View Full Version : Bush trys to spin ends up lying again
Well after the supreme court decided against Bush's wishes in the University of Michigan case He comes out with a statement saying he is for the decision. This after he spent Lefty's tax dollars trying to defeat the case. He is going to be one busy dude trying to control his downward spiral from now on. Lefty you may want to start a draft Guilliani movement now. You remember Guilliani, he was the guy walking the streets of New York on 9/11 not hiding in some southern air base.
Lefty
06-24-2003, 03:42 AM
Whenever there's an attack and the Secret Service thinks the President may be in danger his is whisked away. That's standard practice for any President so stop being so disengenious.
The decision is certainly not all he wanted but a small step forward nevertheless. So can the crap.
Bush not in danger of losing. Which one of the umpteen libs do you think will get the nomination? They are all a joke.
Lefty said
"The decision is certainly not all he wanted but a small step forward nevertheless. "
Lefty you are trying to spin Bush's spin, are you getting dizzy. I agree it is a small step forward. We have held the rednecks at bay not allowing them to continue with there oppression of minorities.
I like it when we can come to agreement on things.
Lefty
06-24-2003, 02:00 PM
It's the Libs with the spin. Here's what happened:The decision OVERTURNED a public funded school's Undergraduate race policy!
YEA! Glad to educate you.
Glad to see you libs never disappoint and keep your namecalling policy alive.
Rednecks indeed!
I think the term originated amongst a hard working people who toiled outside and got rednecks from the sun. You demean hard working people. But libs usually talk one way but true feelings usually show up.
I remember James Carville saying: Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer court and no telling what you'll get"
You libs always reveal yourselves.
Originally posted by ljb
Lefty what is a lib?
A LIB is an abbreviation for liberal. Like Yanks, or Brits. You see. Ljb, not everyone always thinks in term of name calling and degratory remarks. Personally, I like them. I like to talk down to people who don't understand things so good.
So then you could be called a con. Am I getting this right Tom? Talk down to me, it excites me almost as much as the movies excite Lefty and you.
Shortly after I go out of the Military I took the Postal exam. I scored a 99. Out of 100. The test is easy. I did'nt get in.
Being Black gave you 10 Points. As did being a Disabled veteran. After all the blacks that scored 90 PLUS got the 10 points. There were no spots left for me.
After serving my country...I came home trying to find honest gainful employment. I was sidestepped because I was the wrong color at the wrong time.
That was 20 years ago. Can anyone that is FOR Affirmative action give me a general idea as to when you might be interested in ending it?
I've got black Boss's, Black Doctors, Black Secratary of State, Black director of National security. From my seat it appears that the original "Sell" for affirmative action has been met.
The fact is.
In a TWO parent Household with comprable income. Blacks have the exact same statistics as whites.
% of home ownership
% of College bound students
% of Divorce
Life expectancy
Income
Fact is. Many whites do not like the culture of the black community. If Blacks would work on stabilizing thier rate of UNwed mothers, and other social ills they'd be no need for MOST affirmative action programs.
I do believe the Govt is responsible for creating an environment that ensures every citizen has the right to "Pursue freedom and happiness, and prosperity. However, I think that as of right now. The Govt has met that burden. It should be unconstituional to give blacks ANY special treatment.
Private orginizations MAY if they desire, use race. Because I believe in the right of a private entity to operate with its own charter. But the UNIV of Mchigan nor most Colleges Qualify for that exemption because they get State and Federal Funds.
I look at my 10 Nieces and Nephews. All range in age from 8 weeks to 13 years old. I almost want to apologize to them for what has happened with affirmative action in the 25 years. I'm afraid my Nephew will look at me when he becomes a Young man and ask
"How could you let this happen"?
I blame my fathers generation. They had it good. To be a white male in 1950. You were the King of the Jungle. They either got greedy, fat or stupid. They Took thier eye off the ball.
Being a white male. Right now its like society/Govt/LIBS look at white males with "You'll pay" written all over thier face.
and on another Political Note. Bush is going to announce his BIG Domestic win. The privatization of the Prescription portion of Medicade.
Private firms will have the right to solicit Medicade Patients Prescription drug business. Republicans are hoping that COMPETITION will drive down the COSTS. The pressure from a FREE Market just might. And I hope it does. I'm for free and open competition with the Govt Programs. Capitialism is a Big Part of Societys Makeup. When the Govt abritarily eliminates competition, such as it does with State Lotteries, it never produces a quality service or product. Competition makes everything better.
The Kicker to this WIN for Bush was None other than Ted Kennedy. $400 billion in Prescription drug Coverage to be included in the next medicade bill. BUSH did a deal with Kennedy. You give me the Democrats on Privitization and I'll give you the Republicans on Prescription Drug Coverage.
BTW. The Bill that Bush will take credit for when it pass's is the prescription drug Coverage. He figures its worth a couple hundred thousand elderly votes. Fact is. ...Its Kennedys bill. He wrote it. Part of the Deal was that Bush put his name on it.
The OLD BEAR does it again.
JustRalph
06-25-2003, 09:21 AM
Suff: I got a 90 plus on the postal exam too. Didn't make the cut either. I was number 22 on the list, at least that is what they told me. 11 people got preferred status. They were hiring 17 people in the area at the time. I didn't know what "preferred status" meant. When I called and asked they told me it was court ordered minority hiring and that included women too. Any woman or minority that passed got bumped to the top. It took a 69 to pass if my memory serves me right. Anybody who was a women or minority and scored a 69 or better went straight to the top of the list. They filled 11 out of 17 jobs this way. The next time your mail gets lost....remember this.
Try this one: I scored a 96 on a Police Test. I got ten points extra for military service. The card they sent said my total civil service score was 106. You would think that would be pretty good. There was a guy sitting next to me in the test that was counting on his fingers and I was waiting for him to take his shoes and socks off. He was a minority. A month later I see him at the "physical" and he is carrying the card they sent him in the mail. He lays it down on a table next to us. He scored 67 and his card has a check box that reads " preference via judicial enforcement" or something like that. We both take the physical and while we are standing around he is reading the release form out loud. This guy could barely read. He was working his ass off to understand what he was signing. The long and short of it, he is still working for the department as a DARE officer. He survived an inquiry as to him paying some other students to do his homework in the police academy. I was "Put on the white list" and later found out the department was court ordered to hire minorities first then work their way down to the white list. A year or so later they called me for further processing. They had made it to the white list. I was already employed by a different department. A few years back I read that the department was released from their minority hiring requirement by the court. They spent ten years of hiring this way. Seniority governs a bunch in the way promotions are handled in these union departments. I don't have anything against police unions, but if you are an officer off the 'White List" you will be perpetually disadvantaged by taking a position in this department. The court decision will keep you at a disadvantage due to union rules that kick in once you are hired. An entire career will be limited because there are ten years worth of hires that will receive preference over you in promotions and shift scheduling and just about everything that is done within the rules of the union. This includes vehicle assignments and equipment issues. The guys with seniority will always have an advantage. Even if you are in the same academy class with a minority and you start the same day, you are at a disadvantage. Whoever had their paperwork and hiring process done first gets the seniority advantage by one day. I saw that one go to arbitration. :mad:
Lefty
06-25-2003, 01:09 PM
ljb, let me also give you an illustration of liberals and conservatives, by way of definition, if you will:
Homeless: A conservative wants to give homeless people jobs and teach them to access the good parts of society.
A liberal wants to give them shopping carts and teach them to access the good parts of a dumpster.
ljb, you also said no longer can the rednecks oppress the minorities.
You got to be kidding. Conservatives think everyone should have equal education and equal status in society.
Liberals think the minorities are so helpless that they need help from white liberals. If I were a minority I would be insulted by the liberal stance.
Lefty
06-25-2003, 01:27 PM
BTW, I am a minority, I am a member of the true minority: I am
LEFT HANDED.
When I struggled with right handed tools in shop in school the teacher did not give me extra points because I was left handed. Nor did I ask: I bravely struggled on.
Lefty sez
," let me also give you an illustration of liberals and conservatives, by way of definition, if you will:
Homeless: A conservative wants to give homeless people jobs and teach them to access the good parts of society.
A liberal wants to give them shopping carts and teach them to access the good parts of a dumpster."
Lefty this is of course your biased opinion.
Imho
Homeless: A conservative says t.s. if he/she wants food tell them to get a job.
A liberal says. Maybe we could help him out with some education at a reasonable expense so he can get a job and support himself. This may take some expenditures and/or tax dollars but if we help one unfortunate soul we will all benefit in the end.
Lefty sez
"you also said no longer can the rednecks oppress the minorities.
You got to be kidding. Conservatives think everyone should have equal education and equal status in society.
Sorry Lefty but conservatives do not think that,
they think minorities should get a lesser education unless they can afford to pay for it or have a daddy with a large account. (Legacy)
Lefty sez,
Liberals think the minorities are so helpless that they need help from white liberals. If I were a minority I would be insulted by the liberal stance.
What makes you think only white liberals help others?
Oh and by the way I am a liberal and don't agree with most of what you say here. So, if you want to say what you think liberals think, please use the phrase SOME liberals in the future.
TurfRuler
06-25-2003, 04:24 PM
It's a good thing there is no affirmative action in handicapping the races or you guys would be in serious trouble or even more psyched out.
Originally posted by ljb
Sorry Lefty but conservatives do not think that,
they think minorities should get a lesser education unless they can afford to pay for it or have a daddy with a large account. (Legacy).............
Oh and by the way I am a liberal and don't agree with most of what you say here. So, if you want to say what you think liberals think, please use the phrase SOME liberals in the future.
Gee, you contradic tyourself in the same post, oh enlightened one. this is the liberal legacy....WE tell you wath to do, YOU don't tell us. I know YOU don't speak for all liberal, or even many.
andicap is a liberal, but he is a man of respect, intelligence, and he uses logic and reason. You however, are no andicap.
Lefty
06-25-2003, 10:08 PM
ljb, now I am laughing out loud. It's just too hilarious.
"sorry lefty conservatives do not think that." You tell me.
And in the same post you tell me I am biased and that I should say" Some "Liberals.
But you didn't say "some" conservatives. I am on the floor. You win my hypocrite of the mo. award. Congrats. Never mind i'm giving it to Jesse Jackson instead. I gave him a 10 pt. head start. As a liberal you should be proud of me for doing that.
You libs all think any prob. can be solved by just throwing more money at it. And you want more and more people to shoulder more and more of a tax burden.
It's the conservatives who want to give people jobs and respect and it's the libs who want to give them handouts and videos on "dumpster dining."
Yes I am biased. Hey, ljb, let me be the first to give you this clue:
You are too.
Tom neat trick, cutting and pasting lines and putting them together to put some spin on the message to suit your needs.
Lefty you have done a good job of following Tom's lead in this thread.
Words / phrases taken out of context have diminished value.
Why do you two resort to personal attacks so frequently?
justin
06-26-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by ljb
"I agree it is a small step forward. We have held the rednecks at bay not allowing them to continue with there oppression of minorities. I like it when we can come to agreement on things.
By oppression, do you mean admitting minorities that are inferior on merit because of their race? What about student aid packages being tipped towards minorities? Scholarships that are set aside solely for minorities regardless of need?
Explain to me how it's fair that minority friends I attended high school with that also went to the same college all received scholarships and/or financial aid despite being mediocre students. The icing on the cake...none of these people needed the free ride. A drive home for these people meant going home to a nice house in the county.
Meanwhile the white friends who also went to the same high school/college as me were stuck taking out unsubsidized loans (that paid a little over 60% of tuition) because we couldn't get scholarships/aid. A drive home for me and my white friends meant going home to a row house or apartment in not-so-nice neighborhoods. Why did I even bother taking all honors/AP courses in high school while my minority friends were coasting through the easy classes with average grades?
In the name of diversity and righting past wrongs, colleges are all too eager to not only admit, but also give a free ride to people who don't belong there on merit. Giving free money to these same students is a farce in the cases where need is not an issue yet if happens often. Much like the Supreme Court, you are out of touch with the reality of today's campuses.
Lefty
06-26-2003, 01:13 PM
ljb, I do not indulge in personal attacks, unless, throwing your own words back at you is a personal attack. I have never called you stupid or dumb or anything like that. Maybe liberal is a personal attack, but that's what you are. Call me a conservative I do not take umbrage because I am a conservative.
I did not take take your words out of context. You said I should say some libs cause they don't all agree but you did not practice what you preach. You said, "Lefty conservatives do not think that way" Your words. You did not say "some conservatives."
Well every conservative I know thinks that way. We believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone and would TRULY like to see a color blind society. It's the libs that bring up race at every opportunity.
Seems you can dish it out but can't take it.
Lefty,
I believe my mention of personal attacks was directed at Tom. Same with the taking words or phrases out of context.
I also believe in equal rights and opportunities for all and would like to see a color blind society. Unfortunately we seem to have different opinions as to how to achieve these goals. We may even have different opinions as to what they are.
Originally posted by ljb
Tom neat trick, cutting and pasting lines and putting them together to put some spin on the message to suit your needs.
Lefty you have done a good job of following Tom's lead in this thread.
Words / phrases taken out of context have diminished value.
Why do you two resort to personal attacks so frequently?
No trick, lbj....YOU wrote both of those things in the same post. I merely pointed out that you were contradicting yourself in the space of 40 or so words. No Psin...YOU said both thing, dude.
I know you have problems with memory, but come on....even you should be able to get through a whole post.
Lefty
06-26-2003, 08:43 PM
ljb, if your remarks were directed at Tom, why did you say you two? Please start remembering what you posted or at least reread them as Tom says.
Wait, I got it, Tom, ljb thinks you have a split personality, that's why he said you two. You think?
originally posted by Tom:
" I like to talk down to people who don't understand things so good. "
lefty,
Sorry, you were in fact making a personal attack when you chimed in with Tom's cut and paste critic of my previous post.
Originally posted by Lefty
ljb, if your remarks were directed at Tom, why did you say you two? Please start remembering what you posted or at least reread them as Tom says.
Wait, I got it, Tom, ljb thinks you have a split personality, that's why he said you two. You think?
I think that is true.
No I don't. :rolleyes:
Tom,
Did i just hear your comments on c-span?
Lefty
06-27-2003, 08:50 PM
ljb, pointing out a contradiction is not a personal attack; not even close.
You said, Lefty, conservatives do not think that way." You did not say SOME conservatives do not think that way, but in the same post you said we should say SOME liberals. If you don't see the contradiction then I can't help you, but then most liberals can't be helped.
Now we are arguing about what is a personal attack. When the real discussion should be about the Bush Administration's lies.
Ok you did not make a personal attack but, that don't mean the Bush gang ain't been lying to us for many moons now.
What lies?
Where is your proof?
Neither you nor Amazin have offered anything past your own opinions-not one fact that supports your postition that Bush has lied.
We are waiting.............
Just one example of many.
"We're dealing with first-time responders to make sure they've got what's needed to be able to respond. " ? Bush, 3/27/2002
Bush had been saying that he was proposing $3.5 billion in "new" money for first responders. However, his budget tried to cut more than $1 billion out of existing grants to local police/fire departments to fund this. Then, in August of 2002, Bush rejected $150 million for grants to state and local first responders. Bush's decision prompted the President of the Firefighters Union to say, "President Bush, don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe." The President of the Virginia firefighters association said, "The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity."
Lefty
06-28-2003, 09:35 PM
ljb, first you say I indulged in a personal attack. Then you said you weren't talking to me. Then you said I indulged in a personal attack when I sided with Tom.
Now you say, ok I didn't indulge in a personal attack. And you think YOU can be the arbiter of what is or isn't a lie?
What the Virginia firefighter said was a personal opinion and does not prove Bush was lying.
Sad truth is our enemies must be deal with and it costs money, tons of it and Bush is dealing with it.
Had AlGore been pres he would have merely raised taxes. Bush is to be commended for trying to find other solutions.
Lbj....I expected so much more from you. *Sigh*
Here's how it works:
Write a bill that provides money to widows and orphans.
Now tack on $100 million in pork for various congressmen's home towns.
Then tack on a clause to reduce funding to the miliatary.
Then tack on another $100 million in pork.
the bill gets vetoed and all we hear is Bush is against widows and orphans.
Nice spin Tom,
You wouldn't happen to work for Rove would you.
Sigh, more republican spin.
Lefty
06-30-2003, 09:09 PM
Tom, sigh, more truth. That's how it is.
ljb, "you can't handle the truth" (I typed this while doing a perfect impression of Jack Nicholsen.)
If you can't dispute the facts attack the messenger.
Lefty's words
ljb, "you can't handle the truth"
"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
? George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.
Today, more than three months after Bush's stirring declaration of war and nearly two months since he declared victory, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found, nor any documentation of their existence, nor any sign they were deployed in the field.
The mainstream press, after an astonishing two years of cowardice, is belatedly drawing attention to the unconscionable level of administrative deception. They seem surprised to find that when it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration isn't prone to the occasional lie of expediency but, in fact, almost never told the truth.
Lefty
07-01-2003, 01:48 PM
Then did your leader Clinton lie too? Did the UN lie, also?
Yet you only attach WMD's to Bush. I think I spot a disengenious liberal. I'm sure I have.
Actually, underground labs, chemical suits, and chemicals have been found.
Has it been 2 months? Gosh that's a veritable lifetime.
We must string Bush up. His crime: Protecting America and the libs don't like it.
Lefty's question:
"Then did your leader Clinton lie too? Did the UN lie, also?"
I don't know Lefty you tell me. Did Clinton lie? Did the UN lie?
You are the one who used them as support for your argument.
Lefty
07-02-2003, 07:19 PM
Why do you libs escape a question by asking another question?
My answer: In this case the UN and Clinton did not lie and since Bush relied heavily on them he did not lie either. You can't say one or two entities did not lie and the other did. Does this distinction escape you? Can you answer the question or will you, as you have so many times, avoid the question and go off on another tangent? You like to ask questions but you do not like to answr questions.
1. Did Bill Clinton say or acknowledge that Iraq possed weapons of mass destruction?
Yes or no?
Tom,
I know how much you respect and admire Bill Clinton so a yes or no answer to your question would be a moot point.
You are going to believe what ever you want to believe regardless of what I say.
Oh I see now. If someone is saying something that supports your view, they are speaking the truth and if they are speaking in contradiction to your view, they are lying.
A typical Flush Bimbo response.
You fellas are doing an excellent job of spinning this topic from it's original point.
The original question was regarding Bush's lies to the general public. I included a quote about his support of first responders. The two of you have converted it to questions about the UN and Clinton's credibility.
Nice spin guys.
Lefty
07-03-2003, 01:29 PM
ljb, You are the one spinning. I ask a simple question and you won't answer but ask more questions and do nothing but spin and obfuscate. I and Tom have answered your questions directly. So I think the people on this board can figure out who's doing a spin.
One more time: You say Bush lied about WMD's. Does that mean to you that Clinton and UN lied too? It's a simple question that can be answered with a simple yes or no and not another question.
Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
I know how much you respect and admire Bill Clinton so a yes or no answer to your question would be a moot point.
You are going to believe what ever you want to believe regardless of what I say.
Nice lib way to once again avoid making a statment that you can be held accountable to. It matters not what I believe...the quesiton was to YOU.....or are you just afraid to answer a question with a statement instead of another quesiton?
I would have thought someone who puts on such airs about being right would be all too happy to set the record straight. Turns out you are just another blast of hot air without substance and without the backbone to back up your allegations.
You make Baghdad Bob look like a reliable source!
Wrong again Tom,
I originally posted a statement about Bush's lies, you asked for proof. I posted another example of his lies with documentation. You then tried to turn it around and make it a discussion of Clinton's credibility, Why can't you just respond with the correct answer? Bush and his administration did lie to the American public about the need to wipe out Saddam and many other things.
Lefty
07-05-2003, 01:33 AM
If he did then so did Clinton. Can't you follow a single simple thread of accountability? Clinton said it first and there's no getting around that. Sticky Wicket for you isn't it? Fun to watch you hem, haw dance all around the subject.
Lefty,
Your attempts at raising my ire by making personal attacks are not working this time.
You have failed to respond to the original point of this thread. Bush lies! You have done so by spinning and trying to confuse the issues, you have used Clinton as a distraction, you have attacked me saying I am hemming and hawing around a subject. The truth is you are the one hemming and hawing as you have failed to respond to the point at hand, Bush's lies.
Show Me the Wire
07-05-2003, 09:23 AM
ljb:
Okay we get it you believe President Bush lies. This is your opinion and that is all it is your opinion.
As for Clinton lying it is not merely opinion, it is proven fact through public record made in a Court of law. It is fact, not opinion.
We understand your opinion and I respect your right to your opinion, but I do not share your opinion. Is it possible you can accept the fact becuase you believe something does not mean everyone else will believe as you? I repeat, I respect your right to your opinion and I ask you to return the same respect by accepting the fact others may not share the same opinion as you, and to stop stating your opinion about President Bush ad nauseam.
Regards,
Show Me the Wire
Perception is reality
Show me,
I believe I have posted documentation of at least two if not three cases on this thread proving Bush and/or his administration has been lying to the public.
Facts not opinions. Since some of you folks can't seem to believe these facts, I will post some more when time allows.
Haven't seen any facts yet. Only on man's interpretation of things.
And a wrong one.
How about something concrete, you know, like when Clinton said "I never had sex with that women!" Someting clear cut like that! (HeHeHe!)
Baghdad Bob is proud of you!
Lefty
07-06-2003, 12:31 AM
ljb, please point out my personal attack on you? Clinton is not a distraction, he said it first. So follow the bouncing ball: If Clinton said Sadaam had weapons mass distraction and you believed it, how does it all of a sudden become a lie when Bush says it? You see there's a continuity there. If Bush lied then so did Clinton. Why can't you follow that simple concept?
Answer: You don't want to. You have something against Bush but don't have the guts to tell this forum what it is. Simple as that.
Maybe you work for the DNC, I dunno.
Lefty
07-06-2003, 12:37 AM
ljb, I get it. I said you were hemming and hawing and you think that's a personal attack. Ok, if you say so. But what is hemming and hawing? Hmmm, you won't answer my question but keep changing the subject and obfuscating and keep trying to tell me Clinton doesn't belong in the equation, when he plainly does.
So you did hem and haw. I submit the truth is not a personal attack.
Left,
BLT is not concerned with the truth, only the source.
If Clinton says it, is true, If Bush says it, it is a lie.
Like Little A, he is a prisoner of his rigid structure.
Tom, you should not stoop to name calling, your posts are higher quality when you try to stick to the facts.
Now,
Toms words:Left, BLT is not concerned with the truth, only the source. If Clinton says it, is true, If Bush says it, it is a lie.
Like Little A, he is a prisoner of his rigid structure.
The difference is of course, Bush's invasion of Iraq.
ps. I did not use Clinton as a source of truth in this matter, it was Lefty that used Clinton.
Lefty
07-07-2003, 01:01 PM
ljb, YES! the difference IS Bush invaded Iraq. Clinton didn't have either the guts or maybe enough blood to the brain to get the job done. A man just doesn't have enough blood to support two heads at the same time.
Obfuscation: You saying I used Clinton as a source of truth is pure liberal obfuscation and misdirection.
I did not use Clinton as a source of truth but as a source of COMPARISON. Can't you be honest with your words?
Heard a sound byte from Hillary today-don't when it was from-but she and Bill, according to intelligence reports they saw-both were convinced Sadaam had deliverable biological and chemical weapons and was on the threshold of having nuclear cabability.
That was during their tour in the White House.
So, Ljb....why do you call Bush a liar when it was apparently widely accepted the WMD were in the possesion of a madman?
I just don't understand wwhere you get the lie part from.
If you will explain that to me, I will never call you BLT again. ;)
Tom this thread started out with me talking about Bush saying he was glad about the supreme court ruling in the U.O.M discrimination case. This after the White house had filed a brief against the ruling.
The thread has wandered all over but I have posted a couple examples of Bush's lies. If you choose not to believe them, that is as it will be. I don't mind being called a bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich.
The invasion of Iraq was a wrongful loss of lives, both American and foreign. They have found no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's threat to the world was minimal.
It is a sad condition when young Americans are being killed daily for oil or votes.
Lefty
07-11-2003, 10:43 PM
It wasn't about oil or votes, but you keep trying to sell that LIE!
Read Tom's post about Bill and Hillary and you know it's true, you know it's damn true. But ljb, like a spider spins his little web
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.