjoy the products of far better and more engaging flame talent elsewhere, at my leisure and when I may have a taste for it.

I would hate to see ATS become the barren domain of roving packs of donguillermos, launching endless accusations, insults and diatribes, badgering everyone else into permanent retreat or resignation, poisoning discussion, discouraging opinion, attacking any who might dare disagree with them and ultimately destroying all that is good about ATS. I have seen this happen before on other boards, more than once, and do not care to see it ever again. If that must be the fate that will befall ATS, I would rather not bear witness to it.

Thus I must be satisfied with my sole means to oppose such an ill fate with the tools left to me: my posts and my ignore list, which consists solely of donguillermo, the very first person so far this century to earn such a distinction in any of the many forums I participate in. I emphatically recommend a like course of action to any and all who prefer to see discussion advanced instead of silenced, and the quality of discourse elevated instead of profaned.

Remember that sarcasm is the first refuge of a scoundrel. I urge potential contributors to ATS to care enough about what ATS offers to post thoughtfully, in an atmosphere characterized by courtesy and respect for other members, and avoid temptations to drag ATS down into the mud of rudeness and pathos.

I offer this thread as a vision of both what can be good and what can be bad about ATS, and challenge all members who may read this message to make a choice and act on it. Please choose to DENY IGNORANCE.

That’s all I wish to say about this matter in this thread, and I emphatically plea that further posts address the topic, honor the requested thread guidelines and conform to the ATS Terms and Conditions of Use.

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:33 PM
check this site out (admittedly the source may be somewhat biased)

and they actually one i was going to post on my own... i had no idea it was on this site, but it's my personal fave:

10. "I'm a uniter, not a divider." [Bush, Austin American-Statesman, 7/30/00]

Fact: No, He's a Divider

-koji K.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by koji_K]

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 04:22 AM
The recession started 2 months AFTER GW Bush had been in office.
Bush said it started under Clinton.

GWB, "In 2002, our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and it was pulling out of a recession that began BEFORE I took office."

"The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began in March." So according to NBER, the most recent recession did not start during the Clinton administration.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 04:30 AM
On 60 minutes, physicist and former weapons inspector David Albright:

“I think it was very misleading,” says Albright, who directs the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright says the tubes could be possibly used for a nuclear program, but were more suited to conventional weapons production. Government experts thought that too, Albright tells Simon, but administration officials “were selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear threat was more imminent than it is, and, in essence, scare people.”

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 04:41 AM
"Asked later if his stock sale had been related to the company's impending setback, [GW] Bush replied, "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known.""

"In fact, SEC records show that Harken's president had warned board members two months before Bush's sell-off that the company had liquidity problems that would "drastically affect" operations."

I personally think the SEC softballed the crime because the stock price recovered a few months after Bush dumped his shares.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 05:13 AM
majik, this is a worthwhile topic IMO, one that seeks out hard facts regarding proven lies told by Bush. I myself don't feel that I can actively contribute anything worthwhile to this discussion, but I am learning from it.

From my position as a "fly on the wall" or outsider [not being a US citizen or resident], I am seeing a lot of information being posted by both slank & donguillermo here. Whatever disagreement you may have with the latter is not my concern, it is yours alone & you're entitled to your opinion. But it would be far better for the smooth flow of the topic in hand if you would now desist from justifying your reasons for ignoring donguillermo.

Please desist from these justifications, & let the topic flow.

I do appreciate the reason for the "guidelines" set for this topic, don't get me wrong. Rebuttals are one thing, but flaming's quite another. It would be appreciated by all of us, IMO, if posters would confine their rebuttals to just that, & instead of debasing the topic in hand with flames.

Edit - added last paragraph.

[edit on 27/7/04 by Bastet]

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 05:47 AM
seems the cia is taking the fall for dubbie these days, but as these stories show, bush was told that the intel on the iraq wmd was not true before the war started. bush lied and our soldiers died.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 02:38 PM
And more than the out and out lies is the complete disingeneousness. They treat people as no better than stockyard animals. They act as if Americans can be mislead and won't react. And saddest of all, Americans don't react. (much)
This administration and much of congress are like the herding dogs for a flock of sheep. The shepard and butcher being corporate America.
They use FEAR to confuse and upset people. And people are hysterical or not smart enough to realize fear is an emotional response to rise above and one HAS to think and act logically.
They work in collusion with the HUGE media corporations to blind and mind-numb people from the truth.


posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:48 PM
slank: I don't think disingenuousness is heavily disputed, even by a great many Bush supporters.

Most folks I talk to, regardless of political alignment, are not happy about being left in the dark about so many things, although some rationalize it by pointing out that "the government can't tell us everything". Of course, that tends to fly in the face of a government model based on an informed citizenry ruling through elected representatives, but there's truth to it. FDR didn't publicly announce U.S. strategy during WWII, nor did Lincoln do so during the Civil War, as examples.

Also, use of surrogates to float questionable information, leaks and deploy other tools of opinion manipulation is something everyone who is prominent in politics, regardless of party, routinely does. Indeed, our political system is so structured that it is virtually impossible to prevent "spin-meisters" from doing this, even if a president were to issue specific orders that it stop. It's a fact of life in politics.

So pointing a finger at Bush for such things doesn't really prove anything at all, except that he is a politician associated with a major political party. Not exactly press-stopping news.

Of course, the exercise here is to try to nail down some bulletproof examples of cases where President Bush personally, knowingly and indisputably lied. I think there's some real progress in that direction, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

Remember that I'm trying to collect examples of Bush lie allegations that closely meet the narrow criteria described in the article. Bush’s opinions, judgments, philosophies, politics, decisions, statements by his administration or surrogates, etc., questionable though any or all of them may be, are not “Bush lies” for the purposes of this thread. The criteria are intended to screen such things out.

There is controversy about that, and that’s fine, but I think the reasoning is sound. Doing otherwise leads to a downward spiral into opinion and debate that ultimately will produce nothing substantive.

I’m working through your posts attempting to apply the criteria as impartially as I can for the thread summaries. I know there is also controversy about that. Although I started the thread, I clearly don‘t own it. If you disagree with my summaries, I won’t take it the wrong way. Try restating the allegation or clearing up the sources, I’ll try to give useful feedback where I can.

If others wish to summarize the thread, either using the criteria in the article or their own, that‘s fine with me, and, I think both a good way to help keep me from missing something, and a good way to generate alternative lists that can be used where they may.

My interest in being the self-appointed “thread fuehrer” lies not in self-aggrandizement or a hidden agenda, but rather in a desire to keep the thread on track and, hopefully, produce results that have some objective value.

It has been an interesting exercise so far, and I am looking forward to more solid examples of “Bush lies”.

The very best examples of “Bush lies” fall into two categories:

1) Cases where Bush publicly made a statement that he later publicly contradicted

2) Cases where Bush publicly made a statement that has since been proven by credible sources to be materially false.

There are others, but these are the best and the hardest to refute, and that’s exactly what I’m looking for. Ideally these cases will be supported by two different credible and ostensibly non-political sources (commercial news outlets).

Bastet: Agreed. My reactions (or overreactions, take your pick) are themselves a distraction, and I consider the matter closed.

redalert: Please condense your information down to a statement of the lie in question. Link farms alone aren’t practical for this thread’s purpose.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 09:13 PM

shanti23: Bush claimed to see video of the first plane hitting a tower on 9/11 before entering the classroom in Florida, even though video of that event was not available until the following day.

donguillermo: Bush claimed to support a “Patient’s Bill of Rights” in Texas, but actually opposed it. (Excellent work! Thanks for the follow-ups.)

donguillermo: Bush claimed that he would call for a vote on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council “no matter what”, then subsequently announced he would not call for a vote. (Convincing example and well-documented.)

donguillermo: Bush claimed to have “put the Taliban out of business forever“. The Taliban is still in business. (A rhetorical flourish, perhaps, but still a lie, and forever is a long time.)


donguillermo: Bush lied about about supporting a “Patient’s Bill of Rights” as president. (I split this out from the next one. Recognizing the effects of “Google fatigue” (I know it well), anything you can present to clearly illustrate this when your fatigue passes may very well support a good example of a lie)

donguillermo: Bush claimed in his autobiography that he flew with his Texas Air National Guard unit for “several years” after completing flight training, when, in fact, he did not. (This is sourced and a good example, just needs a usable link if available, although a book is itself a pretty valid source, even without a URL. I put this here, but will likely move it into the top list even if URL isn’t nailed down. Good find.)

donguillermo: In 1998, Bush told a reporter that he had not been arrested since 1968, but he was arrested for drunken driving in 1976. (This is dynamite. If this can be sourced, it’s a first-rate example.)

slank: Bush cited an economic forecast as claiming 3.3% economic growth if his tax cut proposal became law even though the forecast did not consider the effects of such a proposal. (Note: The link you provided points to a political advocacy website. If you are able to locate URLs for the original source articles, that would be preferable, if not “mandatory”. I may move this up anyway, but “neutral“ sources are best.)

slank: Bush claimed to have read a 268-page EPA report on climate change, but did not. (Bush Watch has some good stuff, but we really need direct sources wherever possible. Just the original Bush quote is probably fine, although a subsequent admission by Bush would nail it. Worth pursuing, IMO.)


slank: Lied about illegally using EPA funds to promote legislation. (Bush is not an EPA official)
Lies about the dividend tax cut. (Despite convincing reports suggesting otherwise, Karl Rove and Bush are different people.)

donguillermo: Bush claimed economic numbers were “beginning to look better”, even though jobs declined. (A good point, but not clearly a “Bush lie”. He referred to “the numbers” in regard to “economic security“, but then said “there's still people looking for work“. Compelling, but still a judgment call.)

slank: Bush claims to have gone to war, but has never gone to war. (This was compelling, but had to be pulled, since Bush has gone to war as president, think of it what one may.)

slank: Lies about cooked intelligence. (Need public Bush statements showing a lie.)

slank: Lies about war decision. (Need public Bush statements showing a lie.)

koji_K: "I'm a uniter, not a divider." (Ironic, but not a demonstrable lie. Being a “uniter” does not require being good at it.)

slank: Bush lies about recession. (Definitions of recessions and when they begin vary widely and are subjective.)

slank: Bush scares public about aluminum tubes. (Need public Bush statements showing a lie.)

slank: Bush lied about Harken Oil Co. (We don’t know what Bush actually knew. He may indeed not have known.)


Jakomo: Please clarify your allegations, provide source URLs and break them out in separate posts as needed.

loam: Please post a more concise explanation of the lie in question.

The status of anything listed here may be changed depending on additional information.

If you have posted an alleged Bush lie not listed here or wish to correct an entry, please make a concise post with URLs and I will update the list as I can. Hint: When I scan posts for new allegations, I look for links, so please be sure to include them. All constructive criticism welcome, despite impressions to the contrary I may have inspired.

Remember: This thread is about “Bush lies”, not “Clinton lies”, partisan politics or flame wars -- however melodramatic -- between me and my arch-nemesis donguillermo (whose talents I admire, whose posts I actually get a kick out of, and so far the most prolific contributor of solid examples of “Bush lies“). All those things have their proper place, but not here, and I concede that I‘m probably the worst offender, but we can still strive for improvement, and eyyyyyy, I‘m workin‘ on it!

The summary format needs some work, maybe more of an outline-style arrangement, and I’ll see about including supporting URLs in upcoming versions.

Thanks for all your submissions, especially the valid examples submitted so far, and yes, especially donguillermo‘s slam dunks (once expletives are deleted
) and please keep them coming!

Your humble thread fuehrer,

Herr Majic
Thread Feuhrer; Drama Queen; Uncommon Troll, 3rd Class
“Achtung! Ze Guidelines vill be Observed!”

Godwin's Law FAQ

Edit: More errors than you can shake a flamethrower at.

[edit on 7/27/2004 by Majic]

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 10:51 PM
ABC News: "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Bush said dismissively today when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 11:33 PM
Sieg heil, thread fuhrer! (Both fuhrer and fuehrer are acceptable spellings by the way.)

Thanks for including my posts in your thread summary. In my first post in this thread, I requested that my post Bush and Blair Lied About Mass Graves in Iraq be included as an example of a Bush lie. Since you probably regarded my first post in this thread as the rhetorical equivalent of an attack with weapons of mass destruction, it is understandable that you overlooked this.

On the question of whether Bush flew for "several years" after completing flight training, Here is a quote from the book by the Boston Globe.

After George W. Bush became governor in 1995, the Houston Air National Guard unit he had served with during the Vietnam War years honored him for his work, noting that he flew an F-102 fighter-interceptor until his discharge in October 1973.

And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep," recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years," the governor wrote.

Please note the date on the story, May 23, 2000. Most of the major facts about the Bush AWOL story were known during the 2000 Presidential election, but the media gave Bush a pass. The Boston Globe was the only major media outlet to cover this story in detail.

With regard to when Bush stopped flying, notice these quotes from the Boston Globe article.

But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.

After the election, Bush returned to Houston. But seven months later, in May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

As of May, 1973, Bush had not been observed at Ellington AFB since April, 1972. He clearly did not fly with his unit after April, 1972, 22 months after completing flight training in June, 1970. Bush did return to his Houston unit for a few months in 1973, before being discharged in October, 1973. But he never flew in 1973, because he failed to take a flight physical in July or August, 1972, and was grounded for the remainder of his term of service. Notice the quote from the Boston Globe article.

In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all.

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:34 AM
Note: this comes from the Whitehouse's own website:
In GW Bush's speech to the UN on September 12, 2002, from .rm video

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes, used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

From Mother Jones:
"Our intelligence sources tell us," President Bush told to the nation on January 28, "that he [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." The claim, paired with the alleged uranium buy, painted a damning picture of Baghdad's atomic ambitions.

"The truth is far less frightening. Saddam did indeed attempt to purchase some highly-refined aluminum tubes. But they were not, as alleged by the Bush administration, to be used in a uranium-enriching centrifuge; rather they were intended to be used in the production of conventional rockets -- at least according to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency, the closest thing to an impartial authority in this case.

What's more, this was well known at the time Bush delivered his address. Indeed, two weeks before the State of the Union, the IAEA said that the tubes "were not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment. Months earlier, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAD REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION -- as had intelligence experts at the STATE DEPARTMENT. "
.personal note: I had to listen that long *!#@*ing UN speech.

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:36 AM
Thanks for the updates! Good stuff. Lest I forget, I wanted to drop a Salon link here (not sure if it's in thread, didn't want to forget):

Bush lied about his arrest, a reporter says

There are others out there, but they all seem to hinge on the claims of Wayne Slater, a reporter with the Dallas Morning News. Good enough, in my opinion, but the more substantiation, the better.

I'm looking at ways to make the summary process better (and at least easier on the eyes) and have the URLs supporting the allegations included in the format, so I may not post a summary update for a few days, but please keep the goods coming as your time and interest permit.

This is a long-term project: once a lie, always a lie.

Thanks again for some great contributions and please keep them coming!

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in