Draining the Swamp

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:26 pm

What the guy with the really big attic said. That last part.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:36 pm

That's why I offered a C-2: there's no way in the world Ms. Pelosi would accept a folding chair on an aging pickup truck of a turboprop cargo plane. What she has in mind is something along the lines of Air Force 3. You know, specially upgraded airframe with custom amenities, a first-class communications suite, hot and cold running Air Force stewards, and a chef in the galley. Soft lighting and lots of elbow room. Rude folks like Haggis stay with the rest of the security team, somewhere back near the tail of the plane...

The Air Force may provide it. They would indeed be well compensated. Care to look into the transportation arrangements for senior members of any important legislative committee for the last 50 years or so?
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby GreatCarouser » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:46 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:That's why I posted the hot air link. I'm always open to genuine debate. What's your take on what the words of the prayer meant?


Sorry to be so long these days replying.

Let's put these words in the Pope's mouth. Or the Dali Lama's. Or Jerry Falwell's. How do we react to them? Aren't there numerous analyses of the Bible that attempt to interpret Scripture in all sorts of ways?

Mr. Spencer would have you believe he has found the key to how 'mainstream' Muslims interpret the Koran etc. He would have you believe he has a window into this imam's understanding and interpretation. If any scholar made the same statements vis a vis the Bible and a preacher we would laugh them off as either deluded or completely unaware of the many different ways it is interpreted even by members of the same sect.

Let's assume all his interpretations are correct. The concept of 'jihad' is what is crucial here. Is the imam one who believes we should be converted by the sword? That is the only issue of any merit or relevance here. Spencer tells us the imam wants to convert us to Islam. Is that any more news worthy than telling us the Pope wants us to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior? When dealing with most 'religious' people, especially those religions that actively proselytize I expect to be 'preached to'. It's the nature of the beast.

Is he right to be suspicious? Who knows? One day he may be proven completely correct and I'll thank him for his vigilance. But I won't retract what follows: What he isn't right about is building an inflammatory house of cards based on very general assumptions and peddling them as fact without a lot more evidence to back them up.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby Shapley » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:31 am

GC,

RE:
What he isn't right about is building an inflammatory house of cards based on very general assumptions and peddling them as fact without a lot more evidence to back them up.


Isn't that what bloggers and news commentators do? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? They analyse the news and comment on it based on their viewpoint and understanding of the 'facts'. Perhaps that's why the root of 'analysis' is 'anal'. :)

As you point out, if he turns out to be correct, you'll appreciate his vigilance. But, how would you know he was correct if he didn't express his thoughts before the fact? If he were correct and hadn't expressed his beleif, would he be guilty of failing to warn us? If he's wrong, he's wrong, but he's at least put his thoughts out there for the world to know and to accept or reject as their own analysis leads them.

I read lots of posts, some right here on this bulletin board, that say, in essence: "George Bush may say that, but he means this". Is their analysis of his words and meaning any more or less valid than the author Haggis linked? How could they possibly claim to know what the President means? is there 'house of cards' any more solid?

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby GreatCarouser » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:38 am

Just a few points, Shap-

In the case of our President there is a far greater amount of data available than there is on the imam. You are free to categorize any of those bloggers as card house builders if you choose. I find a lot more 'concrete and mortar' in some of their work than you do.

I don't suggest this fellow cease speaking or publishing, I question his motives and his interpretation of the data available. I feel his style was a cheap and opportunistic attack on Democrats and ask for more facts to substantiate his suppositions. I find those suppositions racist (for want of a better term) and highly inflammatory.

If one wants a war it is always a good idea to paint one's intended enemies as monstrous and insidious as possible in order to ease qualms about killing them. I've stated elsewhere war may indeed be the necessary solution to this problem but I'm not countenancing the rampant slaughter of innocents that accompanies any war these days without a lot more evidence it is the only means of protecting ourselves and our principles as well as questioning whether those principles are worth protecting. I feel that type of questioning is necessary if only to separate me from our enemies.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:53 pm

I wish to God we could get rid of lobbyists altogether!

:rant:

Lawmakers' kin are tapped as lobbyists

The Dems are just showing they're only marginally less corrupt than the Pubs.

:banghead:
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Trumpetmaster » Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:03 am

I must say I agree with you on this OT....
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.
Trumpetmaster
Patron
 
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:56 pm

Now, for some factual information on Pelosi wanting a better airplane:

Pentagon Rejects Speaker Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft

Citing Security Concerns, Speaker Wants Aircraft That Can Handle Nonstop Cross-Country Flight

By JAKE TAPPER

Feb. 7, 2007 — - A source close to the controversy over the request made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for use of a military plane that can fly to and from her home district in San Francisco without having to stop to refuel, told ABC News that the Pentagon has rebuffed Pelosi's request.

The source said that Pentagon officials and the Bush administration have instead offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.

A C-20 can make the 700-mile flight to Hastert's Aurora, Ill., district easily but would generally have to stop to refuel to complete the 2,800-mile trip from Washington, D.C. to the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on the headwinds.

Pelosi has expressed concern about having to stop and refuel, primarily for security reasons, her office said. Since 9/11, the speaker of the House -- second in line behind the vice president to succeed the president -- has received what the Air Force refers to as "shuttle service," the use of military planes to travel for security reasons. Hastert used a C-20, the military version of the Gulf Stream 3 business jet, a twin-engine turbo-fan aircraft that seats 12 passengers with a crew of five.

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. J.D. Gordon outlined the rules and restrictions governing Speaker Pelosi's use of the C-20:

No more than 10 passengers (C-20's seat only 12 passengers, not including up to 5 crew members);

No travel to political events;

Members of the speaker's family cannot fly unless the speaker makes a request in writing. The Pelosi family has to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the cost of a coach ticket per person for the travel, as well as for any food;

Members of Congress cannot fly on the plane unless their travel has been cleared with the House Committee on Standards (the Ethics Committee);

Pelosi's husband can travel for free, but only for official protocol purposes.

In response to the Pentagon's offer, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly told ABC News, "We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the speaker's security. We are reviewing their letter."

Pelosi: I Want an Aircraft That Will Reach California

Earlier today, Pelosi responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.

"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.

Pelosi said news reports suggesting that she seeks a lavish jet suggest a "misrepresentation that could only be coming from the administration. One would wonder why the practice deemed to be necessary from a security standpoint would be mischaracterized in the press. I know that it's not coming from the president, because he impressed upon me the amount of security I need to have."

Because the C-20 generally would need to stop and refuel to make it all the way to the Bay Area, Pelosi requested a plane that could make it to California without having to stop along the way, and asked for clarification from the Pentagon about whether friends and colleagues could accompany her.

Various Republican officials in recent days have claimed that Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels -- a luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It's normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.

"Just a month into the new Democratic majority, we are talking about the costs of an arrogance of office," said Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam of Florida at a briefing for reporters Tuesday. "The same week she is talking about fiscal responsibility, she is requesting a jumbo jet to taxi her back and forth from her district, something that is a major deviation from the previous speaker. Certainly, it is the interest of someone who is in the presidential succession to have access to a secure aircraft, but this is not a routine military charter flight. This is Air Force Three."

Late Wednesday afternoon, one of Pelosi's closest allies in the House, Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the key Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense, told CNN that the Pentagon was making "a mistake" by leaking information unfavorable to the speaker "since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense."

I'll C-20 and Raise You

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., seems to be the one who first publicly raised the notion that the plane Pelosi requested is the C-32.

"I understand on this particular airplane there is a bedroom," Blunt said.

"I hadn't heard that," Putnam said.

"There is a stateroom," Blunt said. "It is kind of a flying Lincoln bedroom."

A Blunt aide said he first heard that the plane Pelosi requested had a bedroom on CNN's "Lou Dobbs" Monday evening. "She could take a circus with her, for crying out loud," Dobbs said.

A Democratic aide maintained that this was all nonsense.

"The Republicans and the administration are intentionally mischaracterizing this," the aide said. "This is a security issue, and that's it. They've got nothing else to talk about so they make this up."

The Hastert Precedent

The controversy began in December 2006, when House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood first told Pelosi that the Air Force had made an airplane available to Hastert to travel to and from his district after 9/11.

But, Livingood said in a statement, he "was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane" so he called the Pentagon and Air Force to seek clarification of the guidelines. Subsequently, several members of Pelosi's staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with officials from the Pentagon and the Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines that governed Hastert's use of a plane.

On Feb. 1, unnamed administration and congressional sources leaked to the Washington Times that Pelosi was "seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request 'carte blanche for an aircraft any time.'"

On Tuesday, Feb. 6, House Republican leaders began accusing Pelosi of arrogance and hypocrisy, and calling the plane "Pelosi One."

Pelosi and her aides said all she cares about is that the plane is able to fly direct to her home district in San Francisco without having to stop and refuel. Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, said the C-20 is sometimes "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter."

Rewarding Supporters?

Republican leaders have also stated -- with no tangible evidence -- that Pelosi wants to use the plane to reward financial contributors.

"She was offered the same aircraft that the previous speaker had," Putnam said yesterday. "It sat 12 people, and she refused it, didn't think it was big enough for all of her friends and supporters. In fact, she specifically requested that supporters be able to travel."

Said Blunt, "If you can take your supporters in the air on a government plane, that is a pretty big perk to be able to offer, I would think, whether you are the speaker or anybody else."

Putnam said that this was hypocritical, since "this just after we passed a ban on flying on corporate aircraft and a ban on flying with lobbyists, and yet she is requesting that supporters/lobbyists be allowed to fly on a military aircraft that the taxpayers are picking up the tab for," Putnam said. He called for Pelosi to provide public manifests of the itineraries and costs of the flight, which one congressional source said might cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate, and to provide some way for the public to make sure political contributors weren't receiving free trips at taxpayers' expense.

Pelosi's office denied that she wanted anyone to be able to travel on the plane other than those Hastert was able to bring along -- security, staff, family and members of Congress going to the same airport.

"It has nothing to do with family and friends and everything to do with security," Pelosi said Wednesday. The sergeant at arms, she said, thinks "there is a need for this security. They have asked for it to continue. It is up to the Air Force and administration to do that."

Democrats suspected Bush administration operatives of stoking the flames of what Democrats deem a nonstory. The White House today was asked if it's "a good idea" for Pelosi to "have a large government military jet available to her to go back and forth to California?"

"After Sept. 11, the Department of Defense -- with the consent of the White House -- agreed that the speaker of the House should have military transport," replied White House spokesman Tony Snow. "And so what is going on is that the Department of Defense is going through its rules and regulations and having conversations with the speaker about it. So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft and Speaker Pelosi will, too."

The White House deferred all questions about the size of the plane to the Pentagon.

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col Cathy Reardon tells ABC News that when Hastert used the plane, "it was himself, and he usually had one to three staff members and two security staff -- members of the Capitol police force. His wife would sometimes fly, and he reimbursed the government for everyone," paying the government for the cost of a commercial flight to the same place. Hastert's office did not return a call for comment.

Reardon recalls that "shuttle service" began when as a result of 9/11 all commercial airports were closed. "It was a time of great uncertainty, so right after 9/11, Speaker Hastert requested from the Department of Defense airlift support because of airport closures and his position" in presidential succession.

"In 2003, the increased security environment and his vulnerability in a commercial airport led to agreements with DOD for him to use 89th Airlift Wing assets," Reardon says.

A Fourth Option?

There are four types of planes available at the 89th Airlift wing, at nearby Andrews Air Force Base -- the C-20 Hastert once used, C-21s which are even smaller than the C-20 and thus not able to fly nonstop to San Francisco, and the fabled C-32.

There is also the C-37A -- a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar.

Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.




White House takes Pelosi's side, saying plane flap is 'silly,' 'unfair'

ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 9, 2007

WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received some rare help yesterday from the White House against a barrage of Republican criticism over how she intends to get back home.

For security reasons, Pelosi, D-San Francisco, is entitled to fly to her district on military planes, as former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., did.

The House sergeant-at-arms, who helps oversee security for the chamber, suggested that flying nonstop would be the safest way home for Pelosi, who is second in line to succeed the president.

But Republicans, led by aggressive junior lawmakers, accused Pelosi of extravagance – of wanting to fly on the military equivalent of a Boeing 757 with the latest in travel comforts.

Too expensive, some critics said. Too polluting, others said. Too much ado about nothing, the White House said.

To White House press secretary Tony Snow, this was “a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker.”

Pelosi also spoke out yesterday. “I have never asked for any larger plane,” she said. “I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast.”

During debate on a bill that encouraged research on advanced fuels, Republicans proposed an amendment urging planes diversify their fuel load to include “domestically produced alternative fuels.”

The amendment singled out “passenger planes with 42 business-class seats capable of transcontinental flights” – exactly the specifications of an Air Force C-32 jet.

“The jet that Pelosi has produces 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour, far more than the previous speaker used,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. Hastert was able to fly home to Illinois nonstop on a commuter-size Air Force jet.

Even Snow came under fire from fellow Republicans.

“He does not have a duty, as I do, to come to this floor and to discuss the consequences for our taxpayers,” said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed to provide Hastert with a military plane for added security.

House Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Livingood said he recommended that the Pentagon continue the practice of flying the speaker back home.

“The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security purposes,” he said.


And you righties accuse the left of being hysterical...

GWB can kill all the people he wants to and blow all of our future generations' financial security on the Iraq quagmire, but one Dem requests an enhancement in the name of national security, and you guys jump on her like a pack of badgers.

Should I now hold my breath until you come up with a mea culpa?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:41 pm

Should I now hold my breath until you come up with a mea culpa?


If you want. All I did was post the link.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:44 pm

Shapley wrote:
Should I now hold my breath until you come up with a mea culpa?


If you want. All I did was post the link.


So you posted a link to an article you didn't agree with?

Please...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:53 pm

It wouldn't be the first time I've posted an article I didn't agree with. However, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. It was in the news. It was availabe from several sources. I put it out for discussion. We discussed it.

Have you come up for air yet?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby analog » Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:14 pm

Curious. The Air Force says the C20 has range somewhat more than 4,000 miles.


http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87

General Characteristics
Primary Function: C-20B/H, special air and operational support airlift missions
Builder: Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
Power Plant: C-20B, two Rolls-Royce Spey Mark 511-8 turbofan engines;C-20H, two Rolls-Royce Tay Mark 611-8 turbofan engines
Thrust: C-20B, 11,400 pounds each engine; C-20H, 13,850 pounds each engine
Length: C-20B, 83 feet, 2 inches (25.4 meters); C-20H, 88 feet, 4 inches (26.9 meters)
Height: 24 feet, 6 inches (7.5 meters)
Wingspan: 77 feet, 10 inches (23.7 meters)
Speed: 576 mph (501 nautical miles per hour) maximum
Maximum Takeoff Weight: C-20B, 69,700 pounds (31,610 kilograms); C-20H, 74,600 pounds (33,832 kilograms)
Range: C-20B, 4,250 miles (3,698 nautical miles) long-range; C-20H, 4,850 miles (4,220 nautical miles) long range
Ceiling: 45,000 feet (13,716 meters)
Load: 12 passengers
Unit Cost: All models, $29.4 (fiscal 1998 constant dollars)
Crew: Five (pilot, copilot, flight engineer, communication system operator, flight attendant)
Date Deployed: C-20B, 1988; C-20H, 1992
Inventory: C-20B, Active force, 5; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0
C-20H, Active force, 2; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby piqaboo » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:40 pm

analog, the ranges you post are consistent wtih the statement that the plane can sometimes make the CA haul in one go, but not with strong headwinds.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:41 pm

Shapley wrote:It wouldn't be the first time I've posted an article I didn't agree with. However, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. It was in the news. It was availabe from several sources. I put it out for discussion. We discussed it.

Have you come up for air yet?


The level of equivocation never ceases to amaze me.

Oh, and BTW, you did NOT post it without comment:

Pelosi asks for 'Carte Blanche' on Military Flights

Still lookin' for a free ride...


And now will come the "I forgot to post a smilie" wiggle.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:53 pm

Well, mea culpa, then. I did comment.

Doesn't change the fact she is lookin' for a free ride.

Oops! Forgot the smiley. :roll:
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:05 pm

They ALL are, so she's no worse than any of the rest of them, at least in that regard.

Still gonna try to contend you didn't agree with the article?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:37 pm

I'm gonna contend I never said I didn't agree with the article.

I'm also gonna conted I said it didn't matter whether or not I agreed with the article.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:13 pm

All this fuss over airplane size is just clutter. Everyone in Washington is on the freebie grab anytime they can get them. Most of them honestly believe that they are entitled to carte blanche, special treatment. This is one issue that fully crosses party lines.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby BigJon » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:29 pm

And carte blanche to our pocketbooks.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby OperaTenor » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:35 am

Since the Speaker of the House is second in line of succession to the President, don't you think she rates a certain accomodation in the event Cheney croaks and we're left with GWB as President?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron