Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 01, 2015, 12:38:17 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 109
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Some GOP evangelicals feel left out, without a standard-bearer on: August 18, 2014, 03:21:48 am
There are about 15 somewhat likely Republican 2016 candidates. I can't think of a single one who has not been pandering to evangelicals.
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Pence runs, how would you rate his chances at winning the GOP nomination? on: August 18, 2014, 01:51:30 am
60% is ridiculous.

Hard to predict who runs but Cruz and Perry both seem likely to run and likely to interfere with Pence getting traction. Not to mention Huckabee, Walker or Ryan if 1 or 2 of those run. Plus others comparable to Pence in name recogniton and likely appeal to donors have a shot of momentum. Not far-fetched that he could grab an Iowa or South Carolina win but with likely obstacles I don't think he's better than 10% to win if you start with the assumption he's running. Not sure anyone is though. Bush? Huckabee?
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary is an unrestrained warmonger on: August 17, 2014, 01:26:01 am
It appears the Democrat Party has moved into socialite type territory.

Well, if you're going to throw a Democrat party, who better than a socialite to organize it?

If Democrats are the socialite party now, that's one more way Rand Paul is bucking GOP orthodoxy.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/12/rand-paul-family-commitment/13972009/
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul writes TIME op-ed on Ferguson MO/police militarization on: August 16, 2014, 05:53:46 pm
I liked it and this is great, but it's also derailing his nomination chances. A twitter search for Rand #tcot will show you how much the totally-not-racist-at-alls consider him a pandering running-to-the-left opportunist now.

Running to the left got McCain through the primaries (as running to the not-as-extreme right did for Romney.)

McCain didn't run to the left. And unlike Rand Paul will, he didn't have John McCain campaigning against him. Hard to dismiss Rand Paul's chances outright but there's also not a lot of reason to think he'll get very far.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Found the last time FiveThirtyEight ran a simulation with Clinton as Dem nomine on: August 16, 2014, 03:12:25 pm
This was right as or after the primary ended. There was a lot of resentment between their supporters. (Remember PUMAs?) That's reflected in these maps but it was never going to last after Obama and Hillary inevitably made up. Obama wouldn't have won 365 electoral votes without the financial collapse but he still was always going to do way better than this map. Also, totally irrelevant for 2016.
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rick Perry indicted on abuse of power on: August 16, 2014, 03:01:30 pm
I don't believe this one will be particularly harmful. The belief that the following prosecutor should resign after her arrest for drunk driving does not seem controversial.

I'll take you one further: this will end up helping Perry. What he did isn't just uncontroversial, it'll be applauded, especially by Republican primary voters. Perry can legitimately claim to be unfairly targeted by liberals for the kind of executive behavior they like. And it all would have gone completely unnoticed but for this indictment. This is the DA's oops.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Found the last time FiveThirtyEight ran a simulation with Clinton as Dem nomine on: August 14, 2014, 12:44:51 pm
That looks like it would have been the point where Hillary had her highest unfavorables among Democrats… which would have kept her down to 300 electoral votes.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: Hillary does not have a problem on her left on: August 14, 2014, 12:24:19 pm
Warren accepted a request to sign an ostensibly private letter to Hillary encouraging her to run. That's not an endorsement really. Warren probably guessed it was likely to leak to the public but if anything that diminishes it since it's a good bet she just didn't want to invite a media frenzy. (Same with Klobuchar) When asked about Hillary, Warren is generally positive (as is Bernie Sanders) but largely dodges. I'd find Warren endorsing Hillary in a primary more surprising than Warren running herself.
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: Hillary does not have a problem on her left on: August 14, 2014, 10:54:26 am
She has a problem with the left. Luckily for her the left is split to all hell (I'd like to see everyone get behind Sanders or Schweitzer myself), and the last progressive upstart is totally behind her.

Warren isn't totally behind Clinton. If she doesn't run herself, I doubt she'd endorse Hillary in a primary against Sanders. (Most likely she wouldn't endorse at all.) If Hillary's the nominee, obviously Warren will endorse or campaign for her.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Threat from Hillary's Left on: August 12, 2014, 09:53:32 pm
Warren or Feingold but given Hillary's huge polling lead, Feingold is more likely to run for his old seat, Warren is more likely to just let Sanders run.

Schweitzer's recent comments have hurt himself, but he may be able to redeem himself.

His gun views are also a big problem in a D primary, as he has admitted.
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Do you think Hillary made a good decision criticizing Obama's foreign policy? on: August 12, 2014, 04:52:08 pm
I think people are blowing it out of proportion. If you actually read the interview, she gave a few differences between herself and Obama, but her views were a lot more nuanced than "OBAMA IS A DOVE WIMP WHO HATES AMERICA I AM HAWK HERE ME ROAR". With the way the media and Atlas are reacting you'd think she pulled a Dick Cheney and called Obama a failure.
Icespear, I'm reading the NYT article on her comments, and my god some of these "democrats" are off their rocker.

Common phrases in the comments section:

1) "Hillary stabbed Obama in the back"
2) "She lost my vote"
3) "Neocon"
4) "Warren"

Yeah, those are our party's versions of the Tea Party. The ones who want to nominate Warren/Sanders/etc. fail to see how terribly they would do in the general election, even against a right-wing nutter like Perry or Cruz. Fact of the matter is that the United States is already involved in foreign affairs and have taken it upon ourselves to be "the world's policeman." To just completely abscond from our duties would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world that we no longer care what happens outside our borders, and the U.S. has stakes and interests in pretty much every country around the world.

Based on what though? In the 2008 primary, Hillary's surrogates if not Hillary herself were saying Obama was a huge risk to lose the general election.

I think it's a poor decision, because she's leaving room on her anti-interventionist flank for a potential Republican or Democrat challenge, and Americans are not in favor of more intervention. That being said, people who think Warren is the right challenge for Hillary are totally wrong, because Warren is a cold warrior too.

What's that assessment based on? Warren's problem is more that she's inexperienced in foreign affairs. The same can't be said for Feingold.

The reason this was a bit dumb politically is evident in Axelrod's brushback pitch. The suggestion that we should have armed secular Syrian rebels won't hurt her but blaming Obama's or anyone else's poor judgment for creating a dangerous vacuum in Iraq opens her up to obvious attacks. She's revealed some political blindness this summer, but still not enough for me to think her losing the nomination is likely.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Do you think Hillary made a good decision criticizing Obama's foreign policy? on: August 12, 2014, 12:37:32 pm
It is absolutely crazy to me that some democrats are upset with her comments. Why are they trying to sabotage a very intelligent political calculation on the part of Mrs. Clinton?

Because they're not worried about her losing, they're worried about her winning and implementing a foreign policy they hate.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is the most likely person to run for the Dem. nomination besides Clinton? on: August 11, 2014, 10:43:08 pm
Sanders, Schweitzer and O'Malley all sound like they have some willingness to run even knowing they'd lose. And each with their own reason.. Sanders wants to promote his issues and pull Hillary to the left, Schweitzer probably wants to set up a media career and O'Malley would be running for VP. (I bet he wouldn't attack her at all in a primary.) Because Schweitzer's wife is openly opposed to his running, I'd call Sanders and O'Malley 1-2.

164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary is an unrestrained warmonger on: August 11, 2014, 10:17:09 am
Trying to train, arm secular factions of the Syrian rebels in a civil war that was already breaking out doesn't really make someone an "unrestrained warmonger". Not sure it would have been effective and neither is Hillary, as she admits. Can't see anything in here causing her political problems either.
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Remember in 2008 when Hillary won CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, OH, MI & NJ and still lost on: August 10, 2014, 08:23:24 pm
Good times.

 Don't see how that can happen again though

Yeah it's really good in a democracy where the candidate who receives the most votes still loses.

Obama won the most votes without Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot since he didn't break the DNC rules.

He OPTED to take his name off the ballot and he still received delegates, so your argument is moot. Hey, my name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, either. Why didn't I receive some delegates? The DNC just assumed that all the "uncommitted" votes cast in Michigan were for Obama and so he got some delegates because of that. It's not really a democracy if all 50 states, DC, and the territories did not get a say. And yes, I would say the same if it had been Idaho, Illinois, or Georgia that had "violated" the DNC "rules." You shouldn't punish the voters because of their state leaders' mistakes.

Hey, don't be mad at the DNC for announcing they would strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. If they hadn't done that, Obama stays on the Michigan ballot and wins the primary popular vote nationally.

Good times.

 Don't see how that can happen again though

Yeah it's really good in a democracy where the candidate who receives the most votes still loses.

That was a travesty. What was done to Michigan and Florida were a travesty. Pure voter disenfranchisement

They were given delegates in the end. Iowa and New Hampshire probably can't be stripped of their arbitrary privilege unless the parties do it together.

More importantly, what does any of this have to do with 2016? Besides GOP leadership obviously wishing they could restrict their nominating process to the OP's list of all blue states (except Texas).
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary is an unrestrained warmonger on: August 10, 2014, 07:50:48 pm
Hillary also defended Netanyahu.

Quote
“If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security, because even if I’m dealing with [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas, who is 79 years old, and other members of Fatah, who are enjoying a better lifestyle and making money on all kinds of things, that does not protect Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere else. With Syria and Iraq, it is all one big threat. So Netanyahu could not do this in good conscience,” she said.
The comments are by far the opposite what President Obama has said about Netanyahu. “In some ways, Bibi is too strong [and] in some ways Abu Mazen is too weak to bring them together and make the kinds of bold decisions that Sadat or Begin or Rabin were willing to make,” Obama said during an interview with the NY times’ Thomans Friedman over the weekend.. “It’s going to require leadership among both the Palestinians and the Israelis to look beyond tomorrow. … And that’s the hardest thing for politicians to do is to take the long view on things.

http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/10/hillary-clinton-critics-israels-gaza-op-uncalled-unfair/

Criticizing someone as being too old to be president is probably not a good avenue for her to go down.

I don't think her point is that he's too old to be president. It's that in the near future he'll be out of power soon.
167  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 09, 2014, 05:23:42 pm
Why would Israel keep the blockade in effect if they were no longer threatened from Gaza? If Israel were interested in keeping Gaza it wouldn't have dismantled settlements there.

We also don't know how popular Hamas is in Gaza. A recent poll showed over 90% of Gazans wanted to continue the ceasefire that Hamas just broke.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary vs. Rand - national demographics on: August 08, 2014, 07:16:34 pm
Romney won the 18 year old vote by a large margin in 2012, and Romney also won the 19 year old vote and the 20 year old vote

Where do you find that polling?
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - August 2014 on: August 07, 2014, 02:46:04 pm
Why did Bush collapse in this poll this month? Do I get the credit? What happened besides my post in the July thread arguing he had problems?

If so, let me train my sights on Rand Paul's chances this time.

Cruz is better positioned than Paul to end up the strongest insurgent candidate. The Ron Paul libertarians who will likely support Rand, despite Rand's departures from libertarianism, are an enthusiastic but small group of Republicans, smaller than the overlapping subset of the GOP: very conservative Republicans, who will likely find much more they dislike about Paul than Cruz.

It's true that the establishment would open a dam of money to stop Cruz but that's just as true of Paul. Whether it will work against either is an open question.

Regardless, both Cruz and Paul are among the likeliest Republicans to run and should both still rank ahead of people like Walker and Bush who are still solid maybes to run.

Also, why not remove these people from the poll?
Jon Huntsman   
Peter King   
Scott Brown       
Donald Trump       
Condi Rice       
Steve King       
Sarah Palin       
Brian Sandoval
Kelly Ayotte       
Mary Fallin       
Nikki Haley       
Sam Brownback   
Tim Pawlenty
Joe Scarborough       
Jeff Sessions       
Carly Fiorina
170  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 07, 2014, 02:00:22 pm
Oh boo hoo. Quit your hand-wringing. Using the Holocaust as a justification for Israeli war crimes or ethnic cleansing in the West Bank is more offensive than anything Snowstalker has said. This constant lookout for opportunities to jump down on people, scream "anti-Semitism!!!" and shut down discussion is pathetic.

Where did this happen? Looks to me like you're protesting others protesting something that isn't there when, ironically, that protest isn't even there.

Quote
The "Palestinian Gandhi" thing is absolute nonsense. The Palestinians have peacefully protested, and when they do, they are ignored by international media or they are murdered or arrested by Israeli soldiers and then ignored by international media. The Israeli occupation is inherently violent. Colonizing another people's land is inherently violent. To turn the burden back on the oppressed people, telling them that they must peacefully resist while Israeli guns are aimed at them, when they cannot move around their own country freely, when any sort of resistance is met with gunfire from the IDF or from Israeli settlers, is disgusting.

It's ridiculous to say Palestinians have tried peaceful protest and it didn't work. For one thing, stray protests in the context of a movement that's been predominantly violent since it began (even before the creation of Israel) is not the same as a nonviolent liberation movement. To say nonviolent protest didn't work because the protesters just got arrested reveals a staggering lack of understanding of nonviolent protest and its history. I can't speak for dead0man, but my point was a Palestinian liberation movement would be much more effective with violence removed from the equation. The historical trauma of the Holocaust is part of the reason why and I don't see why it should be out-of-bounds to say so. The other absurdity of someone dismissing Palestinian nonviolent resistance as having been tried and failing is that, not only is that false, but violent resistance has been tried incessantly and has been a bonafide catastrophe for Palestinians. Without it, Israel, if it existed at all, wouldn't be in control of the West Bank and Gaza. It's not that, in the absence of violence against Israel, there would no longer be fundamentalist Jews or rightwing Israelis who aspire to annex the West Bank, it's that their political power would dissipate considerably. Remember Netanyahu was most recently elected in the wake of another short war with Gaza. And of course, this is the flip side of the Israel rightwing government's continuing to expand settlements weakening the political power of moderate Palestinians in a cycle empowering rejectionists, a cycle you seem to approve of by condoning militants'  terror attacks against Israeli civilians- the consequence of which is to undermine the liberal forces on each side which represent the only hope for progress. All this is without even discussing the morality of attacks targeting civilians.
171  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 06, 2014, 11:36:21 pm
A solid majority of Israelis support a 2-state solution even now. It doesn't take a genius to see that their historic traumas, plus extreme rhetoric from fundamentalists, plus violent attacks targeting civilians give Israelis enough existential fear to allow rightwing elements more power over policy. Without violent attacks against it, Israel's territory would have been even smaller than the 67 borders if it had been able to sustain at all. But if you want to go on condoning violent "resistance" and mocking the renouncing of it, knock yourself out.

The Holocaust was undeniably the worst single crime in human history, which is precisely why using it as an excuse for Israel's current policy (as opposed to a mediocre rationalization) is offensive to both its victims and the oppressed in Palestine right now. Of the twelve million killed for political/racial reasons by Nazi Germany and its allies, only about half were Jewish. Yet no one tolerated war crimes by Serbian paramilitaries in the 1990's just because of the genocide against them by the Ustase. The persecution of homosexuals which begun with the Night of the Long Knives' purge of most gay NSDAP members and culminated in mass extermination of homosexuals did not change popular attitude towards gays in the postwar era. The Roma, the second-biggest victims of Nazi racial policy after the Jews, received nothing and continue to be treated like subhumans in most of Europe. Why, then, is Israel (which, mind you, is not and should not be considered the representation of all Jews around the world) given the Holocaust as an excuse for current policy in Palestine?


Re-read the most recent posts…

Bushie asked what Dead0man thinks Palestinians should do.

Dead0man answered nonviolent resistance.

You dismissed as foolish the idea of Palestinians refraining from "violent resistance" i.e. terrorism.

I argued in response that terrorism, together with extremist rhetoric averring the goal of erasing Israel and the historic trauma of the Holocaust led to empowering rightwing groups in Israel, with very negative policy repercussions for Palestinians aspiring for independence and end to occupation. (And that "violent resistance" against Israeli jews had historically only down Israel's territory/created more suffering for Palestinians.) That doesn't look to me to be an especially controversial (or even astute) observation. It seems obvious the lower the level of violence directed at Israeli Jews, the stronger the forces for peace are. That phenomenon is not unique to Israel of course.
172  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 06, 2014, 11:01:28 pm
India only became independent because Britain was broke and the only other path was a war for independence that Britain would have obviously lost anyway. The American civil rights movement only succeeded in overturning Jim Crow by appealing to favorable elements in the favorable government and (arguably) due to the legacy of having faced two racist empires in World War II (and to say that the American civil rights movement was a success in its real goal of racial equality is obviously idiotic)--and neither movement ruled out violence as a last resort (pacifism is an idiotic ideology which inherently sides with the oppressor over the oppressed).

Peaceful resistance from Palestinians has been tried and has led only to more settlements. The only solution is for Israel to be cut off from the rest of the world the way South Africa was, and for demographic trends to go long enough to force Israel to choose between letting Palestine go (most likely becoming a bi-national Palestinian state) and diving into pure genocide. If that fails (as the South African isolation strategy could have) and Israel moves further right, an international coalition to at least decapitate the serpent and send some guys to The Hague would not be off the table.

Yes, there is clear evidence that some civilian sites in Gaza have been used for military purposes by the Gazan government. However, given how little damage the Hamas rockets have done and how many civilian deaths in Gaza there have been that the "human shield" rationalization can't excuse, Israel's bombing of civilians from the air (and completely known shooting of unarmed civilians on the ground, something which some of the filth in the IDF have openly bragged about on the internet) is inexcusable and anyone with either a heart or a brain should want to see them destroyed.

A solid majority of Israelis support a 2-state solution even now. It doesn't take a genius to see that their historic traumas, plus extreme rhetoric from fundamentalists, plus violent attacks targeting civilians give Israelis enough existential fear to allow rightwing elements more power over policy. Without violent attacks against it, Israel's territory would have been even smaller than the 67 borders if it had been able to sustain at all. But if you want to go on condoning violent "resistance" and mocking the renouncing of it, knock yourself out.

Yes, any soldier who targets a civilian with no military purpose should be charged. But that view is consistent with saying Israel still has no obligation to tolerate a barrage of rocket fire even if their hit rate is very low, nor tunnels penetrating their territory to set up attacks, even if those attacks haven't been carried out yet.
173  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 06, 2014, 10:09:21 pm
It's not a good sign that so many people on your side are so ignorant of the history.  Anyway....
cite the 1st
Quote
The Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, whose southern wing[8] housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.
2nd link
Quote
The Jewish political leadership publicly condemned the attack. The Jewish Agency expressed "their feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals", despite the fact that the Irgun was acting in response to the Jewish Resistance Movement, an organisation governed by the Jewish Agency.[22] The Jewish National Council denounced the bombing.[14] According to The Jerusalem Post, "although the Hagana had sanctioned the King David bombing, world-wide condemnation caused the organization to distance itself from the attack."[13] David Ben-Gurion deemed the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the attack.[citation needed] Hatsofeh, a Jewish newspaper in Palestine, labelled the Irgun perpetrators "fascists".

Bolded items emphasis mine. Calling the hotel operator is fair warning? The staff probably assumed it was a prank. I wonder if their descendants had the courtesy to call that UN school before proceeding to attack it.

Official statements from two Jewish organizations and David Ben-Gurion = a majority of Zionists?

Anyway, you're missing the point. People blew a bunch of s#@% up and demanded their own state, and they were subsequently given their own state. That kind of sets a precedent. Is it surprising that another group of people is presently blowing s#@% up and demanding their own state?

You keep screaming bloody murder about "firing rockets at civilians" when a whopping three Israeli civilians have actually been killed by rockets in this present conflict. Ten Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli raids just in the West Bank, which isn't even where the conflict is taking place.

So tell me just what it is that you would do if you were a resident of Gaza? You're not allowed to leave. You can't import or export goods or services and as a result you're probably unemployed. Even if you don't like Hamas, they're the only game in town. And Israel has zero intention of ever granting you sovereignty, rocket attacks or not. So what, at that point, would you suggest the people of Gaza do?

Not defending their tactic but the Irgun wasn't demanding Britain be part of Israel.

The people of Gaza are in a horrific situation obviously. They should have an Arab Spring to protest Hamas rule. I get those who are Hamas opponents being too afraid to. Hamas would presumably violently quash protests as their benefactor Iran did. But Gazans should call for Hamas to disarm so as to remove any justification for the blockade, and reduce the risk of having rockets stored in or fired from next to a location with civilians. And they should call for new elections and democratic rule.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could the Kennedy-Obama alliance ruin Hillary's hopes...again? on: August 06, 2014, 09:38:29 pm
My hopes of no one here taking Ed Klein seriously are ruined.

I'm with you but we had to know this would happen.
175  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 05, 2014, 03:47:46 pm
Notice that part at the end?  Even they admit (with the silence) that the violence will continue even if Israel gives into their unreasonable demands.
So, the leader or Hamas agreed to a two-state solution, according to your quote. Why are you deliberately lying and pretending the opposite? Of course there is going to be violence between the two states, the ideal solution would be for Israelis and Palestinians to suddenly become best friends (France-Germany way), but the truth is that their relations will likely be something like the India-Pakistan relations, unless some miracle happen.

India isn't fighting to get Pakistan back.

Quote
Hamas announced on Tuesday that it would never accept the two-state solution or give up “one inch of the land of Palestine.”
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hamas-says-it-would-never-accept-two-state-solution-wont-give-up-one-inch-of-land-339682

A piece on the failed peace process.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 109


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines