Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 236
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Ah, Cardio, where are these donations from and could I have a source please. Thanks
    Here is the source. It is a republican newsletter, however they quote where they gathered the information and the majority came from nonpartisian research or IRS sites, election reform sites etc.

    http://www.nrsc.org/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=1362
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #142  
    You folks keep arguing that, tribes that have historically given to dems, are related to this scandal of Bribes and Corruption of Abramoff. The problem here is that some if not all of the tribes that you guys list, had given to the dems pre-abramoff. After they signed up Abramoff there contributions either fell or or stayed the same. The tribes giving to a candidate is not illegal. Plus if you folks could find something other than RSNC to quote that would be nice, you know some non-partisan studies, FEC records, travel logs of Dems taking trips with Abramoff, something that would connect Abramoff directly to the dems would be useful for you folks.

    There may be some Dems involved in this but, as it stands right now there isn't any evidence as such. If they are caught/involved, then good get rid of em.
    Last edited by NRG; 01/30/2006 at 11:18 AM.
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You folks keep arguing that, tribes that have historically given to dems, are related to this scandal of Bribes and Corruption of Abramoff. The problem here is that some if not all of the tribes that you guys list, had given to the dems pre-abramoff. After they signed up Abramoff there contributions either fell or or stayed the same. The tribes giving to a candidate is not illegal. Plus if you folks could find something other than RSNC to quote that would be nice, you know some non-partisan studies, FEC records, travel logs of Dems taking trips with Abramoff, something that would connect Abramoff directly to the dems would be useful for you folks.
    All you have to do is follow the links provided in the RSNC article to the, you know non-partisan studies by the IRS, TRAY (and others). Don't turn a blind eye, they all do it, the records are there. Because the democrats do it does not make it OK for the republicans to do it also. Because the republicans took more money does not make them more guilty, right now the republicans are in control so of course the spotlight is on them. And, come to think of it, if you were going to try to bribe someone would'nt it make more sense to bribe someone in power and keep the others fed so if and when the regain power they will play for you also.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You folks keep arguing that, tribes that have historically given to dems, are related to this scandal of Bribes and Corruption of Abramoff. The problem here is that some if not all of the tribes that you guys list, had given to the dems pre-abramoff. After they signed up Abramoff there contributions either fell or or stayed the same. The tribes giving to a candidate is not illegal. Plus if you folks could find something other than RSNC to quote that would be nice, you know some non-partisan studies, FEC records, travel logs of Dems taking trips with Abramoff, something that would connect Abramoff directly to the dems would be useful for you folks.

    There may be some Dems involved in this but, as it stands right now there isn't any evidence as such. If they are caught/involved, then good get rid of em.
    It seems to me that you are ready to call it quits in the 1st quarter of the game and declare a winner, just because you are "winning" at the moment. Does the concept of ongoing investigation have any factor in this situation or not?

    I noticed you still ignored the points I brought up. I listed multi sources from the WA Post, Boston Globe, ect.... that offered several sources such as the Dems personal campaign contribution records (or lack of Jack contributions when he or his associates made them). I even answered your post before you posted it:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    This was released by the Reps, but from records from the Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005. Even though there is no doubt this is politically motivated to throw it back in the Dems face, if the sources are sound, it does beg the question of Dem involvement.
    Bottom line if you play the blame game, then be aware it does tend to ricochet around quite a bit leaving a mark on more than than you originally hoped for. Basically, just because more members of one party are involved, does not downplay the members of the other party who are, or might be, involved.

    And as myself and many others have stated over and over again. No matter what Party it is.....Dem or Rep....if they committed crime (even to a lesser decree than members of the opposing party) all are guilty and should not be screened simply due to party affiliation.

    Again, I have no loyality to any party. I don't care if they are Dem, Rep, Green, or Ind......all need to be held to the same standard of investigation and procesution. If AFTER the investigation, no Dems are found guilty....GREAT for the Dems. That would be a huge break for them in the upcoming elections. But if the initial analysis of a 3 to 1 Rep to Dem participation ratio holds true....IMHO all of this "Reps are corrupt and the Dems are innocent because they did more bad than we did" is going to backfire on the Dems if they push this in the coming elections. I heard a poll (I believe on CNN) stating that right now a majority of those polled hold both Dems and Reps equally corrupt in the case with Jack. When elections are concerned perception is reality, and the Dems maybe playing with fire with this political strategy.

    NRG...are you willing to accept the POSSIBILITY that there the reports from the IRS, WA Post, Campaign Finance Analysis Project, and Tray......just might have merit for investigations that have yet to be started? That they do raise questions that are far from being answered concerning Dem's innocence in this situation? That there was participation worth investing from the Dem side that we still do not have answers on yet?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/30/2006 at 11:30 PM.
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Plus if you folks could find something other than RSNC to quote that would be nice, you know some non-partisan studies, FEC records, travel logs of Dems taking trips with Abramoff, something that would connect Abramoff directly to the dems would be useful for you folks.

    There may be some Dems involved in this but, as it stands right now there isn't any evidence as such.
    NRG....you've asked me of my opinion on quotes on this matter. I have read this following article and have included some interesting points concerning your claim that Dems are innocent in the Abramoff scandal.

    I do not hold you as being "Willfully blind", So now I am interested in your opinion of what is laid out below:

    The Friends of Jack Abramoff
    They're not all Republicans.

    01/16/2006
    FULL STORY: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/561rocjb.asp

    Reid might not have taken money directly from Abramoff, a lifelong Republican and conservative activist, but he did accept donations--some $66,000 worth--from Abramoff's clients, Indian tribes operating casinos throughout the United States. And Reid's willingness to do so, and his reluctance to return the Abramoff-related funds, as many of his Republican colleagues have done, suggests that Washington's latest lobbying scandal may be more complex than partisans have let on, and more difficult for Democrats to make partisan hay out of than pundits now think. Consider another example.

    -------------

    Scanlon's program, "Operation Open Doors," came at a price: $4.2 million. What the Tigua did not know was that Scanlon planned all along to send half that amount back to Abramoff in the form of a $2.1 million check to Kay Gold LLC., an Abramoff front. The two friends called this arrangement "Gimme Five."

    ----------------

    Schwartz told Sen. John McCain in November 2004 that he recalled "an agreement between Mr. Abramoff and Senator Dodd early in the process. And Representative Ney came on the scene somewhat later." Schwartz's testimony jibes with the contents of an April 12, 2002, memo Scanlon sent to his tribal contacts, in which he wrote that "we have Senate support," but that "they are looking for political cover."

    The route by which Scanlon had supposedly secured Dodd's cooperation was circuitous. His firm, Scanlon & Gould, aka Capital Campaign Strategies, paid another firm, Lunde & Burger, $50,000 to lobby the Connecticut Democrat. "He called me about the Tiguas' wanting to reopen their casino," Brian Lunde, a former Democratic National Committee executive director who in 2004 was the national chair of Democrats for Bush, later told the New York Times. "I checked around, and it was the formal position of the DNC to have that reopened." Lunde and Burger entered into a $10,000 subcontract with yet another "public relations strategist" to lobby Dodd directly. Enter Lottie Shackelford.

    LIKE MANY WASHINGTONIANS Lottie Shackelford came to this city to do good and stayed to do well. She has been a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee since 1989. She is also a lobbyist. She was the first woman to be elected mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas, and her career has followed the arc of that state's former governor, Bill Clinton. In 1993 Clinton appointed Shackelford, who had served on his presidential transition team, to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, an obscure government agency that oversees subsidies for U.S. businesses investing abroad. Also that year she was named executive vice president of U.S. Strategies Inc., a lobbying firm. Later she became executive vice president of another lobbying firm, Global USA, Inc. (Much of her bio can be read on the website of the pharmaceutical company Medicis, on whose board Shackelford sits.)

    Among Shackelford's clients in 2005: FM Policy Focus, which paid Global USA Inc. $45,000 for six months' work to lobby the House and Senate on "regulatory reform issues" and the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005".....

    In 2002, when she contacted Dodd about the Tigua provision, Shackelford was also a registered lobbyist on behalf of Quest Software, as well as United to Secure America, which paid Global USA Inc. $10,000 to influence immigration reform legislation. She was not a registered lobbyist on behalf of the Tigua. She was, however, a member of Dodd's fundraising committee. "We directed her to make personal contact with the Senator throughout the campaign starting in April and lasting through the passage of the legislation in October," Scanlon wrote in his 2003 memo. Shackelford, he continued, was "critical."

    ------------------

    No one seems to have told Bob Ney that. While Scanlon was working with the Democratic lobbyists, Abramoff had been working with the Ohio Republican congressman. On July 25, 2002, Abramoff received some disturbing news. Ney told him that he had met with Dodd to discuss HAVA, and brought up the Tigua. "Dodd looked at him like a 'deer in headlights,'" Abramoff later wrote to Scanlon, and "said he had never made such a commitment and that, with the problems of new casinos in Connecticut, it is a problem!!!"

    The plan, in short, had failed. When the Help America Vote Act became law in October 2002, there was no provision reopening the Speaking Rock casino. Lobbyists, of course, get to cash their checks whether they are successful or not. Shackelford (a Dem) kept the $10,000. That she did so tells us that Jack Abramoff's story is not simply about how some Republicans work Washington for private gain. It's also about how Washington really works.

    Now, you still want more evidence that there just might be some connection between the Dems and Jack? Please click on this link:

    Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006

    You will see that donations directly from Jack are to Reps. Fine, we know that. Now click on the "Select Donor" drop down menu and one at a time select each Tribe organization that were Jack's clients in what may be much the same fashion he worked with his Tribal client in the example above.

    Now as you go through these high Dem and high Rep lists (depending on what list you are looking at) please keep these footnotes from this site in mind:
    1/12/06 UPDATE: In our efforts to refine this list, we have further researched lobbying data and removed contributions from Indian tribes made before Mr. Abramoff's registration as a lobbyist for the contributor. Also, this list now includes contributions made by Michael Scanlon, an Abramoff associate who has also pleaded guilty to federal crimes.
    *Data for the current election cycle were released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on October 31, 2005. Figures include contributions to federal candidates, PACs and party committees.

    Tribal clients of Jack Abramoff's firm include Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Tigua Indian Reservation .
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You folks keep arguing that, tribes that have historically given to dems, are related to this scandal of Bribes and Corruption of Abramoff. The problem here is that some if not all of the tribes that you guys list, had given to the dems pre-abramoff. After they signed up Abramoff there contributions either fell or or stayed the same. The tribes giving to a candidate is not illegal.
    I have attached the summary of the FEC report below that included donations from Tribes as well as Jack and his associates. After you review that, then go back to the link above and look again at each of the donations from the Tribes to the Dems. In a large number of cases the donations to the dems ENCREASED, if not doubled or tripled during that time that Jack was involved. Your argument does not seem to hold up with what I can see.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/31/2006 at 11:44 PM.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    From the Fereal Election Commission: Please pay attention to all those Rs and notice the lack of Ds for the willfully blind:

    .........I checked and so far, haven't found any, but here's the list I was able to find and guess what, they're ALL REPUBLICANS.

    ....... I tried, but I couldn't find a single Democrat so far who is seriously being looked at for being involved, criminally, in Abramoff's schemes. It could happen, but it hasn't yet, despite the media and RNC spin
    Here is another one I stumbled across without even looking for it:

    Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers (both Rep and Dems)
    By Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    January 11, 2006

    A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

    ------------------

    Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington on Jan. 3 to conspiracy, tax evasion and fraud in a scheme involving what he described as the "corruption of public officials," saying he raised campaign cash, funded trips and gave other items to lawmakers "in exchange for certain official acts."

    Seeking to reduce a 30-year prison sentence to 9 1/2 years, Abramoff has agreed with prosecutors to cooperate fully in the government's influence-peddling investigation. Prosecutors have seized his computer hard drive and are reviewing 500,000 e-mails.

    FULL STORY: http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5655-1555r.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Hobbes tell me your thoughts on this. Dems took Zero money from Abramoff.

    Click picture.
    Looks like Dean won't be able to say no Dems are not under investigation any longer since the above article came out two days after this interview.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/01/2006 at 12:38 AM.
  7. #147  
    Man.....looks like I killed this thread again

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    NRG....you've asked me of my opinion on quotes on this matter. I have read this following article and have included some interesting points concerning your claim that Dems are innocent in the Abramoff scandal.

    I do not hold you as being "Willfully blind", So now I am interested in your opinion of what is laid out below:
    NRG....your thoughts?
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Man.....looks like I killed this thread again


    NRG....your thoughts?
    I have only seen this mentoned on right leaning webstes and publcations. We will have to see where this takes us. With all the GOPs issues right now it is hard to keep up.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I have only seen this mentoned on right leaning webstes and publcations. We will have to see where this takes us. With all the GOPs issues right now it is hard to keep up.
    Do you think the democratic alliance newsletter will run a stoy telling you that their party is involved in the very thing they are accusing the republicans of?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I have only seen this mentioned on right leaning webstes and publcations. We will have to see where this takes us. With all the GOPs issues right now it is hard to keep up.
    That is a weasel of an answer, IMHO..... .....you bulldoze thru this thread claiming ALL REPs and NO DEMS. You go take the time to research enough to list a mountian load of Reps quilty. Then when evidence is presented that there may be a significant percentage Dems involved, with some high rankings ones included, you dismiss it by saying you are not keeping up on the topic and that they are from all from Right Wing sources.

    So are the following sources I used Right Wing conspirancy fanatical sources that should be disregarded?
    • Unless the FEC report is right wing showing the Dem's increased their accepting of contributions from tribes during Jacks reign, then you appeared to selectively ignore this that appeared to counter your claim that Dem's donations decreased during Jack's reign.
    • Is the Washington Times stating that Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat and Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat are under investigation a Right Wing source?
    • The Weekly Standard may lean to the right, but are you calling BS on the facts in the article?
    • Is Bloomberg that I quoted right wing?
    • Is the Washington Post, theBoston Post , and ABC News reporting about Dorgan too Right Wing?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/06/2006 at 12:10 PM.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    That is a weasel of an answer, IMHO..... .....you bulldoze thru this thread claiming ALL REPs and NO DEMS. You go take the time to research enough to list a mountian load of Reps quilty. Then when evidence is presented that there may be a significant percentage Dems involved, with some high rankings ones included, you dismiss it by saying you are not keeping up on the topic and that they are from all from Right Wing sources.

    So are the following sources I used Right Wing conspirancy fanatical sources that should be disregarded?
    • Unless the FEC report is right wing showing the Dem's increased their accepting of contributions from tribes during Jacks reign, then you appeared to selectively ignore this that appeared to counter your claim that Dem's donations decreased during Jack's reign.
    • Is the Washington Times stating that Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat and Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat are under investigation a Right Wing source?
    • The Weekly Standard may lean to the right, but are you calling BS on the facts in the article?
    • Is Bloomberg that I quoted right wing?
    • Is the Washington Post, theBoston Post , and ABC News reporting about Dorgan too Right Wing?
    I as referring to these dems being under investagation. I was not able to find any thing about it except for the rght leaning websites/publications. There is no doubt that Abramoff clients gave money to Dems. I think we will see the rest of this story in the near future. If you could show me where Reid or Dorgan are listed a under 'investigation', such as a DOJ file or something. Look, I am not saying the Dems can't be implicated in this. They just haven't been to date, and until I see evidence refuting that notion.....
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    If you could show me where Reid or Dorgan are listed a under 'investigation', .....
    See links in my last 5 posts above. If it helps I can requote my posts like with the Washington Post in http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=146

    I used the FEC report to counter your claim Dem accepted less money with Jack which appears not to be true.
  13. #153  
    How about this...TRUST NO POLITICIAN... Simple enough???
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    How about this...TRUST NO POLITICIAN... Simple enough???
    Yep.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    How about this...TRUST NO POLITICIAN... Simple enough???
    Exactly what I said 130 posts ago on this very thread with resistance and spent the rest of the time backing that up.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    How about this...TRUST NO POLITICIAN... Simple enough???
    Amen!
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Exactly what I said 130 posts ago on this very thread with resistance and spent the rest of the time backing that up.
    You too!
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The GOP that we know today got its rise to power by running on getting rid of corruption. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Dems were some corrupt bastards themselves back in day, hence the GOP being "the party of reform". I guess it goes to show that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". I find it amusing that the GOP came power on the message of stamping out corruption, and as we have seen over the past couple of weeks, they themselves have become corrupt. The tables are turned. I would bet that, within a few weeks we will hear the dems calling themselves the "the party of reform" and start calling for more accountability within our government. We will most likely start to hear about them wanting to get rid of the corporate influence that has a strangle hold on our Democracy. We will hear many such messages emanating from the left in the coming future. Well enough with that.

    1911 wanted to give this subject its own thread so here it is. Now I know the Dems are probably corrupt in some areas as well, so you righties out there bring this to our attention, which I am sure you will.

    Well here are some of the infractions that have come to light in the past couple of weeks.



    Sen. Bill Frist



    More news of Frist

    Tom Delay


    Source: WaPo

    DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern

    By Mike Allen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has dismissed questions about his ethics as partisan attacks, but revelations last week about his overseas travel and ties to lobbyists under investigation have emboldened Democrats and provoked worry among Republicans.

    With some members increasingly concerned that DeLay had left himself vulnerable to attack, several Republican aides and lobbyists said for the first time that they are worried about whether he will survive and what the consequences could be for the party's image.

    "If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.

    At least six Republicans expressed concern over the weekend about DeLay's situation. They said they do not think DeLay necessarily deserves the unwanted attention he is receiving. But they said that the volume of the revelations about his operation is becoming alarming and that they do not see how it will abate.

    -snip-



    Jack Abramoff



    Bush Admin



    The Plame Investagation.


    Roy Blunt has his own ethics haunting him. Remember this is the guy the GOP put up to fill in for Tom Delay. He (Blunt) was named to the list of being one of the 13 most corrupt pols.

    There is alot more and I will bring it later.[/QUOTE]
    OF COURSE YOU ARE CORRECT. BUT EACH PARTY MUST SELL IT SELF ON AT LEAST ONE OR TWO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS WE NEED TO FIX AND THEN NOT FIX THEM OF COURSE. IF THE RIGHTIES HAD ANY MORALS LEFT MAYBE THEY WOULD FRY BUSH
    JR. FOR ALL HIS LIES. CLINTON WHO GRANTED IS NOT A PERFECT PERSON WAS A FAR BETTER UNITER. BUSH JR AND HIS MENTAL TEAM ARE DIVIDERS. THIS HELPS KEEP MOST THINGS IN A CONFUSING STATE. LIKE WMD'S THAT WERE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. OF COURSE NOW THAT BUSH HAS PETRIFIED MOST OF US WE THINK THOSE DARN TERRORIST ARE EVERYWHERE AND MUST BE DEALTH WITH VIGILANTLY. IT A CRUSADE BUSH jr. said TO US ALL. DONT YOU BELIEVE HIM?
    OR ARE YOU JUST CRAZY-I KNOW I AM.
  19. #159  
    OF COURSE YOU ARE CORRECT. BUT EACH PARTY MUST SELL IT SELF ON AT LEAST ONE OR TWO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS WE NEED TO FIX AND THEN NOT FIX THEM OF COURSE. IF THE RIGHTIES HAD ANY MORALS LEFT MAYBE THEY WOULD FRY BUSH
    JR. FOR ALL HIS LIES. CLINTON WHO GRANTED IS NOT A PERFECT PERSON WAS A FAR BETTER UNITER. BUSH JR AND HIS MENTAL TEAM ARE DIVIDERS. THIS HELPS KEEP MOST THINGS IN A CONFUSING STATE. LIKE WMD'S THAT WERE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. OF COURSE NOW THAT BUSH HAS PETRIFIED MOST OF US WE THINK THOSE DARN TERRORIST ARE EVERYWHERE AND MUST BE DEALTH WITH VIGILANTLY. IT A CRUSADE BUSH jr. said TO US ALL. DONT YOU BELIEVE HIM?
    OR ARE YOU JUST CRAZY-I KNOW I AM.
  20. #160  
    Yes You Are A Crazy Screamer!
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions