Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64687] |
Sun, 01 February 2004 19:18   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| tarsonis9 |
Wait a sec, what's that over there? Oh, I see what it is now. It's the Politics forum, just waiting for ya'll to crowd into it.
|
I already explained that one - good job not reading the whole thread.
Nodbugger: Where'd those statistics come from? And from what year where they?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64689] |
Sun, 01 February 2004 19:26 |
tarsonis9
Messages: 129
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I am referring to how this post is turning into a "Republicans are better than Democrats" kind of thing, and I believe, (not that I am a moderator or anything, just my .02 dollars) that this should be moved to the Politics forum, and be continued there. And, by the way, doesn't the title of this forum's description read as: "General Discussion of Command and Conquer: Renegade."?
Just another thought...
"State Tower, Warrior 8-4-0-5-4, you have a herd of cattle on two-seven left, please advise..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64724] |
Sun, 01 February 2004 23:56 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
So companies spontaneously started rabidly outsourcing when Bush became president even though the only thing he knows how to do concerning the economy is cut taxes?
|
Yeah, kinda proves that the current president has to kinda work with the previous president's mistakes/good ideas.
The market did not start falling in 1998. It was in 2000.
BigCharts graph of the NASDAQ composite indicates this. When was Bush inaugurated? Oh yeah, January 2001. And where was the NASDAQ? Oh yeah, it was at half of its 5000+ peak reached in March of 2000. So there's a huge-ass boulder tumbling downhill and suddenly Bush is placed in front of it... and you expect him to stop it.
Now, today, we're about 400 points below where we were when Bush took office.
And yet, he's ruining the economy.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64731] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 00:22 |
 |
exnyte
Messages: 746
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
For Clinton, from the beginning of his first term to the end of his second term, there were 23 million more jobs in America. This includes jobs lost.
Same goes for Bush in that from the beginning of his first term until just a short while ago, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost in America. This includes jobs gained.
|
How can you possibly compare these numbers when your taking numbers from Clinton's 2 terms and from the first 3 years of Bush's term? Wow... Impressive! Clinton can gain more jobs in a longer period of time than Bush can!
You can't argue this point until both are in office the same amount of time, unless you use like periods of time to compare, (i.e. Clinton's first term, and Bush's first term when it's finished).
American Cancer Society | Donate
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64734] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 00:32 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
LOL -- good point majikent. I totally didn't even think of that.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64753] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 10:50 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Moved this to politics forum.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64774] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 14:04 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| majikent |
How can you possibly compare these numbers when your taking numbers from Clinton's 2 terms and from the first 3 years of Bush's term? Wow... Impressive! Clinton can gain more jobs in a longer period of time than Bush can!
You can't argue this point until both are in office the same amount of time, unless you use like periods of time to compare, (i.e. Clinton's first term, and Bush's first term when it's finished).
|
Your point would have more merit if more jobs were being created than lost right now during Bush's first term. 3 years into his first term, Clinton had actually created more jobs in America, not lost them. Are you suggesting that Bush will radically turn around and start creating loads and loads of jobs in America to catch up to Clinton's 23 million? If his father was any hint, this WILL NOT happen. What I was showing is that Clinton did a great job as president by creating 23 million jobs in America, contrary to the idiocy displayed by Bigjoe14 when he said it has been proven that Clinton didn't do jack for the economy. Then I showed how well Bush has done so far in his term, which you can't say is a good job. Did I make a graph comparing the two? No.
Besides, Crimson originally asked for these numbers in the first place. I merely supplied them. Speaking of which, where's your so-called poster of Clinton's bad things? And your graph kind of shows how good a president Clinton was. where you set it to 5 years, set it to All Data. Now, the one huge spike there is right in the middle of Clinton's terms. After a big long trail of the NASDAQ being nice and low, Clinton comes in and the market starts skyrocketing. Now, want to know why Bush jr. actually has an O.K. record for the stock exchange? He wants to have social security work by people putting their S.S. money in the stock exchange. After Bush was payed large sums of money by the heads of the stock exchange, because having everyone invest large sums of money in the stock market would let brokers charge big money for all those transactions. Now, this is bad because if the market crashes or if stocks go down, elderly people lose a ton of their retirement money. And that graph can't just explain away almost 3 million net jobs being lost under President Bush junior.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64790] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 16:11 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
It's not a 'so-called' poster. It does actually exist. I just can't find it, so I'll have to get another one.
Some more points you'll have to address are:
1) What did Clinton DO to create these jobs? Just because jobs became available, doesn't mean you can pinpoint any real or probable Clinton causes for these jobs.
2) Why do you think a huge spike is such a good thing? I say it's not. While many people were making millions of dollars in that market upswing, many of them lost all it, and much more. I worked at Charles Schwab talking to traders all day long during that market upswing, and plenty of the way into the fall as well (until June 2002 in fact), so I was there day to day knowing what was going on on the trading floors. And most of them were cursing Clinton for it.
3) "3 years into his first term, Clinton had actually created more jobs in America, not lost them." -- Once again, no facts to back this up. If you're going to try and interpret this way, then you'd have to supply some sort of year-by-year comparison. And you're only guessing about the future. If, for example, Bush "loses" 27 million jobs in the first year, then each year after that gains 8 million jobs, then you're looking at a net loss of 3 million jobs at the three-year mark, but if that upward trend continues, you'd look at 37 million net jobs gained at the end of his hypothetic 8 year term.
Note that was an example, created to point out glaring flaws in your logic.
Also, I'd prefer a steady constant gain in the market indicators rather than erratic sharp movements up and down. People lose money that way all too easily, no matter which way it's going. Smooth steady growth is better for everyone, except for the minority who trade short.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64812] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 19:31 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I hold Clinton responsible for the lack of a suitable replacement for the aging and inadequate Space Shuttle.It was one of his less-publicized decisions...he cancelled the program for a replacement early in his first term (in 1993, I believe). It takes about a decade to develop anything of that nature- had the program not been cancelled, we might have been sending a new ship up on its first flights last year instead of mourning the loss of a shuttle crew. Clinton was not responsible for the loss of Colombia, but he WAS responsible for there not being a vehicle to replace our current 20 year old design. Now, instead of being on the cutting edge of space travel, we're sitting on our asses sending astronouts up in Russian ships.
Summary, for those too lazy to read that: Clinton nerfed the space program.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64835] |
Mon, 02 February 2004 23:16 |
|
exnyte
Messages: 746
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
If his father was any hint, this WILL NOT happen.
|
What you need to remember is that the current president isn't his father. They have the same name, they even kind of look alike. That doesn't make them the same person. You can't base what our current president has done, or is going to do, by what his father did in his run as president. That's like saying you'll have three kids because your dad did. Or you'll be laid off from a job because your father was previously. It doesn't make any sense. Two completely different people. This isn't to say he isn't influenced by his father, as I'm sure he is. How could his father possibly be a hint to what he is going to do in the next year, and possibly 4 years after that?
American Cancer Society | Donate
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64943] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 18:23 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
i i would like to start off by saying that i am incredibly rich. i love george w bush becasue he gives me more money. this i find absolutel DELECTABLE because i deserve it. its not like i contribute to society like those worthless middle class people and poor people do itm just lucky i dont have to put up with the fact that clinton was a great president. even though he WASNT!!!! wanna know why? because he didnt ive me money and that is unfair. why should i only get a seven story mansion with twelve bigscreen TV's. i dont care about poor people who are CONTRIBUTING to our society and economy (which is in the shitter) but its lucky i am buddies with george bush ( its good i used to smoke crack with him back in the day) cbecause i dont have to deal with the so called "economy" you democrats disgust me! trying to create jobs and fix our economy because george is a drunken fool! I WANT MORE MONEY GODDAMMIT AND I DONT WANNA WORK FOR IT!!!!! well i must sayi also dont care about veterans i did what george w bush did and went AWOL but it would be nice if you didnt tell anyone that because thats unpatriotic just like those GODDAM DEMOCRATS ughhh and who needs social securtiy if anyone tries to fucking touch me ill have them fed to my sharks which are housed in a gold plated fish tank which only costed 27 thousand dollars which is pocket change ever since those tax cuts. Speaking of taxes what the fuck IS tax? i shouldnt have to pay for other people that is WAY too much to ask for. i should care only about myself becaue im the only person that matters in the ENTIRE world GO GEORGE W. BUSH AND MAKE ME MORE MONEY AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE
Note: I am NOT rich im just making fun of you moronic conservatives.
PSS wanna bash me with your constitutionsal bullshit? comeon there i also something in there called freedom of sppech bet thats a new one
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64945] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 18:43 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
im sorry nodbugger but all i really got from your pst is that "I have the intelligence of my president" its sad our country is getting run by idiots who dont know their ass from there head. oh great insults by the way i liked the juvenile twang they had
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64948] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 19:04 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
It's not a 'so-called' poster. It does actually exist. I just can't find it, so I'll have to get another one.
Some more points you'll have to address are:
1) What did Clinton DO to create these jobs? Just because jobs became available, doesn't mean you can pinpoint any real or probable Clinton causes for these jobs.
2) Why do you think a huge spike is such a good thing? I say it's not. While many people were making millions of dollars in that market upswing, many of them lost all it, and much more. I worked at Charles Schwab talking to traders all day long during that market upswing, and plenty of the way into the fall as well (until June 2002 in fact), so I was there day to day knowing what was going on on the trading floors. And most of them were cursing Clinton for it.
3) "3 years into his first term, Clinton had actually created more jobs in America, not lost them." -- Once again, no facts to back this up. If you're going to try and interpret this way, then you'd have to supply some sort of year-by-year comparison. And you're only guessing about the future. If, for example, Bush "loses" 27 million jobs in the first year, then each year after that gains 8 million jobs, then you're looking at a net loss of 3 million jobs at the three-year mark, but if that upward trend continues, you'd look at 37 million net jobs gained at the end of his hypothetic 8 year term.
Note that was an example, created to point out glaring flaws in your logic.
Also, I'd prefer a steady constant gain in the market indicators rather than erratic sharp movements up and down. People lose money that way all too easily, no matter which way it's going. Smooth steady growth is better for everyone, except for the minority who trade short.
|
First things first: If you can't find the poster, it doesn't exist in my eyes. get another one and let me tear it apart, will you?
Moving on...[paragraph by paragraph]
What did Clinton do to create these jobs.....if jobs can't be traced back to Clinton, I guess it's just a HUGE COINCIDENCE that jobs started increasing as soon as he got into office until he left and jobs started going down under Bush Jr. And don't even lie to yourself about Bush "trying to stop a boulder going down a hill." It's Bush's own inability to control the market tht is causing a decrease in jobs, not what Clinton did.
So markets going up are a bad thing.....you probably should have given a few details here other than, "Oh, I was in the business, I would know." And so many people were cursing Clinton for it? Yah, probably the same people who try to drink coffee through the handle of their cup.
Oh, sorry I didn't "supply" facts, I guess if you want them you're going to have to throw some numbers of your own in to the pot. So far I've been talking numbers and statistics, and you've been saying about how you "were there" and "everyone hates Clinton" without anything to back it up. Don't tell me to put numbers behind everything until you start doing it yourself.
Ah yes, about the market...
There is no way in hell you can make the market staay steady. Unless you play like Bush Senior and keep the market nice and low so it really can't take big spikes down. Please note that I'm still using your chart here.
To sum this up:
1) Get your supposed "poster"
2) Post said poster here so I can have a good laugh at how silly the whole concept is.
3) Flush poster down toilet
4) Come back here so I can convince you to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate instead of Bush.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64952] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 19:16 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
ummmmm...... yeah crimson wtf? i am also eager to see this "poster: it is kind of convenient you "lost" it. i think instead o falling back on your daddys lies and mistakes you should tryi being like superfly and actually try to learn something
OH WAIT YOUR REPUBLICAN MY BAD!!!!!!
try and find the poster i really wanna see how crappy it is!
PS- falling back on daddys lies and wel . . . daddy in general you remind me of george w bush
PSS- that is a bad thing if you idnt know
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64958] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 19:37 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
please nodbugger you are killing me. ill give you some credit you did a little better this time we're getting there. what you dont have in political understanding you are almost making up for in dissing. then again since you have no political understanding WHATSOEVER there isnt much to be made up for now is there? how unfortunate, you might want to either get informed, or maybe if your feeling really ya know ABSOLUTELY CRAZY try waatching something besides FOX news. . . but i doubt one of your level would be able to do that . . . but we can dream cant we?
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64975] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 20:46 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
dude, i make a nice amount of money which shows you do not have to be poor or a treehugger to be a democrat . . . a percent IS a percent but at least i am not i denial man. we NEED more taxes we are over 450 billion dollars in debt ok? after clinton less we were in the highest surplus EVER? guess who was runnin the gov't when we had the Great Depression . . . take a WILD guess . . . if you guessed republicans you are correct, you have not won a milllion dollars but for the sake of being for the sake of we'll say that you have . . . without more taxes you kids will be learning about science and geography from a friggin Bob the builder book and i am relatively sure there are no underlyig themes of any and all sciences in Bob the Builder.
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64989] |
Tue, 03 February 2004 22:47 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Llama Man, I get a headache trying to read through your typos and broken English. Quite obviously you are a Democrat... you want the government to pay your way because you're not driven enough to accomplish anything, much less spelling your words out.
No matter how long this conversation goes out, I will not EVER vote for a Democrat. I have a fucking brain kthx.
Because I'm not living off the government and I'm making my money to support the lazy liberals, I haven't had time to go to my parents' house and get another copy of the poster.
This isn't some half-assed effort, either. Several high ranking government officials praised his work and still communicate with him to his day. He's also been asked several times to give political lessons to Boys State. And, he's converted more people from Democrat to Republican than you can ever hope. Hell, he converted me from not caring to Republican... though, not really Republican so much as a Constitutionalist.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65044] |
Wed, 04 February 2004 13:58 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Ok for one its a deficit, not debt. Go learn the difference. Besides if we stopped paying lazy people to do nothing we could easily get rid of that plus some. It was a republican at the Great Depression and a Democrat during it. And FDR really didn't fix it. He justhad people set stuff up tha helped. I just went through this in a history class. The Great depression never really ended until the mid 1940s.
And my high school is living proof more moeny does not make people learn. My school is a very good school, good teachers up to date equipment and new taxes are ebing put in every few months to give them more money. Yet there are still some students who do not care. Teachers still protest they want more(even they get payed highest than any other teachers in the state, these are normally teachers who have been there less than 5 years)
More money does not make better grades. Will to learn and teach does. If the student wants to learn and the teacher wants to teach will get more accomplished than a million dollar classroom and two people who hate each other and hate their jobs.
|
First off, deficit and debt are not crazily different words. Deficit is just a fancy word for how much the government owes, and the definition of debt, according to dictionary.com, is "Something owed, such as money, goods, or services." Wow, big difference.
FDR didn't help the depression? Are you crazy? Now, it is a given that the nation did not fully recover until the early 1940s, but the nation probably wouldn't have recovered until at least the 1960s if FDR didn't do what he did. He got people to trust the banks again by having them be protected by Congress, and he created many groups and organizations funded by the government to help the poverty-stricken. If FDR hadn't been there, our nation wouldn't be ANYTHING NEAR what it is now.
Oh your school is absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt tht money dooesn't help kids learn? Then why do school distriicts with more funds always have better test scores than those that could use more funding? Magic? No. Now, yes, there are alwways some students who just don't want to learn, but there are many more of those in poverty areas than there are in good school systems. And, your one school can't really prove anything. It's like reaching into a bag of skittles, pulling out one, and thinking that all the skittles in that bag will be the same color as the one you just pulled out. And you are more likely to find a teacher who wants to teach and a student who wants to learn in a rich environment than a poor one. Also, a school system that has more money can pump out more prepared students than one without proper funding because a well-funded school has more resources to educate pupils with.
Well, Crimson, we will say whether you vote democrat or republican....just keep coming back and I can throw facts at you all day.
Being a liberal doesn't make someone a welfare recipient who complains about other people's masses of money. Just look at John Kerry. He's by far the richest senator AND he's a liberal. How can this be? Maybe Kerry is smart enough to realize all the Republican lies that get thrown around the media.
About your daddie's "poster"... Which "government people" contacted him about it? Media reps who want to make idiot attacks at Clinton in the news because there aren't any real good insults you can throw at a great president? More people from Democrat to Republican....again, this is a spot where numbers might help your failng argument. This shows why you shouldn't complain to me about not having enough statistics behind what I say. Is it just me or does it sound like Boys State is an incredibly conservative school that you vaguely defined so that I couldn't look it up on the internet? And, I don't ever hope to convert anyone from a Democrat to a Republican. Ever. One more thing, please don't call yourself a constitutionalist. You're a Republican, straight and simple.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 12:54:48 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01683 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
