Front Office Football Central
Page 503 of 527 « First < 3403453493494495496497498499500501502 503 504505506507508509510511512513 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

panerd 03-25-2015 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3013300)

Israel is a huge part of the problem with our foreign policy and the story you link disgusts me. However at the risk of giving a canned response that is given to me all the time in this thread... You don't think this happens all the time? My guess is the United States meddles in every country in the world's governments from Russia and China all the way down to Monaco and Liechtenstein.

JPhillips 03-25-2015 08:12 AM
The article explains the problem. Nobody is that upset by the spying, it happens and we do it too. The problem is the sharing of the fruits of the spying with domestic opposition for the express purpose of undermining the foreign policy of the President. That really is above and beyond what everyone is doing.

panerd 03-25-2015 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3013398)
The article explains the problem. Nobody is that upset by the spying, it happens and we do it too. The problem is the sharing of the fruits of the spying with domestic opposition for the express purpose of undermining the foreign policy of the President. That really is above and beyond what everyone is doing.

I read the article and don't disagree with the outrage but am also not naive enough to think that the United States doesn't do the exact same thing (not just with another nation's foreign policy but undermining entire elections) all over the world. It seems like there is a 40-50 year time frame in which we actually admit to things and if we were doing this all the time in the 60's-70's why exactly has it stopped in 2015?

Dutch 03-25-2015 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3013398)
The article explains the problem. Nobody is that upset by the spying, it happens and we do it too. The problem is the sharing of the fruits of the spying with domestic opposition for the express purpose of undermining the foreign policy of the President. That really is above and beyond what everyone is doing.

We should only be in the business of ensuring fair elections...and vice versa. So at face value, I'm none to pleased with this either.

JPhillips 03-25-2015 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 3013404)
I read the article and don't disagree with the outrage but am also not naive enough to think that the United States doesn't do the exact same thing (not just with another nation's foreign policy but undermining entire elections) all over the world. It seems like there is a 40-50 year time frame in which we actually admit to things and if we were doing this all the time in the 60's-70's why exactly has it stopped in 2015?

I'd be very surprised if we were doing that sort of thing to allies.

panerd 03-25-2015 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3013437)
I'd be very surprised if we were doing that sort of thing to allies.

I thought Israel accused the Obama admin of doing it this year? And you really don't think we do it all the time in almost every country in the world? I don't know what is more tin foil... my thought that this happens all the time or you thinking that it doesn't.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Election...st-poll-390925

The Inside Story of U.S. Meddling in Israel’s Elections - The Daily Beast

ISiddiqui 03-25-2015 12:32 PM
Wait... so you think that the US really gives info that we've received from espionage to our allies' domestic opponents?

molson 03-25-2015 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3013474)
Wait... so you think that the US really gives info that we've received from espionage to our allies' domestic opponents?

The "domestic opponents" thing is a little confusing because these are elected legislators who are a part of the government, so I see it more like using espionage to meddle in a country's politics and support one policy over another, in this case to the detriment those in power in the executive branch. And ya, I'm sure we've done that.

What if France used espionage to embolden opposition to the Iraq war in Congress during George W Bush's presidency? A lot of Republicans would no doubt think that was an act of war, but I think a lot of Democrats and war opponents wouldn't be so upset. It's politics.

JonInMiddleGA 03-25-2015 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3013437)
I'd be very surprised if we were doing that sort of thing to allies.

I'd be very surprised -- to the point of almost being disappointed even -- if we weren't doing it from time to time.

JonInMiddleGA 03-25-2015 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3013474)
Wait... so you think that the US really gives info that we've received from espionage to our allies' domestic opponents?

In every case? Nah.

In certain situations? Absolutely.

Dutch 03-25-2015 02:10 PM
C.I.A. -- just win, baby.

JPhillips 03-25-2015 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3013474)
Wait... so you think that the US really gives info that we've received from espionage to our allies' domestic opponents?

I'm sure we support opposition parties both during and after elections, especially since it's now hard to tell the difference between campaign operative and government advisor, but that's a big step away from sharing espionage with the opposition. I really don't know of a time where that's been documented.

Edward64 03-26-2015 06:40 AM
Obama helping out SA and Iraq again. I think the right moves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...9c9_story.html
Quote:
SANAA, Yemen — Saudi Arabia heavily bombed neighboring Yemen Thursday, targeting strategic areas of the capital, including the airport, rebel bases, and the presidential palace, as well as military installations held by rebels around the country.
:
Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya News reported that Saudi Arabia had deployed 100 fighter jets, 150,000 soldiers and other navy units, the Associated Press reported. News footage of the strikes aired by Saudi-owned Al-Hadath TV showed flashing lights and what sounded like machine gun fire.
:
The strikes were a dramatic turn of events that came as the Houthis, in control of Yemen’s capital for months, barreled south toward the coastal city of Aden, seizing an air base along the way that was evacuated by U.S. Special Operations forces* last week. Thursday’s airstrikes also targeted that captured airbase.
:
The strikes were a dramatic turn of events that came as the Houthis, in control of Yemen’s capital for months, barreled south toward the coastal city of Aden, seizing an air base along the way that was evacuated by U.S. Special Operations forces* last week. Thursday’s airstrikes also targeted that captured airbase.

Log In - The New York Times
Quote:
BAGHDAD — American warplanes began airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Tikrit late Wednesday, finally joining a stalled offensive to retake the Iraqi city as American officials sought to seize the initiative from Iran, which had taken a major role in directing the operation.

The decision to directly aid the offensive was made by President Obama on Wednesday, American officials said, and represented a significant shift in the Iraqi campaign. For more than three weeks, the Americans had stayed on the sideline of the battle for Tikrit, wary of being in the position of aiding an essentially Iranian-led operation. Senior Iranian officials had been on the scene, and allied Shiite militias had made up the bulk of the force.

Mr. Obama approved the airstrikes after a request from Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on the condition that Iranian-backed Shiite militias move aside to allow a larger role for Iraqi government counterterrorism forces that have worked most closely with United States troops, American officials said. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who has been advising forces around Tikrit, was reported on Sunday to have left the area.
:
American officials now hope that an American-assisted victory by Mr. Abadi and his forces will politically bolster him and counter the view of Iranian officials, and many Iraqi Shiites, that Iran is Iraq’s vital ally. “Taking back Tikrit is important, but it gives us an opportunity to have our half of the operation win this one,” one American official said. “It’s somewhat of a gamble.”

The administration also hopes that a Tikrit victory with American air power will ensure that it is their coalition with Mr. Abadi’s forces, and not the faction led by Mr. Suleimani, that then proceeds to try to recapture the larger and more pivotal city of Mosul.
:
At Friday Prayer in Karbala last week, a sermon by Sheikh Abdul Mehdi al-Karbalaee, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the powerful spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shiites, pointedly called for more unity and better organization in the fight in Tikrit. That was widely taken as implicit criticism of the offensive’s lack of success.

NobodyHere 03-26-2015 12:17 PM
This is why I believe Rand Paul is a fraud:

Sen. Rand Paul Offers Amendment to Boost Defense Spending

panerd 03-27-2015 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3013761)
This is why I believe Rand Paul is a fraud:

Sen. Rand Paul Offers Amendment to Boost Defense Spending

Yes. More politician than his dad. One could argue in just 6 years he has become a much bigger player than his dad in the GOP but even if nominated somehow by the GOP he doesn't have my vote.

Galaxy 03-27-2015 09:48 AM
Ran Paul is a LINO. From his tax plan/reform flip flopping to the defense spending increase, he can't call himself a libertarian.

ISiddiqui 03-27-2015 10:02 AM
You can't really get all that far if you are a real libertarian. Rand Paul is a more savvy politician than most of the folks who consider themselves libertarian.

JonInMiddleGA 03-27-2015 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 3014033)
Yes. More politician than his dad. One could argue in just 6 years he has become a much bigger player than his dad in the GOP but even if nominated somehow by the GOP he doesn't have my vote.

May be an interesting indication of just how long a shot his candidacy is / would be.

Libts may not trust him for not being libertarian enough, and I'm pretty sure staunch conservatives will find problems (as I do) trusting him not to be too libertarian.

Playing to two bases might leave him with none.

flere-imsaho 03-28-2015 06:04 AM
Scott Walker:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 3012706)
He'd make a dynamite Secretary of Labor.

Yeah, in the sense that he'd blow up what's left of non-1%er jobs in the country. :D

Thomkal 04-01-2015 07:47 PM
Michele Bachmann not in office, but still remains as "classy" as always:

Bachmann compares Obama to Germanwings pilot | TheHill

nol 04-01-2015 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3015712)
Michele Bachmann not in office, but still remains as "classy" as always:

Bachmann compares Obama to Germanwings pilot | TheHill

I saw some political cartoon depicting more or less the same scenario (with the "pilot" knocking on the door having "We the People" on his jacket) and thought it was impressive in its own way for being so immediately terrible that I knew it wasn't one of those intentionally bad Onion political cartoons.

Edward64 04-03-2015 06:08 AM
I'm not well versed enough to know if the deal is good or not and the immediate analysis is the political knee jerk statements.

I do think its better than nothing, buys more time. Ultimately, any country with money and time will be able to get nukes if they want it bad enough (e.g. NK).

Obama ties his fate to Iran nuclear deal - CNN.com
Quote:
Washington (CNN)—President Barack Obama on Thursday effectively placed his presidential legacy in the hands of Iranian revolutionary clerics who've waged a proxy war against the U.S. for three decades.

With a framework deal to halt Tehran's nuclear program, Obama moved closer to the kind of staggering diplomatic breakthrough with the Islamic Republic that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

If the political agreement reached in Switzerland turns into a genuine pact honored by both sides, Obama will be entitled to a place in history as the leader who defused an intensely bitter estrangement with Iran.
:
His sales pitch was concise: There is no other better way to prevent Iran from moving covertly to build a nuclear weapon.

"When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world's major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?" Obama said.

"Is it worse than doing what we've done for almost two decades with Iran moving forward with its nuclear program and without robust inspections?"

flere-imsaho 04-04-2015 06:40 AM
Plus, the other benefit of the deal is that by dropping sanctions, you open the country back up. Nothing liberalizes countries like a good old dose of Western Capitalism. Iran already was (and in a way still is) heading down a moderate path. Letting more of their young people go study in places like Germany and travel around the world will only continue to change the country over time.

NobodyHere 04-07-2015 09:17 AM
Rand Paul is officially throwing his hat in the ring
Republican Rand Paul announces 2016 presidential run on website

I wonder if he found a way to run for his senate seat at the same time.

Edward64 04-08-2015 07:57 AM
The Iranian hard liners seem to support the deal.

Log In - The New York Times
Quote:
It was perhaps the first time that conservatives — in this case mostly young people genuinely disappointed over the compromises Iran has made to reach a nuclear agreement — seemed disconnected from the power structure here.

Analysts say the message from the top is clear: Get with the program. Senior officials, important clerics, lawmakers and Revolutionary Guards commanders, who in the past have reflexively opposed any accommodation with the West, now go out of their way to laud Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his team of negotiators, as well as the government of President Hassan Rouhani.

On Tuesday, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the highest-ranking commander of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, joined the chorus. “The Iranian nation and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps thank these dear negotiators for their honest attempts and political jihad, and for their resistance on the defined red lines,” the semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted him as saying.

Kodos 04-08-2015 02:29 PM
1 Attachment(s)
.

Dutch 04-08-2015 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3017819)
The Iranian hard liners seem to support the deal.

Log In - The New York Times

Honestly, I cant tell if this is good or bad.

Edward64 04-10-2015 04:24 PM
Guess its official for Hillary. The Dem challengers can now come out of the woodwork ... not sure who else is out there besides Elizabeth Warren and Joe? I don't see Joe realistically being able to pull it off and Elizabeth has said she was not interested in the nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/politi...day/index.html
Quote:
Hillary Clinton is planning to launch her presidential candidacy on Sunday through a video message on social media, a person close to her campaign-in-waiting tells CNN, followed immediately by traveling to early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to start making her case to voters.

The trip to Iowa, where a third-place finish in 2008 ultimately led to the collapse of her presidential aspirations, illustrates what aides say is a commitment to not take anything for granted in her second bid for the White House, even though she dominates the likely Democratic field in 2016.
:
:
Central to Clinton's second presidential run will be reintroducing the former first lady -- on her own terms -- to the American people. Democrats close to Clinton have started to call her the most unknown famous person in the world. Their argument is that people know of Clinton -- she has near 100% name recognition in most polls -- but they don't know her story.

Republicans wasted no time Friday going on the offensive, with a paid online ad, called "Stop Hillary," in six presidential battleground states.

"From the East Wing to the State Department, Hillary Clinton has left a trail of secrecy, scandal and failed liberal policies that no image consultant can erase," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in an emailed statement. Voters want to elect someone they can trust and Hillary's record proves that she cannot be trusted. We must 'Stop Hillary.'"

ISiddiqui 04-10-2015 04:28 PM
Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley were rumored to run.... but both have little chance.

Edward64 04-10-2015 04:28 PM
I think a blip in what Obama has and has not done in his Presidency but still a historical one. I would like to visit Cuba when it opens up.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/politi...uba/index.html
Quote:
Panama City (CNN)—President Barack Obama, laying the groundwork for this week's history-making meeting with his Cuban counterpart Raul Castro, spoke by phone Wednesday with the Cuban leader before heading to Panama to greet him face-to-face, the first time the leaders will interact since their nations agreed to renew diplomatic relations after half-a-century of enmity.
:
During their phone call Wednesday, Obama and Castro discussed the ongoing process of normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba, according to Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. He said it "made sense" for the two leaders to communicate before their anticipated interactions Friday and Saturday.
:
"We're in new territory here," Rhodes said on Friday. "The reason we're here is that the President strongly believes that an approach that was focused totally on isolation, focused totally on seeking to cut off the Cuban people from the United States of America had failed."

JPhillips 04-10-2015 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3018262)
Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley were rumored to run.... but both have little chance.

Webb especially. He's proven he doesn't like to campaign.

Ryche 04-10-2015 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3018266)
Webb especially. He's proven he doesn't like to campaign.

I think it was working in a gridlocked Congress he didn't like. Webb makes for an intriguing alternative, I love his foreign policy views. Highly unlikely he can make a dent in Clinton's machine though.

flere-imsaho 04-11-2015 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3018262)
Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley were rumored to run.... but both have little chance.

Given his closeness to the Clinton camp, I'm going to assume O'Malley would be getting in for VP consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryche (Post 3018311)
I think it was working in a gridlocked Congress he didn't like.

It's both, IIRC.

JPhillips 04-11-2015 07:51 AM
Lot's of people have commented on Webb's reluctance to campaign. This is from a story after he retired from the Senate.

Quote:
He was such a reluctant campaigner that Rep. James P. Moran (D) said during Webb's 2006 run: "It would probably help if he'd be willing to shake a couple of hands." Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist who advised Webb that year, said the candidate found the slog of campaigning "offensive."

He also hated the way the Senate worked. Honestly, I support a lot of his positions, but I don't think he'd be at all effective as President. He seems to dislike the process even more than Obama.

miked 04-11-2015 09:56 AM
Any insights as to the fact the nominee for AG has not been voted on in months? Longer than the last 8 combined? And apparently it has nothing to do with her, but as a hostage for other bills. Amazingly, even senators from her own state won't support her, they won't say why and they won't move it forward. I guess I misread that part about confirmations for cabinet posts being dependent on your getting your bill passed.

NobodyHere 04-13-2015 11:15 AM
And now Marco Rubio is setting up for his attack run on the presidential nomination.

Thomkal 04-13-2015 12:03 PM
It will be interesting to see where the Latino vote goes with two Latinos running and one traditionallly friendly Latino vote getter (Clinton)

JPhillips 04-13-2015 12:16 PM
It will still be roughly 2-1 to the Dem, even if that Dem were to be Martin O'Malley.

Dutch 04-13-2015 03:23 PM
Probably time for the dreaded 2016 Presidential Race thread. Obama's got his own challenges yet to overcome, we should spare him the Hillary talk. :)

SirFozzie 04-13-2015 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 3018336)
Any insights as to the fact the nominee for AG has not been voted on in months? Longer than the last 8 combined? And apparently it has nothing to do with her, but as a hostage for other bills. Amazingly, even senators from her own state won't support her, they won't say why and they won't move it forward. I guess I misread that part about confirmations for cabinet posts being dependent on your getting your bill passed.

This is why.

Log In - The New York Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT Editorial Board
It is a peculiar, but unmistakable, phenomenon: As Barack Obama’s presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier and more destructive.

Republican lawmakers in Washington and around the country have been focused on blocking Mr. Obama’s agenda and denigrating him personally since the day he took office in 2009. But even against that backdrop, and even by the dismal standards of political discourse today, the tone of the current attacks is disturbing. So is their evident intent — to undermine not just Mr. Obama’s policies, but his very legitimacy as president.

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Dutch 04-13-2015 05:52 PM
I'm starting to wonder if the NYT is paid for by the DNC.

Kodos 04-13-2015 06:38 PM
Yes, because it's quite clear that Obama has been treated with respect by Republicans.

Dutch 04-13-2015 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 3018910)
Yes, because it's quite clear that Obama has been treated with respect by Republicans.

Lying and supporting your team are two different things. I did mean the latter, not the former.

corbes 04-13-2015 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 3018878)
I'm starting to wonder if the NYT is paid for by the DNC.

In all fairness such a position is consistent with long-held and long-expressed NYT editorial board views. Nothing new there, right?

Kodos 04-13-2015 08:22 PM
Kinda like how the WSJ leans a bit to the right.

corbes 04-13-2015 08:35 PM
Sure. I mean you know what you're getting. Nothing wrong with that. Read both and then make up your own mind.

Dutch 04-14-2015 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 3018965)
Kinda like how the WSJ leans a bit to the right.

Since about forever. See how that works. :) Honesty.

Galaxy 04-14-2015 09:06 PM
Am I alone in thinking that the US needs to move towards a Parliamentary System of government?

Edward64 04-14-2015 10:13 PM
Recent polling. The long term demographics seem to favor the Democrats with independents as the spoilers.

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Quote:
Race and ethnicity. Republicans hold a 49%-40% lead over the Democrats in leaned party identification among whites. The GOP’s advantage widens to 21 points among white men who have not completed college (54%-33%) and white southerners (55%-34%). The Democrats hold an 80%-11% advantage among blacks, lead by close to three-to-one among Asian Americans (65%-23%) and by more than two-to-one among Hispanics (56%-26%).

Gender. Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

Education. Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.

Generations. Millennials continue to be the most Democratic age cohort; 51% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 35% who identify with the GOP or lean Republican. There are only slight differences in partisan affiliation between older and younger millennials. Republicans have a four-point lead among the Silent Generation (47%-43%), the most Republican age cohort.

Religion. Republicans lead in leaned party identification by 48 points among Mormons and 46 points among white evangelical Protestants. Younger white evangelicals (those under age 35) are about as likely older white evangelicals to identify as Republicans or lean Republican. Adults who have no religious affiliation lean Democratic by a wide margins (36 points). Jews lean Democratic by roughly two-to-one (61% to 31%). The balance of leaned partisan affiliation among white Catholics and white mainline Protestants closely resembles that of all whites.

Quote:
The biggest change in partisan affiliation in recent years is the growing share of Americans who decline to affiliate with either party: 39% call themselves independents, 32% identify as Democrats and 23% as Republicans, based on aggregated data from 2014.

The rise in the share of independents has been particularly dramatic over the past decade: In 2004, 33% of Americans identified as Democrats, 30% as independents and 29% as Republicans. Since then, the percentage of independents has increased nine points while Republican affiliation has fallen six points. Democratic affiliation has shown less change over this period; it rose to 35% in 2008, fell to 32% in 2011 and has changed little since then (currently 32%).

Most of those who identify as independents lean toward a party. And in many respects, partisan leaners have attitudes that are similar to those of partisans – they just prefer not to identify with a party. (See this appendix to our 2014 polarization report for an explainer on partisan “leaners.”)

The balance of leaned partisan affiliation has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Democrats have led in leaned party identification among the public for most of the past two decades.

SirFozzie 04-15-2015 03:20 PM
GOP Twitter Interns, you had one job:

Senate Republicans on Twitter: "150 years ago today, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. America is forever indebted. http://t.co/vhIE1k20e7"

150 years ago today, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. America is forever indebted.

Phrasing is an issue. I know what they're trying to say, but how it comes out...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.
Page 503 of 527 « First < 3403453493494495496497498499500501502 503 504505506507508509510511512513 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.