Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 31, 2014, 08:43:23 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Forum Community
| |-+  Forum Community (Moderators: afleitch, Bacon King, Badger)
| | |-+  I was asked to volunteer to work for Obama
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: I was asked to volunteer to work for Obama  (Read 1840 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2012, 07:54:32 pm »
Ignore

The great thing is that your demographic is tiny and is the equivalent of the tone deaf wealthy Greek voters who reside in the Athenian suburbs and voted for the austerity-mongers (DRASI and Renewal) in droves while the rest of the nation ditched PASOK and ND for the opposite reason.
The interesting point being, they still ditched PASOK and ND in even larger numbers than rural people. That trend came on top of the same ones also extant in the rest of the country.

Nice attentionwhore post, Torie. Beat most of them by miles. Smiley

What a nice thing to say Lewis. Smiley  Are you softening up in your old age? 
Logged
Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12856
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2012, 08:00:57 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Torie, do you really think that a President Romney (and Republican Congress) would really exercise fiscal discipline? Both parties have demonstrated a lack of fiscal restraint when they hold all the cards. The party of "fiscal responsibility" has been wracking up the deficit since 1980. Wouldn't a divided government be more ideal? It worked well in the 90s and if the current budget projections are any indicator, it seems to be working now (to bring down the deficit).

Yes, I am quite confident Mittens will exercise fiscal discipline, and hold Congress's feet to the fire (and is a lot less of a scatter shot thinker than Dubya, who in any event lost interest in fiscal issues when he assumed the mantle of defender of Western Civilization, and casting light into the dark corners of societies gone wrong).

As to divided government, my thought is that it works pretty well in stopping a lot of new problematical spending, but does not work so well when it comes to making tough choices, like those entailed in taming the entitlements beast, that require statutory fixes. What we do know, is that divided government of late has been a bust. Basically nothing of any gravitas or merit has been done - nothing. We have been wasting valuable time, and now have to endure a lot of BS and silly deflective rhetoric about the relatively trivial to boot.

Yeah... I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed, deeply.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5386
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2012, 08:13:13 pm »
Ignore

I don't understand how anyone can vote for Mittens. I mean, seriously.

Really? With your knowledge of demographics, you of all people should understand exactly why people can and will vote for Mittens.

Ok, I exaggerated Tongue
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31175


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2012, 12:30:40 am »
Ignore

Stick it to the man, Torie!

Voting Mitt Romney is sticking it to the man?!!!!!!
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2012, 04:52:08 am »
Ignore

Quote
Nice attentionwhore post, Torie. Beat most of them by miles. Smiley

What a nice thing to say Lewis. Smiley  Are you softening up in your old age? 
Nah, I just set the bar ridiculously low by comparing your post only to other attentionwhoring ones. Smiley
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13355


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2012, 06:06:12 am »
Ignore

Torie says he's concerned about the deficit and yet he's supporting Mitt "Let's build a fleet of brand new battleships and massively cut taxes" Romney. Hm...

A plank with which I disagree, although it isn't "battleships."  They don't make those anymore. Smiley  But that all pales in comparison with where the big game lie. Mittens does not propose to cut taxes, just rates. For some reason a lot of Dems don't want to focus on that distinction. Shocking!  Tongue

I looked through his 87 page plan and couldn't find anything about what deductions he wants to eliminate or how he plans to stick it to the upper middle class/rich. That is what his plan is, no? Or does everybody lose the benefit of those deductions? Anyways, it's something he could not cover in those 87 pages, I guess because 2/3rd of it is devoted to mindless attacks on Obama. Lots of gravitas right there. In any case if he did go over it in some section other than taxes, let me know (and his website is even more dumbed down so I know it's not there). Taxes need to be raised, not lowered. Simpson-Bowles is a good start but taxes need to be raised more than that, especially on those making $1,000,000+. I don't support Brown's tax plan, mainly because it will hurt California in competing with other states, but I wholeheartedly support raising taxes on them at the federal level. Not only should they not get any deductions, rates need to be raised up to 40% or more. Finally, we might need to raise payroll taxes or institute a VAT if we want to go the same direction on health care for the elderly. I am highly concerned all Romney will accomplish is lowering rates and not much else. This campaign shows he does not have much of a spine at all and will only do what is popular. Surely you do not disagree with that?

Also the most troubling part about electing Romney (and to be fair any Republican save Ron Paul) would be foreign policy. I fear we will be entangled in a third conflict by the end of his first term. The neocons still control your party. And he also vows to raise military spending. You say the country needs to make hard choices, and so you choose the guy who will prioritize military spending over spending those precious dollars on health care (where every cent counts)?
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1793


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2012, 05:29:20 pm »
Ignore

So she got "the lecture" about the fiscal ticking time bomb. Yes, I did vote for him, but not this time. This time I will be voting for Mittens. Why she asked? Because he has been AWOL on entitlements, gave the Bowles commission the finger, and the stimulus sucked, and more stimulus that he wants sucks even more, and now he has gone populist. I lay on her my rap that secular centrist socially rather liberal upper middle types I suspect will be abandoning Obama in droves, and that Obama will need to make it up with Hispanics or somebody.



First, as the above chart using nonpartisan Commerce Department data shows, Obama is the only recent president under whom government spending has shrunk. This is because the increase in federal spending has been smaller than the decrease in state spending. Arguably, the overall size of the public sector is what matters more from a macroeconomic perspective; the public sector as a whole has been implementing austerity rather than stimulus.

Second, though, again re the above chart, even if we're assessing the different levels of government on their own, it remains the case that under Obama, federal nonmilitary spending has grown more slowly than the private sector contribution to GDP. In this sense the trajectory of federal nonmilitary spending is sustainable. Now, it's not completely obvious that this will continue, since the American system of having basically a European-style welfare state for those 65 and above makes it unusually sensitive to the percentage of the population who are seniors, but that would take a reversal of the current trend. And even if that does occur, it remains the case that...

third, public spending as a % of GDP is lower in the US than in many central and northern European countries that have lower public debt and whose economies are broadly successful when they don't enter into hasty currency-union schemes with weaker economies. This suggests, broadly, that the US could easily afford to fund its current (quite limited) entitlement regime in a fiscally sustainable way with increases in taxation.

I remain unconvinced that the idea that entitlement spending growth is threatening the country's economic health is well grounded in an accurate assessment of the state of the budget.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 05:38:57 pm by The Great Pumpkin »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13355


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2012, 07:09:47 pm »
Ignore

The thing is that Republicans don't want to raise taxes. They dont want revenue to go up to 18% of GDP as it has been historically let alone more than that. Of course spending would still need to be cut, but raising taxes a good amount with spending cuts can lead to a balanced budget when the economy picks up. To be fair it's not like Democrats are that keen on spending cuts but it's not like any of them have signed a childish pledge not to do it.....
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1793


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2012, 08:13:50 pm »
Ignore

The thing is that Republicans don't want to raise taxes. They dont want revenue to go up to 18% of GDP as it has been historically let alone more than that. Of course spending would still need to be cut, but raising taxes a good amount with spending cuts can lead to a balanced budget when the economy picks up. To be fair it's not like Democrats are that keen on spending cuts but it's not like any of them have signed a childish pledge not to do it.....


Well of course. But if that's really what's driving things, which it is, don't tell us that it's just a matter of spending being on some kind of unaffordable upward trajectory, which it isn't.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2012, 06:46:01 pm »
Ignore

So she got "the lecture" about the fiscal ticking time bomb. Yes, I did vote for him, but not this time. This time I will be voting for Mittens. Why she asked? Because he has been AWOL on entitlements, gave the Bowles commission the finger, and the stimulus sucked, and more stimulus that he wants sucks even more, and now he has gone populist. I lay on her my rap that secular centrist socially rather liberal upper middle types I suspect will be abandoning Obama in droves, and that Obama will need to make it up with Hispanics or somebody.



First, as the above chart using nonpartisan Commerce Department data shows, Obama is the only recent president under whom government spending has shrunk. This is because the increase in federal spending has been smaller than the decrease in state spending. Arguably, the overall size of the public sector is what matters more from a macroeconomic perspective; the public sector as a whole has been implementing austerity rather than stimulus.

Second, though, again re the above chart, even if we're assessing the different levels of government on their own, it remains the case that under Obama, federal nonmilitary spending has grown more slowly than the private sector contribution to GDP. In this sense the trajectory of federal nonmilitary spending is sustainable. Now, it's not completely obvious that this will continue, since the American system of having basically a European-style welfare state for those 65 and above makes it unusually sensitive to the percentage of the population who are seniors, but that would take a reversal of the current trend. And even if that does occur, it remains the case that...

third, public spending as a % of GDP is lower in the US than in many central and northern European countries that have lower public debt and whose economies are broadly successful when they don't enter into hasty currency-union schemes with weaker economies. This suggests, broadly, that the US could easily afford to fund its current (quite limited) entitlement regime in a fiscally sustainable way with increases in taxation.

I remain unconvinced that the idea that entitlement spending growth is threatening the country's economic health is well grounded in an accurate assessment of the state of the budget.

Do you have a link to where you got these charts? I would like to read the context.  I mean we have a problem.  Paul Ryan says the computers crash if we keep on the present course, and you suggest these charts suggest, what me worry?  Something is rotten in Denmark. I want to ascertain just what it is that is noisome.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8476


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2012, 12:31:00 am »
Ignore

So she got "the lecture" about the fiscal ticking time bomb. Yes, I did vote for him, but not this time. This time I will be voting for Mittens. Why she asked? Because he has been AWOL on entitlements, gave the Bowles commission the finger, and the stimulus sucked, and more stimulus that he wants sucks even more, and now he has gone populist. I lay on her my rap that secular centrist socially rather liberal upper middle types I suspect will be abandoning Obama in droves, and that Obama will need to make it up with Hispanics or somebody.



First, as the above chart using nonpartisan Commerce Department data shows, Obama is the only recent president under whom government spending has shrunk. This is because the increase in federal spending has been smaller than the decrease in state spending. Arguably, the overall size of the public sector is what matters more from a macroeconomic perspective; the public sector as a whole has been implementing austerity rather than stimulus.

Second, though, again re the above chart, even if we're assessing the different levels of government on their own, it remains the case that under Obama, federal nonmilitary spending has grown more slowly than the private sector contribution to GDP. In this sense the trajectory of federal nonmilitary spending is sustainable. Now, it's not completely obvious that this will continue, since the American system of having basically a European-style welfare state for those 65 and above makes it unusually sensitive to the percentage of the population who are seniors, but that would take a reversal of the current trend. And even if that does occur, it remains the case that...

third, public spending as a % of GDP is lower in the US than in many central and northern European countries that have lower public debt and whose economies are broadly successful when they don't enter into hasty currency-union schemes with weaker economies. This suggests, broadly, that the US could easily afford to fund its current (quite limited) entitlement regime in a fiscally sustainable way with increases in taxation.

I remain unconvinced that the idea that entitlement spending growth is threatening the country's economic health is well grounded in an accurate assessment of the state of the budget.

Do you have a link to where you got these charts? I would like to read the context.  I mean we have a problem.  Paul Ryan says the computers crash if we keep on the present course, and you suggest these charts suggest, what me worry?  Something is rotten in Denmark. I want to ascertain just what it is that is noisome.

One clear problem is the centralization of non-military government spending. The federal side is roughly at the same pace as the private sector, ie 8-9% over the last three years, while the state and local side is shedding outlays. Speaking from the state perspective the stimulus acted to drive state and local spending beyond sustainable levels, and when the stimulus stopped, those outlays crashed.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3604
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2012, 01:13:29 am »
Ignore

So she got "the lecture" about the fiscal ticking time bomb. Yes, I did vote for him, but not this time. This time I will be voting for Mittens. Why she asked? Because he has been AWOL on entitlements, gave the Bowles commission the finger, and the stimulus sucked, and more stimulus that he wants sucks even more, and now he has gone populist. I lay on her my rap that secular centrist socially rather liberal upper middle types I suspect will be abandoning Obama in droves, and that Obama will need to make it up with Hispanics or somebody.



First, as the above chart using nonpartisan Commerce Department data shows, Obama is the only recent president under whom government spending has shrunk. This is because the increase in federal spending has been smaller than the decrease in state spending. Arguably, the overall size of the public sector is what matters more from a macroeconomic perspective; the public sector as a whole has been implementing austerity rather than stimulus.

Second, though, again re the above chart, even if we're assessing the different levels of government on their own, it remains the case that under Obama, federal nonmilitary spending has grown more slowly than the private sector contribution to GDP. In this sense the trajectory of federal nonmilitary spending is sustainable. Now, it's not completely obvious that this will continue, since the American system of having basically a European-style welfare state for those 65 and above makes it unusually sensitive to the percentage of the population who are seniors, but that would take a reversal of the current trend. And even if that does occur, it remains the case that...

third, public spending as a % of GDP is lower in the US than in many central and northern European countries that have lower public debt and whose economies are broadly successful when they don't enter into hasty currency-union schemes with weaker economies. This suggests, broadly, that the US could easily afford to fund its current (quite limited) entitlement regime in a fiscally sustainable way with increases in taxation.

I remain unconvinced that the idea that entitlement spending growth is threatening the country's economic health is well grounded in an accurate assessment of the state of the budget.

Do you have a link to where you got these charts? I would like to read the context.  I mean we have a problem.  Paul Ryan says the computers crash if we keep on the present course, and you suggest these charts suggest, what me worry?  Something is rotten in Denmark. I want to ascertain just what it is that is noisome.

Paul Ryan is also an Ayn Rand-worshiping, ideologue who's plan has no basis in reality. Why on earth would you consider a plan that cuts taxes on the wealthy dramatically and contains no real specifics on the repeal of deductions to be credible? How is a plan that does this fair?



I'm not sure why I ask these questions when I know the answers to them; I'm just perplexed that a supposedly sane moderate like you would consider Paul Ryan to be a fiscal savior. I guess the root lies in your irrational hatred of public unions and universal healthcare.
Logged



Economic score: -6.26
Social score: -7.74
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2012, 10:42:15 am »
Ignore

I didn't opine on the Ryan plan (for one thing I have not really studied it), I just stated what he said the CBO computers did when projecting cash flows forward - they crashed around 2030 or something.

I guess we have a couple of issues on the table to start to get to the bottom of this. First, since we are now combining state and federal spending as part of this exercise, we have to address the slash in state/local government spending. Is that sustainable, or will state/local government functions gradually erode down to unacceptable levels? Second, what will be the impact of the cost of debt carry when interest rates return to "normal" levels, as opposed to being near zero? We also know that the "on budget" ballooning negative cash flow from Social Security going forward will be another drain (that is part of the problem; just what is on budget, and what is off).  And at the moment, it seems that the bulk of the medical cost issue is being absorbed through rapidly increasing insurance premiums - also not sustainable.  

In other words, charts are fun, but one needs to understand what they are really saying, and the context, to formulate intelligent policy, as opposed to making campaign points.  
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 10:43:52 am by Torie »Logged
Grumps
GM3PRP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33474
View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2012, 10:51:29 am »
Ignore

Torie with an attention whoring thread. A little out of character for a chill 60 year old man, no?

Uh, I think he's 61 actually Wink
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2012, 10:57:41 am »
Ignore

Torie with an attention whoring thread. A little out of character for a chill 60 year old man, no?

Uh, I think he's 61 actually Wink

Yes, one year or so short of being eligible to start collecting social security (which I won't be collecting since the implicit actuarily calculated rate of return from the government of waiting until age 70 is about 8% per year annualized).   Sad

Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3604
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2012, 03:02:04 pm »
Ignore

I didn't opine on the Ryan plan (for one thing I have not really studied it), I just stated what he said the CBO computers did when projecting cash flows forward - they crashed around 2030 or something.

I guess we have a couple of issues on the table to start to get to the bottom of this. First, since we are now combining state and federal spending as part of this exercise, we have to address the slash in state/local government spending. Is that sustainable, or will state/local government functions gradually erode down to unacceptable levels? Second, what will be the impact of the cost of debt carry when interest rates return to "normal" levels, as opposed to being near zero? We also know that the "on budget" ballooning negative cash flow from Social Security going forward will be another drain (that is part of the problem; just what is on budget, and what is off).  And at the moment, it seems that the bulk of the medical cost issue is being absorbed through rapidly increasing insurance premiums - also not sustainable.  

In other words, charts are fun, but one needs to understand what they are really saying, and the context, to formulate intelligent policy, as opposed to making campaign points.  

My point is that Ryan isn't credible, he's a dorky Ayn Rand troll who will blatantly lie to the public to justify his morality play wherein entitlements are leveled and those who adhere to the principles of master morality are raised to their proper place in society. Let the weaklings bow to the supreme being manna.

Why on earth would that slash be considered sustainable? Spending at the local and state level is generally more correlated with population growth because its programs need to be much more responsive to it: it's not really an option to not hire more police officers or firefighters when your cities are still growing at a steady clip and it's not really an option to avoid extra hiring teachers or building new schools for half a decade.

Interest rates won't return to normal levels until the economy starts improving at a measurable rate for various reasons and by that point, we'll be posting significant budget surpluses. See: the fact that we already posted a budget surplus last month. If we can achieve that with a sluggish economy, with continued high rates of counter-cyclical spending, we can certainly achieve that in the future.
Logged



Economic score: -6.26
Social score: -7.74
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2012, 03:12:38 pm »
Ignore

That one month of positive cash flow appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Anyway, the first step is to see the source of those charts.  There are just not enough facts on the table here projecting out. So we are just left bouncing our opinions back and forth, with a bunch of assertions.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2012, 12:18:48 am »
Ignore

I want to ascertain just what it is that is noisome.

Do you have a mirror?  No offense, but its your class and its representatives.

...one year or so short of being eligible to start collecting social security (which I won't be collecting since the implicit actuarily calculated rate of return from the government of waiting until age 70 is about 8% per year annualized).   Sad

Oh come now buddy, did you tell the actuary you're mainlining testosterone?  I think you better take that SS on your 62nd.  (I'm sure it is a tiny pittance to you either way).
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2012, 04:32:19 am »
Ignore

I suggest you follow Opebo's advice. Also is that brickweed in your signature?
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21609
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2012, 04:53:04 am »
Ignore

If you are asked to volunteer is it really volunteering?
Logged

Quote from:   Martha Gellhorn for The Atlantic 1961
The unique misfortune of the Palestinian refugees is that they are a weapon in what seems to be a permanent war...today, in the Middle East, you get a repeated sinking sensation about the Palestinian refugees: they are only a beginning, not an end. Their function is to hang around and be constantly useful as a goad. The ultimate aim is not such humane small potatoes as repatriating refugees.
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2012, 08:05:09 am »
Ignore

I suggest you follow Opebo's advice. Also is that brickweed in your signature?

No, its Aung San Suu Kyi.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2012, 08:23:07 am »
Ignore

I suggest you follow Opebo's advice. Also is that brickweed in your signature?

Fossilized kelp. 
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13355


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2012, 02:57:47 pm »
Ignore

I suggest you follow Opebo's advice. Also is that brickweed in your signature?

Fossilized kelp. 

Interesting. Why is it in your signature? I was wondering the same as Seatown, and thought you needed to visit some better dispensaries. Tongue
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2012, 03:45:44 pm »
Ignore

I suggest you follow Opebo's advice. Also is that brickweed in your signature?

Fossilized kelp. 

Interesting. Why is it in your signature? I was wondering the same as Seatown, and thought you needed to visit some better dispensaries. Tongue

Because I find it beautiful, and like the geometric shapes and light and shadows and colors and texture. It is in a wall at the Getty Museum, which I visited with a friend and his mother on Mother's Day. It was far more pleasing than most of the ponderous 18th Century French art and overdone rococo furniture (just like I prefer the Federalist Party, I prefer Federalist style furniture - less is more) inside (Getty's taste really sucked). In short, I am trying to bring beauty into all of your lives (and train your eyes to see it Tongue), for you to savor and enjoy. Smiley
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1793


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2012, 04:34:16 pm »
Ignore

Hi Torie - sorry, I didn't mean to just vanish into the kelp without a response, but I've been very busy at work the past little while, including a bunch of travel around the state. (And this despite not being involved on either side's election campaign! Tongue)

First, to answer your immediate question, the chart I posted was from this New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/government-is-getting-smaller-in-the-us-off-the-charts.html

But as to the broader context you were discussing, I definitely don't think that everything is ok, budget-wise, because this is just about the spending side, and of course the rate of spending increase must be distinguished from the rate of debt increase, which depends on the difference between spending and revenue. Certainly the federal debt is very large and is increasing fast, and this isn't good. I do disagree with you strongly about what should be done about this; I have looked at the same CBO projections Paul Ryan is using, and my layman's sense is that the country could maintain the current medical entitlement regime even as the boomers age just with an increase in taxation of a few % of GDP that would leave things well in line with levels in many economically successful European nations. But we can agree, at least, that the debt is growing too fast, and something needs to change about it.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 04:37:37 pm by The Great Pumpkin »Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines