Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

 

2009-02-02 03:42:52
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5889

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Seams the people of New Orleans all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
Seams the Arabs of the world all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
............wait, I see a pattern forming.
Oh here we go again with, "it is just a few" defense.

I swear, if you guys couldn't scream "generalisation" about every topic, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am not surprised, this is what is left when you have n oother defense or excuse for people's behavior you have to remind us the obvious, that well, it wasn't 100% of them.
Uh you know generalizing anything is bad right? Hell you could justify genocide if you generalize the victims.

But anyway off to work. 24 hours no sleep. Yay!
2009-02-02 04:06:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Seams the people of New Orleans all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
Seams the Arabs of the world all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
............wait, I see a pattern forming.
Oh here we go again with, "it is just a few" defense.

I swear, if you guys couldn't scream "generalisation" about every topic, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am not surprised, this is what is left when you have n oother defense or excuse for people's behavior you have to remind us the obvious, that well, it wasn't 100% of them.
Lowing, practically every point you ever make involves some mass generalisation.

QQ, Why are you so keen to write Obama off as the worst thing to happen to American Politics. He's been in office a fortnight now?

Shit, after 8 years of fuckups from GWB you should have realised that maybe it's time for someone a bit left leaning, the right's done fuck all recently for your country
Yes every point I make involves generslisations, and why do you ask? Because I do not know EVERY SINGLE person in the world, the only conditions that would satisfy you and everyone else in order to post a defense against liberalism, socisalism,  poverty, crime or Islam.

Lets face it, you have t ouse the generalization excuse because it is all you have.
2009-02-02 04:11:21
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Oh here we go again with, "it is just a few" defense.

I swear, if you guys couldn't scream "generalisation" about every topic, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am not surprised, this is what is left when you have n oother defense or excuse for people's behavior you have to remind us the obvious, that well, it wasn't 100% of them.
Lowing, practically every point you ever make involves some mass generalisation.

QQ, Why are you so keen to write Obama off as the worst thing to happen to American Politics. He's been in office a fortnight now?

Shit, after 8 years of fuckups from GWB you should have realised that maybe it's time for someone a bit left leaning, the right's done fuck all recently for your country
Yes every point I make involves generslisations, and why do you ask? Because I do not know EVERY SINGLE person in the world, the only conditions that would satisfy you and everyone else in order to post a defense against liberalism, socisalism,  poverty, crime or Islam.

Lets face it, you have t ouse the generalization excuse because it is all you have.
No, i'd use educated reasoning, viewing both sides of the coin. I wouldn't come out with rash blanket statements about a situation.

edit-

There are generalisations like i would make; 'Areas subject to poverty tend to have higher average crime rates'

and then what you would (could) make; 'The same sort of people who looted NO are the people who voted for Obama'

Last edited by FatherTed (2009-02-02 04:12:56)

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-02-02 04:15:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Please.. the disgruntled title has been securely dominated by the Bush Bashers the last 8 years.
Yeah, but they had a right to be disgruntled, after 8 years your bound to hate something. But how you can be disgruntled over Obama in such a short period is rather short minded.

I guess there is no chance lowing will actually support his own President, in anything.
You seem to forget the "he's not MY president" crowd that started on Bush immediately after the 2000 election. He hadn't even implemented any policy decisions yet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-02-02 04:25:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


Lowing, practically every point you ever make involves some mass generalisation.

QQ, Why are you so keen to write Obama off as the worst thing to happen to American Politics. He's been in office a fortnight now?

Shit, after 8 years of fuckups from GWB you should have realised that maybe it's time for someone a bit left leaning, the right's done fuck all recently for your country
Yes every point I make involves generslisations, and why do you ask? Because I do not know EVERY SINGLE person in the world, the only conditions that would satisfy you and everyone else in order to post a defense against liberalism, socisalism,  poverty, crime or Islam.

Lets face it, you have t ouse the generalization excuse because it is all you have.
No, i'd use educated reasoning, viewing both sides of the coin. I wouldn't come out with rash blanket statements about a situation.

edit-

There are generalisations like i would make; 'Areas subject to poverty tend to have higher average crime rates'

and then what you would (could) make; 'The same sort of people who looted NO are the people who voted for Obama'
I do not come out with rash blankets of statements. I form opinions based on the facts of that situation. What you hate is, I do it without PC.
2009-02-02 04:40:06
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yes every point I make involves generslisations, and why do you ask? Because I do not know EVERY SINGLE person in the world, the only conditions that would satisfy you and everyone else in order to post a defense against liberalism, socisalism,  poverty, crime or Islam.

Lets face it, you have t ouse the generalization excuse because it is all you have.
No, i'd use educated reasoning, viewing both sides of the coin. I wouldn't come out with rash blanket statements about a situation.

edit-

There are generalisations like i would make; 'Areas subject to poverty tend to have higher average crime rates'

and then what you would (could) make; 'The same sort of people who looted NO are the people who voted for Obama'
I do not come out with rash blankets of statements. I form opinions based on the facts of that situation. What you hate is, I do it without PC.
will debate when i get back from uni, of to do some of that self improvement stuff you love so much
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-02-02 05:17:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


No, i'd use educated reasoning, viewing both sides of the coin. I wouldn't come out with rash blanket statements about a situation.

edit-

There are generalisations like i would make; 'Areas subject to poverty tend to have higher average crime rates'

and then what you would (could) make; 'The same sort of people who looted NO are the people who voted for Obama'
I do not come out with rash blankets of statements. I form opinions based on the facts of that situation. What you hate is, I do it without PC.
will debate when i get back from uni, of to do some of that self improvement stuff you love so much
Why not sit on your ass and let "luck" and Obama save you? It seems to good enough for others according to you.
2009-02-02 05:22:02
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7113|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


I do not come out with rash blankets of statements. I form opinions based on the facts of that situation. What you hate is, I do it without PC.
will debate when i get back from uni, of to do some of that self improvement stuff you love so much
Why not sit on your ass and let "luck" and Obama save you? It seems to good enough for others according to you.
Obama isn't president of any European country last i checked
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 05:42:41
JahManRed
wank
+646|6931|IRELAND

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Seams the people of New Orleans all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
Seams the Arabs of the world all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
............wait, I see a pattern forming.
Oh here we go again with, "it is just a few" defense.

I swear, if you guys couldn't scream "generalisation" about every topic, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am not surprised, this is what is left when you have n oother defense or excuse for people's behavior you have to remind us the obvious, that well, it wasn't 100% of them.
No one is denying that looting happened. No one is denying that people refused to leave their homes. No one is denying that their was a breakdown at a local as well as national level with regards to the relief effort. That's all true.
"it is just a few" defense, isn't a defence, its a fact. That's my issue with your opinion. If I say all Americans are war mongering, gas guzzling overweight idiots you would say I am generalizing. You would admit that such ppl exist but it is a tinny minority and it is not a fair representation of US society. So "its just a few" Same with the people of New Orleans.
2009-02-02 07:16:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6904|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Warhammer wrote:

(skipped the last three pages) I saw pictures from Iowa with the flood after katrina. It seemed they got hid just as hard or even harder than New Orleans.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl … iowa_.html

Given the fact that Iowans seemed more adept with these situations and had forewarnings. The people still helped around and did no looting unlike N.O. They seem to have been prepared in governance than the New Orleans mayor or governor. They did not seek help from FEMA as New Orleans had. Seems to me the governance and the responsible life of Iowa did better than that of New Orleans.
You mean like the adeptness Floridians have also? We were literally face palming as we watched how horribly mismanaged the storm was. The preparation both individual and governmental are night and day when comparing the two. Their strategic planning was virtually nill. We don't have the levee situation but we are also hit 4xs as much. We passed an executive order passing out harsh penalties for price gouging, and looters are practically stoned.
Yet you defend New Orleans?
Have I? No. I started off by saying how bad Nagin and Blanco fucked up. You somehow assumed I was validating the behavior of the citizens because of this.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-02-02 09:14:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

JahManRed wrote:

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Seams the people of New Orleans all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
Seams the Arabs of the world all get tarred with the same brush over the actions of a few.
............wait, I see a pattern forming.
Oh here we go again with, "it is just a few" defense.

I swear, if you guys couldn't scream "generalisation" about every topic, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am not surprised, this is what is left when you have n oother defense or excuse for people's behavior you have to remind us the obvious, that well, it wasn't 100% of them.
No one is denying that looting happened. No one is denying that people refused to leave their homes. No one is denying that their was a breakdown at a local as well as national level with regards to the relief effort. That's all true.
"it is just a few" defense, isn't a defence, its a fact. That's my issue with your opinion. If I say all Americans are war mongering, gas guzzling overweight idiots you would say I am generalizing. You would admit that such ppl exist but it is a tinny minority and it is not a fair representation of US society. So "its just a few" Same with the people of New Orleans.
When you speak of nations, cities, events, etc......unless you know everyone involved, EVEREYTHING you say will be a generalisation. If my observations do not apply to those I am speaking of then feel free t oexclude them. The fact is what I bitch about in NEw Orleans did happen, and it wass more than a few. The events that transpired, defined the event and the people. Sorry if you do not approve, but it really is too bad. History already judged that city.
2009-02-02 09:40:29
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


I do not come out with rash blankets of statements. I form opinions based on the facts of that situation. What you hate is, I do it without PC.
will debate when i get back from uni, of to do some of that self improvement stuff you love so much
Why not sit on your ass and let "luck" and Obama save you? It seems to good enough for others according to you.
Back.

Right, why socialism is lovely.

When my mum was little, she lived on a council estate in inner manchester. Her dad had died in a refinery accident when she was little, and her mum was practically unqualified - she came from a time when it was difficult for women to get any sort of decent job. As a result, they lived in what would be defined as poverty, And as such without outside help from the Government, there was no way in hell she would be able to afford University. As it was our communist government loaned my mum all the money she needed to attend a decent university, and get a 1st in Business. As a result she now turns out about £90k p/a in a very well placed (irony inbound) Government position. NONE of this would have been doable without Government support, and as such the tax payers support.

---

Now for my fathers side. He was born and grew up in Northern Ireland. As you may have heard, NI was not a nice place to grow up back then. He came from a family of 7, and they all lived in a farmhouse with 3 rooms. His dad died when my dad was about 16, leaving him, his 5 brothers and their sister to attend the farm. This left little time for study, and as a result my dad failed every compulsory qualification. Now you could argue 'Well he should have tried harder'. HOW THE FUCK could he, when he was putting in 16-18hr shifts on the farm, to help bring in food for the family. Thankfully, the government payed him for reeducation courses, and eventually he went on to get a 2.1 in Business at a university in England. As a result, he now brings in 60k p/a in a high role in a well known British food group in a area managing position.



Now, my parents tried their utmost to bring themselves up from poverty, but WITHOUT GOVERNMENT assistance, paid for by those well off, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.


So you dare and try and tell me socialism is flawed and wrong, and giving to the poor is unworthy.

I dare you.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-02-02 10:33:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

will debate when i get back from uni, of to do some of that self improvement stuff you love so much
Why not sit on your ass and let "luck" and Obama save you? It seems to good enough for others according to you.
Back.

Right, why socialism is lovely.

When my mum was little, she lived on a council estate in inner manchester. Her dad had died in a refinery accident when she was little, and her mum was practically unqualified - she came from a time when it was difficult for women to get any sort of decent job. As a result, they lived in what would be defined as poverty, And as such without outside help from the Government, there was no way in hell she would be able to afford University. As it was our communist government loaned my mum all the money she needed to attend a decent university, and get a 1st in Business. As a result she now turns out about £90k p/a in a very well placed (irony inbound) Government position. NONE of this would have been doable without Government support, and as such the tax payers support.

---

Now for my fathers side. He was born and grew up in Northern Ireland. As you may have heard, NI was not a nice place to grow up back then. He came from a family of 7, and they all lived in a farmhouse with 3 rooms. His dad died when my dad was about 16, leaving him, his 5 brothers and their sister to attend the farm. This left little time for study, and as a result my dad failed every compulsory qualification. Now you could argue 'Well he should have tried harder'. HOW THE FUCK could he, when he was putting in 16-18hr shifts on the farm, to help bring in food for the family. Thankfully, the government payed him for reeducation courses, and eventually he went on to get a 2.1 in Business at a university in England. As a result, he now brings in 60k p/a in a high role in a well known British food group in a area managing position.



Now, my parents tried their utmost to bring themselves up from poverty, but WITHOUT GOVERNMENT assistance, paid for by those well off, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.


So you dare and try and tell me socialism is flawed and wrong, and giving to the poor is unworthy.

I dare you.
Socialism is flawed and wrong

your mother. The govt. gave her a LOAN. not a hand out, we also have govt. loans. It is not the loan that pulled your mother out of poverty. It was your mothers desire t oget educated and pull HER SELF out of poverty. Your mother CHOSE to go to school and not live a life of poverty. This story alone proves people live by their choices and not by their bad "luck".

your father. He worked to put food on a table, hardly a hand out, he helped himself first. He also, like your mother, chose to further his education. It was not the govt. that bailed him out. He bailed himself out by taking advantage of current programs that offer assistence for those seeking it.

My whole premise is, we have these same programs available, there is a significant number of people that choose NOT to help themselves and take advantage of them. THey would rather vote for Obama who, in their eyes will take more from the earners and give it to them. They would rather live off of govt. than their own hard work.


Socialism is flawed and wrong


I do object GIVING to the poor who choose to stay poor over working their way out of it. I do not object helping those that are helping themselves


You do realize your parents had ambition, work ethic and desire, don't you? THey chose NOT to stay poor. Sounds like it wasn't "luck" rather ambition, desire, and work ethic that dug your parents out of the hole. Thanks for proving my point.

Last edited by lowing (2009-02-02 10:40:17)

2009-02-02 10:46:30
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


Why not sit on your ass and let "luck" and Obama save you? It seems to good enough for others according to you.
Back.

Right, why socialism is lovely.

When my mum was little, she lived on a council estate in inner manchester. Her dad had died in a refinery accident when she was little, and her mum was practically unqualified - she came from a time when it was difficult for women to get any sort of decent job. As a result, they lived in what would be defined as poverty, And as such without outside help from the Government, there was no way in hell she would be able to afford University. As it was our communist government loaned my mum all the money she needed to attend a decent university, and get a 1st in Business. As a result she now turns out about £90k p/a in a very well placed (irony inbound) Government position. NONE of this would have been doable without Government support, and as such the tax payers support.

---

Now for my fathers side. He was born and grew up in Northern Ireland. As you may have heard, NI was not a nice place to grow up back then. He came from a family of 7, and they all lived in a farmhouse with 3 rooms. His dad died when my dad was about 16, leaving him, his 5 brothers and their sister to attend the farm. This left little time for study, and as a result my dad failed every compulsory qualification. Now you could argue 'Well he should have tried harder'. HOW THE FUCK could he, when he was putting in 16-18hr shifts on the farm, to help bring in food for the family. Thankfully, the government payed him for reeducation courses, and eventually he went on to get a 2.1 in Business at a university in England. As a result, he now brings in 60k p/a in a high role in a well known British food group in a area managing position.



Now, my parents tried their utmost to bring themselves up from poverty, but WITHOUT GOVERNMENT assistance, paid for by those well off, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.


So you dare and try and tell me socialism is flawed and wrong, and giving to the poor is unworthy.

I dare you.
Socialism is flawed and wrong

your mother. The govt. gave her a LOAN. not a hand out, we also have govt. loans. It is not the loan that pulled your mother out of poverty. It was your mothers desire t oget educated and pull HER SELF out of poverty. Your mother CHOSE to go to school and not live a life of poverty. This story alone proves people live by their choices and not by their bad "luck".

your father. He worked to put food on a table, hardly a hand out, he helped himself first. He also, like your mother, chose to further his education. It was not the govt. that bailed him out. He bailed himself out by taking advantage of current programs that offer assistence for those seeking it.

My whole premise is, we have these same programs available, there is a significant number of people that choose NOT to help themselves and take advantage of them. THey would rather vote for Obama who, in their eyes will take more from the earners and give it to them. They would rather live off of govt. than their own hard work.


Socialism is flawed and wrong


I do object GIVING to the poor who choose to stay poor over working their way out of it. I do not object helping those that are helping themselves


You do realize your parents had ambition, work ethic and desire, don't you? THey chose NOT to stay poor. Sounds like it wasn't "luck" rather ambition, desire, and work ethic that dug your parents out of the hole. Thanks for proving my point.
Actually it was luck on both counts - these loans were not exactly widely available to either of the areas they lived, especially in the case of my dad. Without them, they would still be in the hole. This was not a case of seeking, rather reception
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-02-02 10:48:25
JahManRed
wank
+646|6931|IRELAND

lowing wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

lowing wrote:


Oh here we go again with, "it is just a few" defense.

I swear, if you guys couldn't scream "generalisation" about every topic, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am not surprised, this is what is left when you have n oother defense or excuse for people's behavior you have to remind us the obvious, that well, it wasn't 100% of them.
No one is denying that looting happened. No one is denying that people refused to leave their homes. No one is denying that their was a breakdown at a local as well as national level with regards to the relief effort. That's all true.
"it is just a few" defense, isn't a defence, its a fact. That's my issue with your opinion. If I say all Americans are war mongering, gas guzzling overweight idiots you would say I am generalizing. You would admit that such ppl exist but it is a tinny minority and it is not a fair representation of US society. So "its just a few" Same with the people of New Orleans.
When you speak of nations, cities, events, etc......unless you know everyone involved, EVEREYTHING you say will be a generalisation. If my observations do not apply to those I am speaking of then feel free t oexclude them. The fact is what I bitch about in NEw Orleans did happen, and it wass more than a few. The events that transpired, defined the event and the people. Sorry if you do not approve, but it really is too bad. History already judged that city.
Maybe the right seen it that way. The left and the rest of the planet seen it different.
2009-02-02 10:53:56
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

lowing wrote:

You do realize your parents had ambition, work ethic and desire, don't you? THey chose NOT to stay poor. Sounds like it wasn't "luck" rather ambition, desire, and work ethic that dug your parents out of the hole. Thanks for proving my point.
And socialism gave them greater opportunity to get out of that hole.

Can someone with no money afford to go to a good college in the US?

How much does college cost each year in the US? Over here tuition is around £1000/year. That's it. Total cost. Obviously you also need to support yourself whilst studying too.

No need for a college fund over here. Top quality education is available to anyone bright who wants it and applies themselves.
2009-02-02 10:55:26
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6456|what

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You do realize your parents had ambition, work ethic and desire, don't you? THey chose NOT to stay poor. Sounds like it wasn't "luck" rather ambition, desire, and work ethic that dug your parents out of the hole. Thanks for proving my point.
And socialism gave them greater opportunity to get out of that hole.

Can someone with no money afford to go to a good college in the US?
It's all about choice! You simply have to choose, not to be poor. lol
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-02-02 10:55:43
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6793|Gogledd Cymru

Bert, 1K a semester maybe, the standard fees for university are just over £3000 a year.
2009-02-02 10:58:47
Aries_37
arrivederci frog
+368|6878|London
Obama's 'spreading the wealth' is not a problem. The massive benefits greatly outweigh any potential exploitation of the system. If you scrapped socialist policies many of the lazy people you refer to will just resort to stealing, simply because that is the easiest choice. Then they wil be arrested and drain the governement's resources from prison.
2009-02-02 10:59:02
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You do realize your parents had ambition, work ethic and desire, don't you? THey chose NOT to stay poor. Sounds like it wasn't "luck" rather ambition, desire, and work ethic that dug your parents out of the hole. Thanks for proving my point.
And socialism gave them greater opportunity to get out of that hole.

Can someone with no money afford to go to a good college in the US?
It's all about choice! You simply have to choose, not to be poor. lol
lol quite.


Lowing, go preach that in the favelas.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-02-02 11:02:03
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

The Sheriff wrote:

Bert, 1K a semester maybe, the standard fees for university are just over £3000 a year.
Really?

They weren't when I went. I didn't graduate long ago - only 2006.

Indeed, just checked and they've risen dramatically. Disgraceful. Makes me even more angry that the Scots don't have to pay it.

Full-time students: how much will your tuition fees be?
If you started your course from September 2006

If your course started in or after September 2006 - or you haven’t started yet - the maximum tuition fees you can be charged for 2008/2009 is £3,145.
If you started your course before September 2006

For students who started before September 2006 - and many who started in September 2006 after taking a gap year in 2005/2006 - the maximum contribution towards tuition fees is £1,255 for 2008/2009.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-02 11:03:26)

2009-02-02 11:04:06
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6793|Gogledd Cymru

Yep, it's even worse if you're an overseas student, you can be paying anywhere between 10-15K a year if you're foreign.
2009-02-02 11:06:44
Aries_37
arrivederci frog
+368|6878|London

The Sheriff wrote:

Yep, it's even worse if you're an overseas student, you can be paying anywhere between 10-15K a year if you're foreign.
My mates from overseas pay 25K a year, increasing to 32k by the 6th year. And they always pretend to be poor
2009-02-02 11:32:10
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK
its all good, when you eventually become docs and get to stick your fingers up ill peoples bums you'll be earning zillions a year!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2009-02-02 11:38:32
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Can someone with no money afford to go to a good college in the US?
Yes. My ex got a full scholastic ride to USF. She had no money.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard