Proof - Obama is good for the economy!

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Word play is a funny thing.

I dont think he meant to do that, but you got him with one of his own talking points.

Democrats need to make up their mind on the issues.

Rich people are only good when Obama makes them that way.

All the other ones were rich because of something that does not matter.


I will give you the reason for this though....and its not because Obama let them get rich by his own policies.

They got rich because THEY knew how to spend money, and knew how to run a profitable buisness.

"If you build it, they will come"

Obamas catch phrase should be "If you build it- we helped out too"

Im sick of people trying to convince me on how good Obama has done when his entire record speaks contradictory to that.

He had enough time and support to push his agenda through....he was just inept with the time given to him.

..either that or he had an agenda the entire time to destroy this once great nation. I say he may have done both.
-not sure which ones was intentional though




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Word play is a funny thing.

I dont think he meant to do that, but you got him with one of his own talking points.

Democrats need to make up their mind on the issues.

Rich people are only good when Obama makes them that way.

All the other ones were rich because of something that does not matter.


WTF are you talking about?

I think the merit of a rich person depends on that person and the nature of their business.

I think the majority of you are mad because liberals don't exalt the rich or because liberals
are more concerned about the poor. You simply can't relate to the mindset and I cannot relate to
the conservative mindset that thinks that wealth must mean a person or a business is good.

I have met a lot of sh!tty wealthy people and a lot of sh!tty poor people too.




I will give you the reason for this though....and its not because Obama let them get rich by his own policies.

They got rich because THEY knew how to spend money, and knew how to run a profitable buisness.

"If you build it, they will come"


You are talking about me, yet here I am with a different perspective then you... I will tell you, you don't speak for
me and you hardly understand my perspective based upon this response.




Obamas catch phrase should be "If you build it- we helped out too"

Im sick of people trying to convince me on how good Obama has done when his entire record speaks contradictory to that.


I think your perspective of Obama's economic record is distorted,

I listed five companies, that hire people, that people invest in and profit from; that are showing
tremendous success. This success would not have happened if Obama is as bad as you guys
make him out to be.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Stock Market is based on expectations. If the thing is 'over performing' under Obama, what does that tell you about businesses's view of Obama.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I simply don't have the patience to repeat myself again and pick your post apart.

The economy is getting better, not worse...

The speed at which the economy is reemerging is due to extent of the damage, not to the lack
of desire or ability to repair the damage.

If a man was shot 25 times and he could not walk after a 10 hour surgery would you blame the doctor?

I looked up five companies that came to mind and ALL five that I thought of have increased in value.
If Obama was making America worse, these companies and their financial position would be worse.

It's not magic



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by campanionator
 


Stock Market is based on expectations. If the thing is 'over performing' under Obama, what does that tell you about businesses's view of Obama.


Not sure what you alluding to...



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


First off- Im not a republican or a conservative. I lean towards their fiscal climate- but never drifted farther than that. Im libertarian and a fiscal conservative- the state should be limited.

Second off- The highest paying job I have ever had was through a UNION...$14 an hr to start- Only if I played by their political agenda(which I did not). Needless to say that didnt last. Homie dont play that.

I grew up in a poor/middle class family. Poor in the beginning- middle class in the middle- and right back down to lower class again.

I make minimum wage but work 40 + hours a week.

I went to the military so I could get taught a trade- because I damn well didnt have the money nor the grades for a college education. (I did graduate though)

I have worked more jobs than I can remember- and I am still struggling do to the lack of work in my trade and city.
(I had to get a different- j- o- b-) because work dried up in my field where I live.

I am now about to move to ND to get back into that trade because they are one of the only few states with a surplus each year with enough work to go around, and will continue to do so for years to come because they werent stupid about when it came down to emergency economic planning. Unlike my state Nevada who let idiots like Reid in.

Obama hasnt done a damn thing besides make situations in this country worse for most of us(even those who are still supporting the guy)
Nobody- and I mean nobody is making ANYTHING better in the job market for us who truly have skills, so we have to do it all on our own. The day I expect Obama to make anything better for me is the day I die from hunger.

you list 5 companies doing well like that is some sort of sign our country is crawling back from the economic nuke that this administration has dropped on us.(yea insert Bush here) I know- I heard that retort many times eventhough its false do to the fact that Obama had an open field for the first 2 years of his presidency- and the democrats two years prior to that . 2 years during Bush (and 2 after bush total) with a democratically controlled everything. They did nothing and are still doing nothing ,all the while trying to pass the buck of responsibility and continuing on their childish blame game without any checks or balances on what THEY have been doing.
You guys need to wake up and face the fact that Obama sold you all a story that a 2nd grader wrote for his class project. But you think its ok- cause you are convinced that unicorns really do exist.

WTF has he been doing with all that time and the HUGE open window HE INHERITED to pass whatever it is he wanted?

Is he really that stupid, or does he think his supporters are?

whoever it is- we got robbed while he got free rent with no spending limit and no budget to do whatever he wanted with.
You know how many buisnessses have closed shop or fired most of their workers? Theres so many I couldnt tell you a correct number. But hey- McDonalds is always a good career choice right? Even his criminal buddies in the green sector made out with GOD ONLY KNOWS how much money while their buisnesses went bankrupt.

Yes- Obama is as bad- if not worse than the rest of us had ever thought (and still do think) of him to be.

I dont expect a damn thing except for failure comming from this guy- while his supporters cheer him on like he has done anything substantial to affect better change in this country. Has he taken a look outside his walls lately?

Its worse- much much worse. And if you guys cant see that- we as a nation are in worse shape than I thought.

BTW- whos going to pay for all the debt he has occured? (not to mention the deficit)

How can ANYONE look at this guy and say that he has made an honest effort to save our economy?

He dont care though- Hes rich. Im sure you think he should pay his fair share too right? HA! good luck with that.

He already porked us with debt up to our eyeballs. Instead of letting failing ideas and concepts die like they were naturally intended, he resurected them with money that was not his. They made bad choices- they should pay the consequences. Cept we will be the ones who suffer as our dollar continually amounts to toilet paper because
our govt doesnt know how to keep checks and balances.

As much as liberals like to complain about big bad corporations- they forget to realize that these are the very same people (a lot of the time) that inherit bailouts from the rest of us just because the President says so.

Hes "special" I guess. If he couldnt turn the economy around when it wasnt doing so good in the first place- why did he even bother running for President? - puppet- hat?

Done- Rant over.Good luck responding to that. I dont expect you to. If you say "I disagree"...I will understand.

and



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator

I looked up five companies that came to mind and ALL five that I thought of have increased in value.
If Obama was making America worse, these companies and their financial position would be worse.

Your error is thinking the stock market is the economy and that all jobs are equal. Sure, those five companies are doing better; I'll grant you that. I'll even grant you that jobs are being created under Obama. But those five companies stock price is a tiny fraction of the economy, and the jobs they create are not career-level well-paying jobs that can support a family. The economy is a sum total of all the citizens' economic status. Minimum wage jobs are not the only kind of jobs that are needed - they are not even the primary kind that are needed.

Again, I'm glad to hear you are doing well, and I'm happy these five companies are doing well. Someone wins every time the economy shifts; some even became wealthy during the Great Depression. The problem is not that no one is profiting, but that those profiting right now are a tiny percentage of the population. I would also say I do not attribute their success to Obama; I attribute their success to their own decisions. You said earlier that I shouldn't expect Obama to "save me", and you are correct. I am responsible for my own decisions. But neither then can you attribute individual success stories to Obama. One cannot receive credit without also accepting blame.

To clarify my position: Obama's policies of trying to micromanage the economy, from the bailouts of companies deemed "to big to fail" (which should IMO be "to big to exist"), to government support of "green" technology (most of which has failed miserably) and government blocking of oil-related industries (Keystone Pipeline), to attempts to impose a carbon credit, to a takeover of the medical industry and a forced profit via third-party taxation to reward insurance companies for political backing, have taken us farther and farther away from the principles that caused a rag-tag group of upstart colonists to rise into the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

I want a return to individual responsibility, individual achievement, individual self-purpose, and overall success. It worked for 200 years. What we have under this administration simply is not working for the vast majority of Americans.

Time for "hope for change" - "hope and change" has failed.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


I wonder.

How much revenue is from non U.S. operations ?

How many non U.S. employees do they have ?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by campanionator

I looked up five companies that came to mind and ALL five that I thought of have increased in value.
If Obama was making America worse, these companies and their financial position would be worse.

Your error is thinking the stock market is the economy and that all jobs are equal. Sure, those five companies are doing better; I'll grant you that. I'll even grant you that jobs are being created under Obama. But those five companies stock price is a tiny fraction of the economy, and the jobs they create are not career-level well-paying jobs that can support a family. The economy is a sum total of all the citizens' economic status. Minimum wage jobs are not the only kind of jobs that are needed - they are not even the primary kind that are needed.

Again, I'm glad to hear you are doing well, and I'm happy these five companies are doing well. Someone wins every time the economy shifts; some even became wealthy during the Great Depression. The problem is not that no one is profiting, but that those profiting right now are a tiny percentage of the population. I would also say I do not attribute their success to Obama; I attribute their success to their own decisions. You said earlier that I shouldn't expect Obama to "save me", and you are correct. I am responsible for my own decisions. But neither then can you attribute individual success stories to Obama. One cannot receive credit without also accepting blame.

To clarify my position: Obama's policies of trying to micromanage the economy, from the bailouts of companies deemed "to big to fail" (which should IMO be "to big to exist"), to government support of "green" technology (most of which has failed miserably) and government blocking of oil-related industries (Keystone Pipeline), to attempts to impose a carbon credit, to a takeover of the medical industry and a forced profit via third-party taxation to reward insurance companies for political backing, have taken us farther and farther away from the principles that caused a rag-tag group of upstart colonists to rise into the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

I want a return to individual responsibility, individual achievement, individual self-purpose, and overall success. It worked for 200 years. What we have under this administration simply is not working for the vast majority of Americans.

Time for "hope for change" - "hope and change" has failed.

TheRedneck


I'm sorry but I just can't relate to you perspective, it sounds ridiculous to me and completely illogical
to blame the things you have on Obama.

Pick ten companies that were around in 2009, you will find that virtually ALL of them are doing MUCH
better.

1.Bush and the entire body politic initiated the Bank bailouts. Four year later you act as if there
is some sort of playbook somebody should have referred to.

2.Green technology is the future, if the US does not lead the green energy revolution we will lose
our place in history. It would mark the first technological race that we did not spearhead from
mass production, to railroads, internal combustion, to auto's, to aerospace, telecommunications,
to space exploration, to the computer, to the internet and many other things... Many of which were
funded in large part by the government. You make it sound as if history has been altered, while
reality shows this has been going on for over 100 years, in schools and labs around the country.

3. The government has the LARGEST amount of land open to oil exploration, in the nations history.
Really Redneck it is hard to take you seriously man... And what is your focus on Oil about???
The majority of US oil is exported to markets where producers can fetch a higher price.
The KEYSTONE pipeline has been contested by individual land owners and first nations people.
Do you think the government has the right to displace people? Sounds very contrary to what you said
earlier.

4. There have been an attempt to instate carbon credits for over a decade

5. The medical industry has been a corrupt system rescinding tens thousands of sick people's
policies to effectively let them die. Prices have been going up over 150% every decade for
two decades now
you act like some righteous institution has been threatened. If you are poor,
you will not have to have insurance or you might even get premium support until you can re gain
your station. Interesting enough, the majority of health insurance political money has been going
to opponents of Obamacare.


Europe is still in crisis due to what was unleashed prior to Obama's election, on this very day nearly
four years later the aftermath unfurls. I can concede it is easy as falling down a flight of stairs to
blame anything you would like on the POTUS.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by campanionator
 


I wonder.

How much revenue is from non U.S. operations ?

How many non U.S. employees do they have ?



I don't think you wonder, you are trying to sow in doubt, like a greasy 70 year old lady who thrives on
inserting innuendo into ever discussion.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by campanionator
 


I wonder.

How much revenue is from non U.S. operations ?

How many non U.S. employees do they have ?



I don't think you wonder, you are trying to sow in doubt, like a greasy 70 year old lady who thrives on
inserting innuendo into ever discussion.




My, are we a wee bit touchy today ?

The international companies have many workers in foreign countries and their profits from foreign locations can be high in some cases.

I was going to help you look up some numbers, but there is no point I guess



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Obama didn't kill Osama. Seal team six did but Obama gave the go ahead after debating the facts with his staff. The pirates that held the captain of a US commercial vessel early in his administration held a U.S. destroyer at bay from a rowboat for three days until the COS (commander on scene) ordered the onboard seals to take out the pirates. Then the WhiteHouse took credit after the kill.

Obama does not have a personal hand in growth of companies. In spite of Obama these companies are trying to grow and create wealth and jobs. How many times has he stated that wealth should be distributed among the masses?

These companies grow due to the way the Republic has always operated on a profit and the stock market. Obama is anti business and has never ran a business other than a government community organizer getting money for the poor and minorities. A different world from real time financial fundamentals and corporate profit goals. and yes, I'm retired and never have been hired by a poor man in my working career.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Here are some links that show the impact of U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries.


The upside of globalization.

A lot of U.S. firms ship American jobs overseas, but they also boost sales by selling their goods and services in many foreign markets. That’s one big reason that profits at U.S. companies are strong, even though the U.S. economy remains weak. Here’s how the top firms in 15 industries rely on foreign sales to stay healthy:

{slide show}
How 15 U.S. Firms Depend on Foreign Sales

{full article}
Why U.S. Companies Aren't So American Anymore
 






On Wednesday the Obama administration proposed a long-awaited cut in the top rate of U.S. corporate tax from 35 per cent to 28 per cent. But the White House also disclosed something more contentious. The administration is suggesting U.S. companies’ foreign earnings should be subject to a “minimum tax”.

The current system for taxing earnings of foreign subsidiaries controlled by U.S. companies is controversial and counterproductive. Such foreign earnings are theoretically taxed at a 35 per cent rate if brought back to the U.S., but not taxed at all by the U.S. as long as these earnings are kept abroad.

Faced with this choice, U.S. companies are unsurprisingly holding abroad more than $1.5tn in foreign profits. The current tax system thus discourages U.S. companies from using their foreign profits to build facilities in the U.S. or buy American companies. It also generates almost no tax revenues for the U.S. Treasury.,,,,

How to Tax U.S. Companies’ Foreign Profits


NWO ?




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


You are suggesting there is a correlation here, and a correlation is typically something very hard to do. In fact it is the hardest part to figure, but you, all by yourself have done it and we have "Proof". Lol geez

The other part of this is we have no proof that the market would not be at 16,000 now if Obama was not President, so any improvement is your proof. I guess we can then say that after 4 years employment has finally went below 8%, even though it was due to part time jobs, it means Obama is good for the recovery...

What was the correlation of Clinton walking into a huge Dot Com explosion that followed by a huge crash that handed Bush a recession?

I think you need to work on this more...



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
Obama does not have a personal hand in growth of companies. In spite of Obama these companies are trying to grow and create wealth and jobs. How many times has he stated that wealth should be distributed among the masses?


All this credit that Obama takes from anything successful...just wonder how big the list would be if he also took the CREDIT for his administration's failures...lol Wouldn't that be something.




edit on 14-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by campanionator
 


You are suggesting there is a correlation here, and a correlation is typically something very hard to do. In fact it is the hardest part to figure, but you, all by yourself have done it and we have "Proof". Lol geez

The other part of this is we have no proof that the market would not be at 16,000 now if Obama was not President, so any improvement is your proof. I guess we can then say that after 4 years employment has finally went below 8%, even though it was due to part time jobs, it means Obama is good for the recovery...

What was the correlation of Clinton walking into a huge Dot Com explosion that followed by a huge crash that handed Bush a recession?

I think you need to work on this more...




It is common sense.

If Obama made the economy worse, it would be reflected in the financial health of America's companies.

Why don't you find 5 companies that are doing worse since 01/23/2009, then you can show that my
claim is spurious.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Why don't you find 5 companies that are doing worse since 01/23/2009, then you can show that my
claim is spurious.


Here are 19 at least.....


For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors – 19 Companies Went Bust (Video)



YouTube Caption:

80% of Green Energy loans went to Obama donors. The FOX analyst says 70% but actually it is closer to 80%. And 19 companies have so far went bust. The government is spending $14 million on some of the green jobs. Solar power is 35 cents per kilowatt compared to coal, gas and oil that costs 5 cents per kilowatt.

"GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Dollars Went to Obama Donors"



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator

I'm sorry but I just can't relate to you perspective, it sounds ridiculous to me and completely illogical
to blame the things you have on Obama.

It is only ridiculous and illogical to blame the current state of the nation on Obama if it is completely ridiculous and illogical to blame the state of the nation in 2008 on Bush. Do you propose that one President is completely responsible for occurrences up to, including, and beyond 4 years after he left office, yet another is not responsible for anything at all?


Pick ten companies that were around in 2009, you will find that virtually ALL of them are doing MUCH better.

You still have not grasped the concept that this is about more than the stock market. Companies do not vote.


Bush and the entire body politic initiated the Bank bailouts.

Bush, McCain. Obama, and a host of others did, yes. I opposed them under Bush, I opposed them when McCain was campaigning for them, and I oppose them under Obama.


Green technology is the future...

Green technology is a talking point.

I am all for alternate energy production. It's a great idea: we get lower energy costs, less pollution, and more national sovereignty since we would not be as dependent on foreign oil. But I am also aware that there are these things called "physical laws" that we have to play by in developing that technology. Wishful thinking, skewed projections, loud talking, and uninformed opinions make no difference. Show me one good alternative to provide the energy we need at prices which are affordable and which can be quickly put in place. Hydro? Wonderful! If only we could find more rivers to dam... we're about out. Wind? It seems to be working, but it can't provide enough to replace fossil fuels. Solar? Far too many technical issues to be considered feasible for mainstream use, although it is great for low-voltage low-power remote applications. Nuclear? We still have the waste issue, and a lot of scared people ever since the comedy of errors called Fukushima. Coal? Nah, Obama's administration is absolutely ignoring the newer clean coal technology... wonder why?

Wave power is the single most promising technology I can think of at this time... and it is still years away and it's a little hard to carry an ocean around in your gas tank.

We have oil, and nothing else that can carry the load. That is the only reason I support oil at this time.


The government has the LARGEST amount of land open to oil exploration, in the nations history.


While President Obama has been touting in recent days that his administration is promoting oil drilling in the United States, oil production on federally owned lands has in fact declined by 17,000 barrels per day since he took office in 2009.
Source: cnsnews.com...


For the first time since the 1920s, fees for oil drilling on public land are going up, in an Obama administration Interior Department rule that does not require congressional approval.
Clean Technica (s.tt...)
Source: cleantechnica.com...

Smoke and mirrors. Obama is touting how great he's doing about domestic drilling, when his policies have made it more expensive to drill on public land and oil production on public land has actually declined. Any increase in domestic oil production is on private land, meaning it occurred not because of Obama's policies, but in site of them.


There have been an attempt to instate carbon credits for over a decade

The closest it has come to happening was under Obama, and he has already pledged carbon credits as part of his plan for the next four years.


The medical industry has been a corrupt system rescinding tens thousands of sick people's
policies to effectively let them die. Prices have been going up over 150% every decade for
two decades now

The medical industry is not the insurance industry and vice-versa. The medical industry has not been revoking policies, because the medical industry does not have policies! That's the insurance companies, which under Obamacare now have a law mandating that everyone in the country has to buy their policies.

Who do I contact in Washington to get a law passed that everyone has to buy my product? I'll open a business tomorrow. Come to think of it, maybe that would have saved Solyndra; just require that everyone has to purchase twenty solar panels a year or be fined.


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by campanionator
 


Why don't you find 5 companies that are doing worse since 01/23/2009, then you can show that my
claim is spurious.


Here are 19 at least.....


For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors – 19 Companies Went Bust (Video)



YouTube Caption:

80% of Green Energy loans went to Obama donors. The FOX analyst says 70% but actually it is closer to 80%. And 19 companies have so far went bust. The government is spending $14 million on some of the green jobs. Solar power is 35 cents per kilowatt compared to coal, gas and oil that costs 5 cents per kilowatt.

"GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Dollars Went to Obama Donors"






Well I am glad my stock has gone up 800% under Obama

And my other one went up 500%

I found a list of hundreds of companies that are up over 100%

but I cannot convert the file...

edit on 14-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator

It is common sense.


It is not common sense... you can research many "common sense" cases of correlation that never had it.. Many of these "common sense" false correlations are studied in college too, this is done so that people do not pull correlations out their butts and say they are facts.

It is not something up for debate...enjoy your own version of reality.


edit on 14-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join