Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 01, 2014, 04:52:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68
1  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Lee Priest claims he was drug free from the age of 13-19 in new video on: July 31, 2014, 03:03:14 PM
anyone who stands on the Mr. Olympia stage is a genetic freak.  with ZERO steroids those guys will look like they're on juice.  that's the sad reality.  I always chuckle to myself when I hear guys say,

"yeah well if I took that many steroids I would look like that too"

um no you wouldn't.

if you think that the only thing between you and the Olympia stage is a trip to Mexico you're a fucking idiot.
2  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Another liberal liar on: July 31, 2014, 02:52:06 PM
there's always people who make good livings cheating the system.  and its not exclusive to liberals either.  I swear I know people who make over $300K and they make their kid apply for a link card.

that's just the reality of government assistance.  there will ALWAYS be a shit ton of abuse.  just like a grocery store has to account for obsolescence a government has to account for middle class suburban kids with food stamps.



3  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 01:26:35 PM
Thank you.  This thread is dumb.  

Holy shit, Michael Moore isn't a saint?  Stop the presses!  I mean, for fuck's sake just because he doesn't live like a monk on a mountain top doesn't mean that he doesn't make good points about some of capitalism's pitfalls.  Wasn't there recently a book about the life of Jesus Christ written by some scholarly academic who happened to be Muslim?  (Hmmm, this comparison isn't so great when I think about it, but screw it.)

Other than when you accidentally posted that satirical news item, this thread is boring, too.

BTW, Bears, I think you're a standup guy for the way you admitted your mistake there.  You did not beat around the bush or make retarded excuses.  Rare for this place.  

Kudos, honestly.

thx dude.  I'm comfortable enough in what I know to admit when I screw up or admit when I don't know something.

too many guys on here, and they know who they are, claim to know way more than they do.

I know about 3 things.  taxes, powerlifting, and hockey.  I don't claim to know shit about anything else.

I see the most ridiculous things posted on here by the liberal posters with regards to tax.  Michael Moore doesn't understand tax.  He says some real stupid shit that just isn't true.  that's why I think he's a phony.  
4  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 11:06:34 AM
I've answered variations of that question multiple times

here are a couple


so basically he can use money from Goldman Sachs, a bank who is robbing the poor and middle class of America of their savings and ruining the fabric of the economy of the United States through underhanded and dishonest business dealings, as long as the money he gets from them is not from those dishonest business dealings.

Ok.  I've heard enough.
5  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 10:36:40 AM
again, you have no clue how the "investment vehicle" was constructed just like you have no clue whether Moore had an knowledge of GS money.  You're assuming it was a single lump sum distribution and a simple note when that vehicle could have actually been (almost certainly was) hundreds of corporations and partnerships with hundreds of various partners and owners.

Just stop this nonsense and go show me proof that Moore had knowledge of GS investment (again we'll ignore the obvious fact that GS does have legitimate business ventures for which they have not paid fines, penalties,etc..)

can you agree that if he did know he's a hypocrite? 

6  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 10:16:44 AM
you can't be a CPA because you don't seem to be aware of the various ways that this 500 million "investment vehicle" would have been sliced and diced and obfuscated.
There were likely many many people involved who all were creating multiple corporations,partnerships, etc.. to allocate these funds yet you seem to believe it could show up as a single line items on the Weinstein Company Balance Sheet as something as simplistic as "Bank Note Goldman Sachs" and you've claimed it would be "extremely easy" for Moore to be aware of this.

Fine

Then is should be extremely easy for you to prove this

again still ignoring the fact that Moore was not a direct client of GS and that GS engages in many legal business ventures

T

wrong.  WHATEVER vehicle they used the notes to their financials of the parent corp for the Weinstein's would need to state the source, the terms, and the amounts.  and i'm sorry but if I'm making a movie about GS, and being funded by a large corporation like the Weinstein's.  I'm asking that question.  and so would you.

like I said before.  if Michael Moore did ANY research into where HE was getting HIS money.  he would find the truth.  but he doesn't care where he gets his money.  he just cares where other people get theirs.  and he asks until he finds the answer.  that's what's hypocritical about him.

IF what the article I posted said was true, he's a hypocrite.  

7  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 09:54:10 AM
I was actually pretty nice to Bum in those threads and in this one too

I don't understand Dobson's advice about "treating and preventing" gayness

Bum said it made sense to him

I asked him to explain how it works (i.e. how pounding square pegs in square holes or exposing yourself to your child cures or prevents gayness)

that's all I've ever asked him to do

just help me understand how it works



you just have to scream real loud

"DON'T BE GAY!"  and then give them chocolate.  everyone knows that.  fucking idiot. 
8  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 09:51:59 AM
yes, 2 pages ago I made a few simple and obvious points and I asked you to show me some proof he had knowledge and you haven't been able to do so

You have convinced me that you're not an accountant (certainly not a CPA) so congratulations on that "win"


because I can't provide proof that Michael Moore knew that the Weinstein's were funded by GS I can't be a CPA?

do you what a CPA does Straw?

and I don't have any clients the size of MGM or Universal.  I do bookkeeping, review and compilation, and tax work for small to mid size businesses.  and I know enough to know that if Michael Moore really wanted to know who he was funded by and who they were funded by.  a small amount of research would lead him to the truth.  you obviously don't know this.  because you're not an accountant.

and for the record I never even said that I KNEW this was true.  if you look back at my posts you will see that I say that.  all i'm saying is that if it IS true, then yes it is extremely hypocritical.  and then you go bezerk telling me to PROVE IT.  

I can't.  can you prove that he wasn't funded by GS?
9  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 09:40:03 AM
I'm going to amend my statement

I'm guessing now that you are an assistant to a part time book keeper at a local pet shop

First and foremost, Moore would have no right whatsoever to inspect the books of the Weinstein Company and even if he did there is no way GS money is going to be a single line item (again reminding you that this money was likely allocated itself under various partnership, tranches, etc... and not just a lump sum distribution with a simple interest payment).  

There is no way you had time to read or listen to any of the information I provided you so I'll make YET AGAIN this simple request

Find proof that Moore had knowledge of the money from GS

I'll ignore the fact that Moore was not a direct client and I'll ignore the fact that GS has many different business ventures which are perfectly legal and the mere fact of having money from them is not an issue.  

Just go find me proof of Moore knowledge

technically correct.  but Moore was making a movie demonizing Goldman Sachs.  the question should have been asked.  

"Hey you're funding my movie that is demonizing GS.  Are you in any way funded by them?"

Maybe he didn't know.  But he didn't question where HE gets HIS money.  He just questions where everyone else gets theirs.

STRAW.  THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GODDAMN THREAD.  MOORE IS HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE HE DEMANDS THAT PEOPLE HOLD THEMSELVS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY.  BUT HE DOESN'T HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW HE MAKES HIS OWN.

in your quest to be right you ended up contradicting yourself.  

and then you post an article on why movies don't make money.  yes.  that's because they have to pay everybody first.  and the big names get the lions share of their money upfront.  that's what the article says.  and that's what you were saying doesn't happen.  

seriously man?  

do you not remember what your arguments were 2 pages ago?
10  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 09:27:22 AM
I've made Bum my bitch so many times that he knows he's better off ignoring me than getting his ass handed to him again.



and just because you tell yourself that you made someone "your bitch" doesn't mean you actually did.  I am finding that out by your posts back and forth with me.  you're a tad delusional.
11  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 09:20:50 AM
What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.

Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business.  I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership.   That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.

I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.

You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html

I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project.  They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs".   If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that.   They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation).   They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension

So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot

wow

stop, just stop

 Roll Eyes


I also find it funny that Michael Moore makes his living off of tearing apart the books of his corporate enemies but you don't give him enough credit that he wouldn't be able to do the same thing for the company that is funding him.
12  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 09:17:27 AM
What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.

Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business.  I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership.   That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.

I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.

You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html

I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project.  They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs".   If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that.   They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation).   They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension

So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot

wow

stop, just stop

 Roll Eyes


you just spent a lot of time and you're still getting it wrong.  because your knowledge of accounting is based upon what you read in articles quickly on a search engine.

if Michael Moore is having his movie funded by the Weinstein's and his job is "following the money" of the people he's attacking he should also "follow the money" of the people who are funding him.

and yes formation is an issue for tax purposes as well as legal.  so Weinstein could have created a partnership, corporation, etc. in order to minimize taxes and limited liability.  but at the end of the day, if there is a loan from Goldman Sachs that is funding the venture then yes there will be a financial statement clearly stating who funded what.  whether it be in the body of the financial statement or the notes.  again all Michael Moore would have to do is look at the financials for the Weinstein's parent corp FOR 5 MINUTES and he would be able to see that a large portion of their assets are from Goldman Sachs.

for the purpose of brevity I used the example "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  and you got a little boner and jumped all over it after you looked up your little articles because you don't know anything yourself.

I am well aware of how these investment vehicles work.  

my point at the end of the day was that if Michael Moore did ANY research on who was funding his production, it would EXTREMELY EASY to see that the Weinstein's were backed to the tune of $500 million dollars by Goldman Sachs.

you're trying too hard and making yourself look like an idiot.  

please just stop it.

and did you realize that the person who directed Return of the Jedi got paid and is a fucking millionaire?  are you aware that the movie didn't make a profit but that the directors, producers, actors all got paid millions because none of them are stupid enough to agree to be paid only if it makes money?

you're contradicting your own fucking argument here because you're confused.  

please stop.  it's embarrassing.
13  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Is it just about being right/winning the argument? on: July 31, 2014, 08:57:07 AM
my personal opinion about this is that the power of politics in our society stems from the innate need for humans to believe in something bigger then themselves.  for thousands of years it has been religion that has provided this for the people.  but religion is losing ground.....and fast.  more and more are giving up on religion.

subconsciously though these people need to believe in something.  so they latch on to politicians and political parties to fill that void. 

it seems that their need for "blind faith" in something needs to be satisfied.  I would really like to see a psychologist delve deeper into this.
14  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 07:43:02 AM
Your link does not actually reference Polone's article and like your other link (again not his actual article) show no proof that Moore had any knowledge of the relationship between GS and The Weinstein Company.

You mentioned their balance sheet a couple of time.  Do you think Moore personally demanded to review their balance sheet and do you think the money from GS was a single line item labeled "MONEY FROM GOLDMAN SACHS"
Are you really an accountant?

and yes when you prepare a balance sheet you do write the name of the bank in the description line of a bank note or a line of credit or you have it documented in the notes to the financial statements, oftentimes both.

"Bank Note Goldman Sachs"     $500,000,000

this entire post by you is ridiculously stupid.  its amazing how you can get so much wrong in just a few lines.

Michael Moore follows every penny the Bush administration spent and he doesn't know who his own movie was funded by?  again how many times have you heard Michael Moore say "follow the money"?

15  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 31, 2014, 07:35:20 AM
Your link does not actually reference Polone's article and like your other link (again not his actual article) show no proof that Moore had any knowledge of the relationship between GS and The Weinstein Company.

You mentioned their balance sheet a couple of time.  Do you think Moore personally demanded to review their balance sheet and do you think the money from GS was a single line item labeled "MONEY FROM GOLDMAN SACHS"
Are you really an accountant?

what?  are you fucking serious?  for Michael Moore,  a guy who is so critical of Goldman Sachs and constantly tells his viewers to "FOLLOW THE MONEY" HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE GUYS FUNDING HIS FUCKING MOVIE HAVE A $500 MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY OWED TO GOLDMAN SACHS.  THE BANK HE IS ATTACKING IN SAID DOCUMENTARY!!!!!

you're absolutely ridiculous.  you seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot.

16  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Is it just about being right/winning the argument? on: July 31, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
One such example is amnesty.   Most getbiggers on the right were all "close the border, kick em out!"   Then, after two minutes of listening to FOX radio, suddenly they say "as long as they work..." or "it's inevitable".   They completely shift a really polarizing position like this, in 2 minutes.

or dems on the war.  Iraq war evil, etc.  Then, obama takes office and their anti-war rallies have really shrunk in numbers.

And on impeachment - We hear about obama's crimes for 5 years.  Once they have a chance to hold him accountable for them, it's "oh, well, I have a feeling we'll do better in elections if americans don't know about obama's crimes, so let's just forget about all that".


A lack of core beliefs.  They have strong party allegience, but they really don't know how they feel about certain issues.  They are 100% willing to shift their position 100%, if it means they're 100% in line with "their" party.

Sure, go ahead with a personal attack on 240 now, but you know I'm right here.  If anyone feels jilted by this post, it might be due to your own lack of core beliefs.  Anyone that truly stays consistent on the issues will agree.

absolutely agree with this.  it stems from the dependence of everyone on mainstream media.  they're creating drones who are told what to think by the political party that they have sworn allegiance to by the television set.


17  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 12:56:51 PM
feel free to post proof that those funds were involved in the abusive practices that Moore criticized

feel free to post proof that Moore was even aware of the relationship (since we know he wasn't a direct client)

who's balance sheet are you speculating about?  Why are you even speculating at all?

Just provide some proof and I may well start agreeing with you

http://news.yahoo.com/gavin-polone-knocks-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-231133595.html;_ylt=A0LEV0GsTNlTpz0AKnhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNDEycmRnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1FJMDQ5XzE-

ask Gavin polone.

I don't know I looked for the deposit slip but I can't find it.  what proof can I give that you will believe?

I mean it IS on the internet.

if Gavin Polone is NOT lying, yes Michael Moore is a hypocrite.  I will say no more on this.
18  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 12:47:24 PM
feel free to post proof that those funds were involved in the abusive practices that Moore criticized

feel free to post proof that Moore was even aware of the relationship (since we know he wasn't a direct client)

who's balance sheet are you speculating about?  Why are you even speculating at all?

Just provide some proof and I may well start agreeing with you

what are you saying?  that Goldman Sachs can steal from people but as long as they give you other money that was not stolen its perfectly acceptable to do business with them?  seriously?  i'm seriously starting to think you're just fucking with me now.

Weinstein's balance sheet is the one i'm referring to.  the article says that their company was funded with $500 million from Goldman Sachs and yes Michael Moore had to know that Goldman Sachs gave the Weinstein's $500 million dollars.  like I said, it was probably the biggest liability on Weinstein's balance sheet.

he sure does a lot of investigating of everyone in his documentaries.  are you saying he over looked the fact that the company who funded his documentary received $500 million from Goldman Sachs? 

and yes I don't know if this is true.  maybe its not.  all i'm saying is that if it is true ............  fuck yes that's EXTREMELY hypocritical. 
19  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 12:28:49 PM
so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.

That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.

great point

what a hypocrite

and this isn't like goldman sachs gave Weinstein a little bit of money.  this was a $500 million investment vehicle that Weinstein had directly from Goldman Sachs.  this was probably their largest liability on their balance sheet at the time.
20  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 12:23:38 PM
so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.

That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.

great point

what a hypocrite

if you demonize a corporation publicly,  mock them outside of their corporate office while filming a documentary, make god damn sure your documentary is not being funded by them. 

he signed with a movie producer who was directly funded by the bank that Moore lambasted in his documentary.  (again, not sure if this is 100% accurate, but if it is, yes its extremely hypocritical)

come on stop it.  you know that's bullshit.


21  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 12:18:57 PM
I'd like to see that if you can post something.

BTW fahrenheit 9/11 is the reason i think moore is a jack ass.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2011/11/03/hollywood-producer-questions-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-chops-raises-goldman-sachs-tie/

I did.  I posted this.  I haven't seen anything written where it said that the Weinstein's were NOT funded by Goldman Sachs.

22  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 12:15:49 PM
very safe to assume, especially when you ignore any other comments which serve to clarify the statement or ignore the context in which is was made

wow....just wow   Roll Eyes

don't roll your eyes at me mother fucker!

   
23  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 11:59:44 AM
I asked you to connect the dots so please explain how Moore directly benefited from the actions of GS which he specifically criticized.

keep in mind the GS paid fines for specific actions that they took.  They did not pay fines for merely existing or for other activities which are totally legal and not abusive to the society

Also keep in mind that Moore was not even a direct client of GS

Again, this hypocrisy thing is not hard to understand and you should not have to create a tortured pretzel logic in order to make your point.



LOL!
24  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 11:57:44 AM
There is no way to compare/conflate homosexuality with a economic/political system but let's just take Moore's follow up statement (which I'm not sure if you've ever commented on) and change the topic from Capitalism to Homosexuality(the same singular change that you made to his prior quote).


wow. 

you're really stretching it here dude.

no you're right Straw.  you can't compare homosexuality to a political system.

but you can safely assume that when someone calls something "evil", they're most probably against that thing.

wow. 
25  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 30, 2014, 09:55:03 AM
It would be hypocritical if he benefited from the things that Goldman Sachs did regarding the mortgage/credit crisis and other specific actions that he criticized. 

I don't see how GS creating an investment vehicle for a third party that was used in part to finance Sicko qualifies but if you'd like to connect the dots then feel free.

This hypocrisy thing is actually not hard to understand as long as you're not trying conflate things that are not related (same goes for your trying to compare homosexuality to a an economic and political system)

well he did.  they backed the Weinstein's who funded his movie.

Michael Moore can play 25 degrees of separation in Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone is convinced GWB planned 9/11.  I play 2 degrees of separation and you don't believe it.  wow.

again.  i'm not sure if its true what I posted.  if it is.  YES.  that's hypocritical.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!