Romney pledges to launch an armada of galleons if elected.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 12:27:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Romney pledges to launch an armada of galleons if elected.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Romney pledges to launch an armada of galleons if elected.  (Read 2342 times)
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 28, 2012, 06:48:51 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Castro summed it up best...



I was concerned about Cain, Bachmann, or Palin getting the nuclear button but it appears they were just a distraction to keep us from realizing the true lunacy of Mitt Romney.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2012, 07:09:57 PM »

Yes, because Commie anti human rights dictator Castro is such a credible and realiable source for commentary on the American political scene.

However, if you wish to idolize Commie Castro, hang on his every word, and worship as your  hero, you are completely free to do so.

Don't let me stop you.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2012, 07:11:54 PM »

Mitt Romney is a warmonger. He will start a war with Iran, not to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but to make himself look tough.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2012, 07:14:06 PM »

Yes, because Commie anti human rights dictator Castro is such a credible and realiable source for commentary on the American political scene.

However, if you wish to idolize Commie Castro, hang on his every word, and worship as your  hero, you are completely free to do so.

Don't let me stop you.

A broken clock like Castro is still far more reliable than the Republicans.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2012, 07:23:36 PM »

Yes, because Commie anti human rights dictator Castro is such a credible and realiable source for commentary on the American political scene.

However, if you wish to idolize Commie Castro, hang on his every word, and worship as your  hero, you are completely free to do so.

Don't let me stop you.

Whoa.  Not the reaction I was expecting.  You do realize I have at various times agreed with things Newt Gingrich has said and I have agreed with things that Romney has said.  I don't think that means I "idolize" them.  I was on another thread earlier today defending Romney from an unfair attack.  I'm not a robot dude.  If someone is right I acknowledge it.  It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do.

You have to admit that Romney's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of military matters.  This is why you shouldn't assume a business man will automatically make a good president.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2012, 07:25:53 PM »

Yes, because Commie anti human rights dictator Castro is such a credible and realiable source for commentary on the American political scene.

However, if you wish to idolize Commie Castro, hang on his every word, and worship as your  hero, you are completely free to do so.

Don't let me stop you.

Whoa.  Not the reaction I was expecting.  You do realize I have at various times agreed with things Newt Gingrich has said and I have agreed with things that Romney has said.  I don't think that means I "idolize" them.  I was on another thread earlier today defending Romney from an unfair attack.  I'm not a robot dude.  If someone is right I acknowledge it.  It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do.

You have to admit that Romney's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of military matters.  This is why you shouldn't assume a business man will automatically make a good president.

Pretty crazy that as we are still in the mess left by the first MBA President, the Republicans are set to nominate another Harvard MBA class of '75. The Harvard Business school should be shut down for graduating such scum.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2012, 07:33:16 PM »

We aren't going to raise taxes, but at the same time build more ships for the navy and balance the budget. Mitt is a magician.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2012, 07:48:42 PM »

We aren't going to raise taxes, but at the same time build more ships for the navy and balance the budget. Mitt is a magician.

Voodoo economics, Part 10.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2012, 08:07:12 PM »

Yes, because Commie anti human rights dictator Castro is such a credible and realiable source for commentary on the American political scene.

However, if you wish to idolize Commie Castro, hang on his every word, and worship as your  hero, you are completely free to do so.

Don't let me stop you.

A broken clock like Castro is still far more reliable than the Republicans.

Another worshiper at the shrine of Castro I see.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2012, 08:23:57 PM »

Yes, because Commie anti human rights dictator Castro is such a credible and realiable source for commentary on the American political scene.

However, if you wish to idolize Commie Castro, hang on his every word, and worship as your  hero, you are completely free to do so.

Don't let me stop you.

Whoa.  Not the reaction I was expecting.  You do realize I have at various times agreed with things Newt Gingrich has said and I have agreed with things that Romney has said.  I don't think that means I "idolize" them.  I was on another thread earlier today defending Romney from an unfair attack.  I'm not a robot dude.  If someone is right I acknowledge it.  It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do.

You have to admit that Romney's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of military matters.  This is why you shouldn't assume a business man will automatically make a good president.

You're the one who said that Castro summed it up best, meaning better than anyone else, better than any American could have.

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

The GOP candidates could not  get a better endorsement than to have some Commie dictator criticizing them.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,398
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2012, 08:28:33 PM »

Castro is less dangerous to the world than Romney (or the Grinch for that matter).
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2012, 08:31:15 PM »

Yes, Mittens loves boats. But my Pub Congressperson, while he may love yachts (his CD has Newport Beach), does not love taxpayer financed gun-boats, and while he supports Mittens like I do, also in tune with the Torie-man, opposes his gun-boat fetish. I guess I have John Campbell in my pocket. Tongue

And there you have it!  Smiley
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2012, 09:37:49 PM »
« Edited: January 28, 2012, 09:47:15 PM by Link »

Whoa.  Not the reaction I was expecting.  You do realize I have at various times agreed with things Newt Gingrich has said and I have agreed with things that Romney has said.  I don't think that means I "idolize" them.  I was on another thread earlier today defending Romney from an unfair attack.  I'm not a robot dude.  If someone is right I acknowledge it.  It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do.

You have to admit that Romney's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of military matters.  This is why you shouldn't assume a business man will automatically make a good president.

You're the one who said that Castro summed it up best, meaning better than anyone else, better than any American could have.

Figure of speech.

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

Concrete thinking.

Seriously what is with you and the English language?  You mean to say you've never called a guy that went to Harvard or Yale an idiot?  You don't actually mean the person has an IQ less than 90.

And what is with this Commie stuff?  The Cold War is over.  Guess what?  We won.  They aren't coming back.  Geez.  And you wonder why the rest of us and frankly the rest of the world are terrified of people like you.  Castro is a petty dictator living on an island.  Why does he bother you so much?  What's embarrassing is as bad as that guy is he is one of the only prominent people that can speak the truth about the situation. Frankly I'm embarrassed that he landed such a blow on our political process.

Now do you have anything to say about Romney's proposed flotilla from the turn of the last century or do you want to re-litigate the Cold War?

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

Mmmm... no.  I am calling Romney's defense bona fides bunk because he just compared an Aegis cruiser to a steam ship.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2012, 09:39:58 PM »

Mitt Romney catches Kaiser Wilhelm II mania.  More boats!  More!

Seriously, though, if there's any military force out there that can match the US Army or the US Air Force, it's the US Navy.  Mitt does the Navy a pretty grave disservice by implying it's not already ludicrously powerful.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2012, 09:45:56 PM »

Mitt is just pretending to get a hard on for violence in order to earn pubblie support.  Shameless and stupid pandering as usual.  
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2012, 10:07:25 PM »

Whoa.  Not the reaction I was expecting.  You do realize I have at various times agreed with things Newt Gingrich has said and I have agreed with things that Romney has said.  I don't think that means I "idolize" them.  I was on another thread earlier today defending Romney from an unfair attack.  I'm not a robot dude.  If someone is right I acknowledge it.  It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do.

You have to admit that Romney's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of military matters.  This is why you shouldn't assume a business man will automatically make a good president.

You're the one who said that Castro summed it up best, meaning better than anyone else, better than any American could have.

Figure of speech.

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

Concrete thinking.

Seriously what is with you and the English language?  You mean to say you've never called a guy that went to Harvard or Yale an idiot?  You don't actually mean the person has an IQ less than 90.

And what is with this Commie stuff?  The Cold War is over.  Guess what?  We won.  They aren't coming back.  Geez.  And you wonder why the rest of us and frankly the rest of the world are terrified of people like you.  Castro is a petty dictator living on an island.  Why does he bother you so much?  What's embarrassing is as bad as that guy is he is one of the only prominent people that can speak the truth about the situation. Frankly I'm embarrassed that he landed such a blow on our political process.

Now do you have anything to say about Romney's proposed flotilla from the turn of the last century or do you want to re-litigate the Cold War?

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

Mmmm... no.  I am calling Romney's defense bona fides bunk because he just compared an Aegis cruiser to a steam ship.

You are the one who injected the Commie Castro and his statement about the GOP candidates, stating he summed it up best, and you now try to pass this off as a figure of speech.

You made no such claim when you quoted from the dictator.  I can only assume that you were serious with your own statement.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2012, 10:07:56 PM »
« Edited: January 28, 2012, 10:16:18 PM by Link »

Mitt does the Navy a pretty grave disservice by implying it's not already ludicrously powerful.

Don't worry.  He takes a swipe at the Air Force too.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.



VS



I would take a 10 year old stealth bomber over 40 brand new B-17's any day of the week.  Is Mitt Romney Rain Man?  How could you compare the number of B-17's to the number of B-2's in the stable?  The Harvard Business School is very suspect.  Is this just epic political trolling on a grand scale or is Romney suffering early onset dementia?
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2012, 10:15:26 PM »
« Edited: January 28, 2012, 10:19:07 PM by Link »

Whoa.  Not the reaction I was expecting.  You do realize I have at various times agreed with things Newt Gingrich has said and I have agreed with things that Romney has said.  I don't think that means I "idolize" them.  I was on another thread earlier today defending Romney from an unfair attack.  I'm not a robot dude.  If someone is right I acknowledge it.  It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do.

You have to admit that Romney's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of military matters.  This is why you shouldn't assume a business man will automatically make a good president.

You're the one who said that Castro summed it up best, meaning better than anyone else, better than any American could have.

Figure of speech.

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

Concrete thinking.

Seriously what is with you and the English language?  You mean to say you've never called a guy that went to Harvard or Yale an idiot?  You don't actually mean the person has an IQ less than 90.

And what is with this Commie stuff?  The Cold War is over.  Guess what?  We won.  They aren't coming back.  Geez.  And you wonder why the rest of us and frankly the rest of the world are terrified of people like you.  Castro is a petty dictator living on an island.  Why does he bother you so much?  What's embarrassing is as bad as that guy is he is one of the only prominent people that can speak the truth about the situation. Frankly I'm embarrassed that he landed such a blow on our political process.

Now do you have anything to say about Romney's proposed flotilla from the turn of the last century or do you want to re-litigate the Cold War?

For someone who agrees with some things Romney has said, you are now saying he, and all Republican candidates, are idiots, just because some Commie anti human rights dictator says so.

Mmmm... no.  I am calling Romney's defense bona fides bunk because he just compared an Aegis cruiser to a steam ship.

You are the one who injected the Commie Castro and his statement about the GOP candidates, stating he summed it up best, and you now try to pass this off as a figure of speech.


"[Insert name] said it best..."  Is a figure of speech whether you use it in reference to Castro or anyone else.  It does not mean you literally surveyed all 7 billion people on the planet and chose the wittiest response.

Now do you have a comment about Romney's military hardware valuation models?
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2012, 10:24:30 PM »

Obama stands in a position of strength on foreign policy (Bin Laden, Libya, Iraq ending, tough stand on piracy etc.).  This issue has long been a GOP winner.  For decades the perception is that D's are hopelessly weak and therefore Mitt is pulling out anything out to try to rekindle this.

It is a simplistic attack, however, the large expected decrease in the number of fighters and the aging strategic bomber fleet are issues to analyze. I think there will be a big shift toward relatively inexpensive UCAVS so the US will have to be prudent to maintain the technological and strategic edge.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2012, 10:42:28 PM »

Obama stands in a position of strength on foreign policy (Bin Laden, Libya, Iraq ending, tough stand on piracy etc.).  This issue has long been a GOP winner.  For decades the perception is that D's are hopelessly weak and therefore Mitt is pulling out anything out to try to rekindle this.

It is a simplistic attack, however, the large expected decrease in the number of fighters and the aging strategic bomber fleet are issues to analyze. I think there will be a big shift toward relatively inexpensive UCAVS so the US will have to be prudent to maintain the technological and strategic edge.

Yes my assumption was it was just the usual recycled meme of "Dem's weak.  Me strong."  I just don't know why a man who allegedly made his money analyzing the value of things would make such an imbecilic comparison for two branches of our armed forces.  Sarah Palin could have done that.  Romney is better than this.

You and other posters in this thread have brought up some good and very serious points.  You are correct.  We do have a lot of aging hardware in our military as evidenced by the F-15 that broke up in mid flight.  We really need to evaluate our military.  Well first our military needs some down time.  Then we need to take inventory.  Then we need to figure out what our future missions are going to be and retool for them.  This is a very serious matter.

And as others have said we need to figure out how we are going to pay for it.  We can't just say we are going to purchase more super carriers, cut taxes on the rich, and magically balance the budget.  This is my fundamental problem with Romney.  If if you think Obama is doing a bad job with the economy is there any evidence that Romney is going to do a better job?  Tax cuts for the rich and more military spending has been tried since the 1980s.  It's the reason we are in such bad shape now.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2012, 10:52:39 PM »

Obama stands in a position of strength on foreign policy (Bin Laden, Libya, Iraq ending, tough stand on piracy etc.).  This issue has long been a GOP winner.  For decades the perception is that D's are hopelessly weak and therefore Mitt is pulling out anything out to try to rekindle this.

It is a simplistic attack, however, the large expected decrease in the number of fighters and the aging strategic bomber fleet are issues to analyze. I think there will be a big shift toward relatively inexpensive UCAVS so the US will have to be prudent to maintain the technological and strategic edge.

Yes my assumption was it was just the usual recycled meme of "Dem's weak.  Me strong."  I just don't know why a man who allegedly made his money analyzing the value of things would make such an imbecilic comparison for two branches of our armed forces.  Sarah Palin could have done that.  Romney is better than this.

You and other posters in this thread have brought up some good and very serious points.  You are correct.  We do have a lot of aging hardware in our military as evidenced by the F-15 that broke up in mid flight.  We really need to evaluate our military.  Well first our military needs some down time.  Then we need to take inventory.  Then we need to figure out what our future missions are going to be and retool for them.  This is a very serious matter.

And as others have said we need to figure out how we are going to pay for it.  We can't just say we are going to purchase more super carriers, cut taxes on the rich, and magically balance the budget.  This is my fundamental problem with Romney.  If if you think Obama is doing a bad job with the economy is there any evidence that Romney is going to do a better job?  Tax cuts for the rich and more military spending has been tried since the 1980s.  It's the reason we are in such bad shape now.

This can't be true because it is Obama who is the one who tells people and promises them what they want to believe.... ha.

The fact is there are a lot of people in this country who get an inordinate satisfaction about being the toughest guy/nation on the block and being able to kick a$$.  For them the often extravagant military spending is an end itself.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2012, 01:04:06 AM »

His entire book's defense section is dedicated almost entirely to numbers, comparing our ships and planes to China's. There's more to diplomacy, war, and foreign relations than a spread sheet Mitt.
Logged
seanobr
Rookie
**
Posts: 78
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2012, 02:42:08 AM »
« Edited: January 29, 2012, 02:45:09 AM by seanobr »

What I find interesting, if unsurprising, is the apparent reluctance within the Republican Party and media to actually take Romney's truculent and outlandish foreign policy pronouncements at face value.  It's emblematic not only of a lack of accountability, a party that is unwilling to even consider that the Bush administration's formula was ideologically and strategically deficient and ultimately devastating for America's national interest, but also the ambiguity and sheer absence of conviction that has become Romney's defining quality.  Romney is a political chameleon; no one who may be inclined to support him has any reason to believe the substance of his rhetoric, and that has created a situation in which anyone can project their own conception of how a prospective Romney administration would behave onto him.  Romney also had the benefit of entering the campaign with a reputation as a technocrat, someone who was willing to value empiricism over conservative orthodoxy when he saw fit.  Due to the media's embrace of that caricature, as well as the orientation of Romney's primary challengers in relation to him, Romney has been the race's moderate from the outset, the paragon of reason and intelligence, someone who, it's implied, can't actually believe the more extreme rhetoric that he has been forced to indulge in to prevent Gingrich or Santorum from outmaneuvering him on an issue.  In effect, there is a tendency to rationalize away Romney's delusional, even dangerous judgments because of a depiction of him that has become woven into the fabric of the campaign.  It may be too difficult or provocative for him to criticize Obama's handling of foreign policy from a more traditionally conservative position, but once his administration is securely in place, a more sober, prudent Romney will allegedly emerge, one willing to adapt to the reality that any future exertion of American power will encounter.  From this perspective, the contempt that Romney has evinced for Gingrinch and Santorum in debate is only further proof that Romney is, in fact, capable of understanding the complexity of diplomacy; that a nuclear Iran can be mitigated against; and the need to negotiate with the Taliban or otherwise depart immediately to bring a conclusion to the situation in Afghanistan.

For much of the past year, I tried to accept that soothing proposition.  Unfortunately, I'm no longer convinced that Romney is concealing a more rational view of the international arena in the incendiary lexicon of a neoconservative.  Furthermore, even if Romney is only styling himself as a fervent believer for the purpose of the election, it may not actually be relevant.  Romney has already made several declarations -- refusing to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, deferring to the military unconditionally on Afghanistan and his China demagoguery being the most salient -- that will almost certainly inhibit his agility to act and be quite detrimental for our national interest.  His proposal to expand the navy is yet another unfeasible commitment that he will either have to uphold, indefensible in our fiscal environment, or ignore, opening himself up to criticism and eroding his credibility still further.  For example, what will Romney's response be if, after having proclaimed to everyone who'll listen that he cannot tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon, they defiantly conduct a nuclear test, like the D.P.R.K. in 2006 or 2009?  Assuming he is unwilling to use force to eliminate the program -- which would require an invasion of the country, since there has never been any guarantee that aerial bombardment could incontrovertibly accomplish that objective -- then Romney's inaction would be immediately discrediting.  Romney, unknowingly or not, is creating a problem of path dependency for himself in some of the most sensitive areas of American foreign policy, and if he were to recant everything upon election, that mendacity would fatally compromise his legitimacy.

One lesson that we should take from the Bush experience is that, while a President's perspective is important, it can be diluted and even distorted by the individuals responsible for interpreting and presenting information and analysis to him.  There has been some reference to the repulsive John Bolton's ascent within the Romney campaign over the last week, his shadow National Security Council portends a high degree of continuity with Bush's administration, and many of the advisors he is arraying around himself were connected to it in some fashion.  It is simply unfathomable to me that Romney will exclude the majority of those experts from his government, or fundamentally alter the approach to foreign policy that he is institutionalizing within his campaign.  If he is elected, we have every reason to believe that his administration will be as irresponsible and myopic as the last, probably immediately undoing any semblance of cooperation with Russia, taking a more aggressive and fraught posture toward China, and perpetuating our over-involvement in the Middle East.

As I abhor neoconservatism and foreign policy is my primary interest, I will not be voting for Romney, or any other Republican in the Presidential election.  That is unfortunate, but when the Republican Party is ready to return to some semblance of traditional conservatism in this sphere, I will again consider its Presidential candidates as being worthy of my vote.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2012, 07:35:58 AM »

Castro is less dangerous to the world than Romney (or the Grinch for that matter).
Well duh, he's less dangerous to the world than each and every able-bodied human under fifty. And each and every child that may yet grow up to be an able-bodied adult.
Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2012, 12:29:19 PM »

Mitt is just pretending to get a hard on for violence in order to earn pubblie support.  Shameless and stupid pandering as usual.  

This.  I honestly don't think he'd do sh**t re: the military, if anything he'd be a soft Ron Paul in acceptable clothing.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.256 seconds with 13 queries.