Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 182
  1. #141  
    We know Pelosi was to blame - but do not go throwing it over on the Republicans. The Republicans have overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and that means that NO REPUBLICANS ARE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY. None. Nancy failed to realize the power of the people. The people spoke and in many cases overwhelmingly. In fact, one representative mumbled that he got only 9 CALLS FOR the act.

    So based on that, you really need to quit blaming the Republicans and put the blame where it belongs - Pelosi. Stating otherwise keeps you right there with the Democrat talking points, which have said many times in many ways that you do not repeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Ben you'll note that I've already said Pelosi was to blame as well. Noteworthy that you're unable to find fault with the bums that put our country in this position to begin with.

    And the reason I said the GOP sank it is because...THEY DID! They agreed that over 50% of their members would vote for the bill. The Dems got over 61% to vote for it...a BILL TO BAIL OUT THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT...and yet, because their feelings were hurt, the GOP reneged on the bi-partisan deal they made. Basically...the GOP LIED to their own house leaders and said they'd vote for it but characteristically put their ideology and politics ahead of their country.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The party that created the greatest economic crisis since the great depression: the Democrat party has the dirtiest hands. Look at Barney Frank first, especially his comments that all was well.
    Yes, Barney Frank's comments AFTER the vote - after the agreement - after the GOP leadership claimed they had enough votes - after they promised 50% of the GOP would vote for the BI-PARTISAN bill - it must be Barney Frank's fault. LOL.

    You fail also to acknowledge that there are at least 2 in the Obama camp that came from FF & Leighman Bros. Acknowledge that and life gets good.
    Life gets good? In what way? You'll suddenly develop a friggin CLUE? Honestly you sound like a moron when you talk in circles like this. What does it have to do with the failure of Cowboy McSame riding into town to circle the wagons and/or GOP House leadership negotiating a deal in good faith and then FAILING to deliver on what they promised?

    You also know that Bill Clinton stated that his own party gave him trouble when he wanted to regulate FF. So, look no further than Barney and friends.
    And? I've said that the Dems were also to blame. You see...I can see shades of gray while you see red red and more red. You're utterly incapable of doing anything but spewing largely unsubstantiated rhetoric in all of your posts and have no idea how to even string together arguments that are even RELATED to what it is your defending.

    Sure, the Dems are to blame for wanting more affordable housing and that certainly is a contributing factor. But there are much bigger issues that have brought us where we are today than your myopic rightwing mind can wrap itself around. I've posted one excellent article already-....feel free to search for it and read it.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The party that created the greatest economic crisis since the great depression: the Democrat party has the dirtiest hands. Look at Barney Frank first, especially his comments that all was well. You fail also to acknowledge that there are at least 2 in the Obama camp that came from FF & Leighman Bros. Acknowledge that and life gets good.

    You also know that Bill Clinton stated that his own party gave him trouble when he wanted to regulate FF. So, look no further than Barney and friends.
    Jesus Ben...I was just kidding about the cntl-c cntl-v thing...but you're literally taken your game to a new level and a much higher intellectual plane.

    Feel free to post original thoughts in each of your "unique" rantings. Oh....and try and have a point. Barney Franks comments AFTER the GOP failed to deliver the votes they promised in bi-partisan negotiations are to blame for our economic situation?

    Now I have to go back to Church and pray all over again for you Ben. God knows you are being intellectually dishonest and that partisan evil has taken over your soul. I just don't know how many more prayers I can say for you...it may be too late.
  4. #144  
    Barney Frank's comment having anything to do with the vote? The GOP did not fail to deliver the votes - why not be open and look at Pelosi's inability to keep her own people under control. So why not hack on your own party, that is really where the blame is.

    If your own problem had no problem with it, then why did they bulk at it? Go take the attitude some where else - I am tired of your blaming everyone but those who really caused the problem.
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Barney Frank's comment having anything to do with the vote?
    Barney Frank's comments were made AFTER the vote - how could they have an impact on swaying the oversensitive GOP voters who bailed on their commitment to pass the bill?

    The GOP did not fail to deliver the votes - why not be open and look at Pelosi's inability to keep her own people under control. So why not hack on your own party, that is really where the blame is.
    Well Ben, it is obvious to me you read my posts as selectively as your parse blogs to substantiate your own twisted views. The fact of the matter I was quite vocal about Nancy and her untimely speech and utter lack of leadership. I've yet to see you post one criticism for any of the failed leadership from the "red" side of the isle.

    If your own problem had no problem with it, then why did they bulk at it? Go take the attitude some where else - I am tired of your blaming everyone but those who really caused the problem.
    Again, go read my post about Pelosi and the fact that she could not even pull another 12 votes over out of 95 dissenting Dems. So I have blamed her.

    My tirade against the GOP is that they supposedly negotiated a bi-partisan deal in good faith to bail out THEIR President (per his and his Treasury Secretarys request) and then turned around and backstabbed their own House Leader. And why did they do this? Politics before country. Or if you'd rather go with your take - their feelings got hurt by Pelosi and they decided to screw the country.
  6.    #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    ...My tirade against the GOP is that they supposedly negotiated a bi-partisan deal in good faith to bail out THEIR President (per his and his Treasury Secretarys request) and then turned around and backstabbed their own House Leader. And why did they do this? Politics before country. Or if you'd rather go with your take - their feelings got hurt by Pelosi and they decided to screw the country.

    indeed.

    I should n't try to do numerical "facts" from memory (as I do everything else), but I think 60% of the Dems voted for -- and 67% of the GOPers voted against, this program proposed by their president, supported by their nominee, to a address a problem they created.

    Somewhere amongst all that, responsibility could seemingly be proportioned apropriately...
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/01/2008 at 01:17 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #147  
    I'm curious as to how the 'all politics is local' adage played into this. For example, every member up for reelection in my state voted against it since it is seen among many as bailing out the wealthy at the expense of the taxpayers.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm curious as to how the 'all politics is local' adage played into this. For example, every member up for reelection in my state voted against it since it is seen among many as bailing out the wealthy at the expense of the taxpayers.
    I think I heard that only 8 members that were up for re-election voted for the bill - it absolutely was a factor with both Dems and Repubs. That said, the leadership from both parties supposedly had their caucuses in line and the number of votes necessary from each party to pass the bill. Obviously, somebody was either duped, usurped, or simply cannot count on the GOP side.

    I should add that the upside of this is that the Senate may have a better bill anyway - lets see how many vote for it...from both sides of the isle.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/01/2008 at 04:20 PM.
  9. #149  
    From what I read it has more in it to entice more fun.
  10. #150  
    I would say the number of callers had a profound affect. I called my state's representatives about the issue and one office person stated their list showed 9 people for it, the rest against it. My representatives ALWAYS vote the party line, this time neither of them did.
  11. #151  
    It is a rare occasion that I agree with Mr. Beck - but he struck a chord in this piece.


    Commentary: America's chilling future
    By Glenn Beck
    CNN

    Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also is host of a conservative national radio talk show.

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- Dear America:

    Happy 300th Birthday!

    It's 2076 and we've just invented the time-fax machine. (Actually, "we" didn't invent the time-fax machine, the State did -- they pretty much control everything now.)

    I'm faxing this back to you in 2008 because that seems to be the year we had the best chance to reverse our course and get back to the vision laid out by our founding fathers -- a vision that didn't include the government being in the insurance business.

    I don't have a lot of time (the State only gives us one 30-minute break per day) so let me give you some advice: Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress.

    I know you're all distracted by the presidential election, but for all the money and time poured into it, the truth is that you're choosing between two roads that will lead you to the same destination. Sure, one may be the Autobahn and the other a two-lane highway, but you'll end up at the same place either way.

    Decades of Republicans and Democrats alike have all chipped in to lead you to where you are today. Believing that one person, from either party, can change that by themselves is a big mistake.

    Presidents are like captains of a large ship: They can map out a course and shout out orders, but without the trust and hard work of the people who actually move the rudders, their commands mean nothing.

    In retrospect, the lack of trust and confidence you now have in your leaders was really the root cause of everything that's happened since. While our founding fathers designed a brilliant system of checks and balances, separation of powers and democratic elections, trust was the one thing they couldn't mandate in the Constitution.

    Unfortunately, it's also the foundation upon which everything else is built and once it began to erode, our whole house inevitably began to crumble.

    Looking back now, it's pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn't even seem to matter anymore.

    That's probably one of the reasons why George Washington hated the idea of political parties so much. Here's what he said about them in his 1796 farewell speech:

    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

    I know that George had a habit for using big words, so allow me to translate into 2008 English: Political parties that put their own success over that of the country's will be the death of America.

    If you don't believe him yet, just wait a few more years...you're about to see firsthand how right he was. After all, if power corrupts, then the kind of absolute power gained by political parties (and feared by Washington) corrupts absolutely.

    The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them.

    Believe me, when you see what's coming your way, you'll realize how little the donkey and the elephant really ever mattered. Oh and while we're on politics, one quick thing that I'm sure you're curious about: Yes, Robert Byrd is still in the Senate. He's 159, but doesn't look a day over 91.

    Now, let's talk about the economy. Let me see if I have this right: Money and power made people greedy, so you decided to hand over a bunch of money and power to greedy politicians instead. Smart! After using that money to nationalize a bunch of banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies, they moved on to bigger things.

    The airlines came first -- we just couldn't live without them. Then it was the automakers (Detroit would've died), health care (they said they could manage it better), and eventually, the oil companies (I'm not sure where all of those "windfall profits" have gone).

    The idea behind it all (an idea that was eventually turned into law with the passage of the Securities Exchange Act of 2011) was to "socialize losses" by spreading them out among all taxpayers. The pain, our leaders argued, would be minimal that way.

    They were right. At least until the bills came due. See, we didn't actually have any of the money we were promising everyone; we were borrowing it.

    It didn't take long before so many of our tax dollars were going toward interest payments that we couldn't fund even the most basic of government programs without massive tax increases on everyone. People now work most of the year just to pay Uncle Sam (or, as we now call him, "Comrade Sam").

    I hear the State censors coming, so let me leave you with a few other quick things:

    • Good call on not worrying about protecting our borders. That works out really well for you in 2019.

    • You might want to spend a little less time worrying about carbon and a little more time worrying about Iran. We're now in a new mini-Ice Age but, believe me, Iran isn't using their nukes to warm any homes. (PS The International Atomic Energy Agency just revealed to you that Iran appears to be refitting their long-range missiles to carry nuclear payloads. Did you think they were joking or were you just too busy with lipsticks and pigs to notice?)

    • The currency of the future is energy. Those who have it are thriving and those who don't -- well, let's just leave it at that. Drill for all the oil you can, but you also better start seriously looking for some other options.

    In closing, remember this golden rule and you should be fine: Your Constitution will never fail you, but your leaders will. Be wary of anyone who tries to convince you that it's the other way around.

    Best wishes (you're going to need them),

    Worker 2744A

    PS It's not all socialist doom and gloom here in the future. We just thawed Ted Williams' cryogenically frozen body and he hit 87 home runs for the North Team!

    The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    It is a rare occasion that I agree with Mr. Beck - but he struck a chord in this piece.
    After pondering this a bit more, I don't actually think we're heading into a socialistic state (well...Beck describes a communist state IMO) but his points about partisan politics, not investing in alternative energy, etc. are good ones.

    I don't think Americans will allow us to become a communist state nor even a true socialistic state. But Beck does a decent job of painting a possible future if we continue to allow wedge issues decide our future. We must take back our government.
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    After pondering this a bit more, I don't actually think we're heading into a socialistic state (well...Beck describes a communist state IMO) but his points about partisan politics, not investing in alternative energy, etc. are good ones.
    Beck is really describing more of a fascist/socialist hybrid. Communism as a political/economic system was differentiated from socialism by being stateless. USians have just historically been misinformed as to thinking the USSR was Communist. Hippies were communist. The state controlling the means of production is a socialist model, so Beck is correct in calling it socialist. Concepts such as State Censors and mandating personal actions are part of a fascist model, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Concepts such as State Censors and mandating personal actions are part of a fascist model, though.
    Tell that to the folks in China.

    But I get your point and agree. In any event, Beck exaggerated a possible outcome to make a larger point(s) and overall, I thought it was an interesting piece.
  15.    #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Tell that to the folks in China.

    ....
    that's the key observation -- there is no store from which countries can purchase a preconstructed template on which to "model" their governmental system.

    Every nation improvises based on the intelligence and wisdom of their leaders, their current circumstances, and the threats they perceive.

    The american template had proven for generations to be especially resilient, flexible, and adaptable. I think though junior has done more grievous damage to that template (in part because of a spineless congress) than the forefathers could have anticipated.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Tell that to the folks in China.
    The Chinese are even less Communist than the Soviets were. They are practically the definition of fascist socialism, even with their more recent 'capitalist' relaxations.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The Chinese are even less Communist than the Soviets were. They are practically the definition of fascist socialism, even with their more recent 'capitalist' relaxations.
    Not being argumentative, but from a purely academic standpoint - has there ever been a text book communist state? How about socialist?
  18. #158  
    No. I read this crap back in my first year of college and nothing anywhere follows the book. There is no indication in the book of mass murder or deprivation or the extreme luxury the ruling class lives in.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not being argumentative,
    I've no problem with argument, as long as it's reasonable.
    but from a purely academic standpoint - has there ever been a text book communist state?
    It's impossible, since in a textbook sense, communism dictates that there is no State. The community shares the means of production. The problem with communism has always been that it doesn't scale. Once you have no direct connection or interaction with the community as a whole, you lose the motivation to work for the communal good.
    How about socialist?
    Since the textbook definition of socialism is that the State owns the means of production, there have been quite a few socialist states. Here again, though, the problem is one of scale. Most socialist states wind up drifting into some form of dictatorship or totalitarianism. They fall short of Marx's ideal of the proletariat being empowered to be in charge of their own destiny in that respect.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20.    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by WHarropson View Post
    ...how do you think the liberals did in managing the FanFred thing? Were they right about causing the collapse of the mortgage markets?

    Here's a little lesson in the differences in the philosophys of the parties:

    Barney Frank when confronted about any culpability he had said he did nothing wrong. He believes that, or he's lying. Pick one.

    Chris Cox (Republican) was asked the same question. He replied that he screwed up...
    I'm not sure what you think you know about the mortgage crisis and Fannie Mae -- but the truth is probably a good bit different than you suppose.

    The subprime mortgage market exploded after 2001 (after junior seized power). It exploded under his watch. ("Between 2001 and 2004, the overall subprime mortgage market — loans to the riskiest borrowers — grew from $160 billion to $540 billion). This was a fourfold increase over what it had been prior to junior.

    Almost all the bad loans and risk taking by the Fannies happened after that 2001 expansion -- especially after 2005.

    The Fannies bought those loans because of the pressure of Wall Street, junior, mortgage companies like Countrywide, and yes -- congress

    Wall Street had found the Golden Calf in this pool of paper known as subprime loans.

    Wall Street had an insatiable appetite for buying, packaging, and reselling these high risk (hypothetically) high return mortgages.

    Investment banks and brokerages were competing with the Fannies to get more and more of those loans for themselves -- by buying them directly from banks and companies like Countrywide.

    Countrywide even told the Fannies that if they would not buy their loans, companies like Countrywide would give all their business to Wall Street.

    While already taking business from the Fannies, Wall Street was simultaneously envious of the Fannies because of their position as a preferred borrower -- their implied backing from the US government which significantly lessened their borrowing costs.

    Congress and junior also saw the subprime lending niche as a cheap and effective mechanism to help more americans to become homeowners. Because Congress saw the Fannies as getting the benefit of an "insurance subsidy", Congress felt that the Fannies were obliged to repay the govermental protection by getting more active in assisting weak borrowers, assisting them by making it easier for them to get homes.

    junior meanwhile saw the Fannies as government supported entities doing something that the unregulated free market could do instead.

    Frustrated at the obscene profits being made on Wall Street by investment banks packaging securitizing mortgage paper, Fannie's owners -- the holders of its stock (which included hedge funds) -- pressured the Fannies to get more aggressive and to buy more of the risky loans. Stockholders demanded that the Fannies take more risks to make more profit.

    (BTW -- junior appointed Christ Cox SEC commissioner in mid 2005, when the stock market in general (especially these investment banks) were having very profitable years.

    In fullfillment of junior's and the GOP's dream of unfettered unregulated capitalism, Cox soon ended the uptick rule on shorting stock -- and most enforcement of the naked shorting rules.

    Most independent investment ovbservers believe that the absence of these regulations accelerated and magnified pressure on companies like Lehrman, AIG, and Bear Stearns -- and contributed greatly to bankrupting them. Belatedly, Cox recently changed some of those rules back to where they had been before he became SEC commissioner.)



    October 5, 2008
    Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Mae Hit a Tipping Point
    By CHARLES DUHIGG NYTimes

    ...[When] Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.

    So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.

    For a time, that decision proved profitable. In the end, it nearly destroyed the company and threatened to drag down the housing market and the economy.

    ...Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.

    Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined...

    “We didn’t really know what we were buying,” said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie’s loan servicing department. “This system was designed for plain vanilla loans, and we were trying to push chocolate sundaes through the gears.”...

    “Fannie Mae faced the danger that the market would pass us by,” he said. “We were afraid that lenders would be selling products we weren’t buying and Congress would feel like we weren’t fulfilling our mission. The market was changing, and it’s our job to buy loans, so we had to change as well.”...

    When Mr. Mudd arrived at Fannie eight years ago, it was beginning a dramatic expansion that, at its peak, had it buying
    40 percent of all domestic mortgages.

    Just two decades earlier, Fannie had been on the brink of bankruptcy. But chief executives like Franklin D. Raines and the chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard built it into a financial juggernaut by aiming at new markets.

    Fannie never actually made loans. It was essentially a mortgage insurance company, buying mortgages, keeping some but reselling most to investors and, for a fee, promising to pay off a loan if the borrower defaulted. The only real danger was that the company might guarantee questionable mortgages and lose out when large numbers of borrowers walked away from their obligations.

    So Fannie constructed a vast network of computer programs and mathematical formulas that analyzed its millions of daily transactions and ranked borrowers according to their risk.

    Those computer programs seemingly turned Fannie into a divining rod, capable of separating pools of similar-seeming borrowers into safe and risky bets. The riskier the loan, the more Fannie charged to handle it. In theory, those high fees would offset any losses.

    ...the company announced in 2000 that it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010.

    All this helped supercharge Fannie’s stock price and rewarded top executives with tens of millions of dollars.

    ...Fannie’s stamp of approval made shunned borrowers and complex loans more acceptable to other lenders, particularly small and less sophisticated banks.

    Between 2001 and 2004, the overall subprime mortgage market — loans to the riskiest borrowers — grew from $160 billion to $540 billion,..

    Mozilo, a butcher’s son who had almost single-handedly built Countrywide into a financial powerhouse, threatened to upend their partnership unless Fannie started buying Countrywide’s riskier loans.

    Mr. Mozilo, ...told Mr. Mudd that Countrywide had other options. For example, Wall Street had recently jumped into the market for risky mortgages. Firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs had started bundling home loans and selling them to investors — bypassing Fannie and dealing with Countrywide directly.

    “You’re becoming irrelevant,” Mr. Mozilo told Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors.

    “You need us more than we need you,” Mr. Mozilo said, “and if you don’t take these loans, you’ll find you can lose much more.”

    ...Investors were also pressuring Mr. Mudd to take greater risks.

    On one occasion, a hedge fund manager telephoned a senior Fannie executive to complain that the company was not taking enough gambles in chasing profits.

    “Are you stupid or blind?” the investor roared
    , according to someone who heard the call, but requested anonymity. “Your job is to make me money!”

    Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. The same year he took the top position, regulators sharply increased Fannie’s affordable-housing goals.

    ...“When homes are doubling in price in every six years and incomes are increasing by a mere one percent per year, Fannie’s mission is of paramount importance,” Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, lectured Mr. Mudd at a Congressional hearing in 2006. “In fact, Fannie and Freddie can do more, a lot more.”

    But Fannie’s computer systems could not fully analyze many of the risky loans that customers, investors and lawmakers wanted Mr. Mudd to buy. Many of them — like balloon-rate mortgages or mortgages that did not require paperwork — were so new that dangerous bets could not be identified,...

    Mr. Mudd told employees to “get aggressive on risk-taking, or get out of the company.”

    ...[After the financial crisis began] Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, leaned on Fannie and Freddie to buy and hold those troubled debts, hoping that removing them from the system would help the economy recover. The companies, eager to regain market share and buy what they thought were undervalued loans, rushed to comply.

    The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans...
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/05/2008 at 11:51 AM. Reason: extensively rewritten for clarity
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions