« previous   misc   next »

For Republican supporters out there... Which candidate do you support?


By American in Japan   Follow   Sat, 11 Feb 2012, 9:42pm PST   18,653 views   183 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

How will the candidate of your choice be an improvement over Obama? What policies will be implemented...? Please be specific. I have my criticisms of Obama , incidentally, but I want to know who is better and why.

« First     « Previous     Comments 24-63 of 183     Next »     Last »

FortWayne   Mon, 13 Feb 2012, 11:07am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 24

As a Libertarian there is only one choice which might not even make it to the finals.

Jeremy   Mon, 13 Feb 2012, 11:44am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 25

It is very unfortunate that is looking less and less likely that Ron Paul has any chance. I had a glimmer of hope for a couple of weeks, but that was about it. There is no point in voting. None at all. Obama won't lose. It's probably better that he doesn't. This way I can at least hold out hope that a viable alternative emerges in 4 years. Obama, Newt, Rmoney (sic).... all the same. Santorum, you've got to be kidding me!

Jeremy   Mon, 13 Feb 2012, 11:46am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 26

Even more unfortunately, I have this sinking feeling that Sarah Palin, knowing Obama won't lose, has calculated her position in 2016. I think I'll vomit now.

freak80   Mon, 13 Feb 2012, 11:43pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 27

Jeremy,

I don't think Sarah Palin has a chance. Her only support would be in the South, and that's not enough to win a national election.

EightBall   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 12:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

iwog says

The atrocity is that there's not a single Republican with the balls to actually answer the question.

Any answer will have the person drawn and quartered in this forum. You and a slew of others are just waiting to pounce.

I will not vote for Obama based on the single issue of the current healthcare mandate fiasco.

iwog   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 12:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 29

EightBall says

Any answer will have the person drawn and quartered in this forum. You and a slew of others are just waiting to pounce.

What's wrong with that? If you want to see someone getting pounced on, go look at my posts in the real estate forum.

EightBall says

I will not vote for Obama based on the single issue of the current healthcare mandate fiasco.

If you don't believe in universal health care, that's a reason to vote for a Republican. I disagree with that position and I think public health care works well in almost every country it's used, but at least it's a legitimate point to debate.

Therefore I guess my pounce is this: Even if I agreed with you, I find the abhorrent decisions by the Republicans on the Supreme court (and presumably any future Republicans should Obama lose) to be far more ruinous than health care reform. Citizens United being exhibit A.

EightBall   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 1:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)     Comment 30

iwog says

If you don't believe in universal health care, that's a reason to vote for a Republican. I disagree with that position and I think public health care works well in almost every country it's used, but at least it's a legitimate point to debate.

I'm not completely opposed to universal healthcare. I'm opposed to the contraception mandate. First off, pregnancy is not a disease and if someone wants to go out and buy the pill they can do so - it is very cheap. Why force people to cover it? I don't have a problem with these...

Get hit by a bus - covered.

Get sick - covered.

Got a disease and need to change jobs - no preexisting conditions so you can be covered (they the hell insurance is tied to your employer is beyond me...but that is another topic)

But this...

Don't what to get pregnant? Stop having sex, buy some condoms, or go buy the pill. I don't see where a simple religious conscience clause is that controversial. Pregnancy is not a disease. Once Obama is a lame duck, I fear (based on this alone) of what else is coming. It's not just in health care where I see major issues in the future. Perhaps we disagree on this but these actions should be a major alarm bell for EVERYONE in my opinion.

iwog says

herefore I guess my pounce is this: Even if I agreed with you, I find the abhorrent decisions by the Republicans on the Supreme court (and presumably any future Republicans should Obama lose) to be far more ruinous than health care reform. Citizens United being exhibit A.

I fear a court packed with Kagans and Ginsburgs. I don't always agree with the right wing justices but I'll take Citizens United if we never have another Terri Schiavo.

TPB   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 1:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 31

iwog says

If you don't believe in universal health care, that's a reason to vote for a Republican.

Really mandated inflated insurance premiums are "universal healthcare"?
Iwog you and all Liberals have lost all hope and sight of what is real.
You can shit in a can and call it dinner, it doesn't mean we have to eat it.

Was that clear enough for you, or do you need a paragraph to break down each syllable?

freak80   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 2:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 32

The GOP says

Really mandated inflated insurance premiums are "universal healthcare"?

Hey now, don't be suprised. This is America, where we take the WORST ideas of the Left and Right and combine them into the WORST possible legislation.

TPB   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 2:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 33

Can you pass me the can of Chocolate Corn?

TPB   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 3:29am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 34

That's why I don't waste my time rehashing old stories I posted.
The old forum format, was a real time update of the corruption in America. Then when the old forum was abandoned and this forum was the official forum. All of my predictions about this administration, all of the Economic stories, I posted under Tenpoundbass, all of the Political discussions, were deleted, when I pissed Iwog and Co. off.

I'm not wasting my time for their edification, I'm not new here. Iwog has read every truth I've ever typed. To play Coy now, and say "Can you explain I have no idea what you mean?" Is just being cheeky.

CL   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 3:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 35

EightBall says

I'm not completely opposed to universal healthcare. I'm opposed to the contraception mandate.

Couldn't you look at this as a matter of choice? Having an option to cover contraception doesn't require employees who to use it, doesn't require policy holders to use it. It would only require that employees who disagree have the choice to use it, n'est-ce pas? Even at Catholic institutions, there are countless non-Catholic employees, for example.

EightBall   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 5:40am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 36

CL says

Couldn't you look at this as a matter of choice? Having an option to cover contraception doesn't require employees who to use it, doesn't require policy holders to use it. It would only require that employees who disagree have the choice to use it, n'est-ce pas? Even at Catholic institutions, there are countless non-Catholic employees, for example.

They have a choice - I listed them above. Pregnancy is not a disease and not having contraception covered (and paid for) by a Catholic institution isn't going prevent anyone from going out and buying the pill. It's a ridiculous argument driven by ideology and a precursor to ugliness yet to be delivered. If you can't give a conscience out for Catholics on something this trivial, what's next? You've gotta draw the line somewhere.

CL   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 7:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 37

Can Jehovah's witness businesses deny blood transfusion coverage for their employees? Or can Christian Scientists deny surgery or drug coverage?

Believers can still refuse treatment, right? But employees aren't forced to believe what their employers believe.

I'd say THAT infringes upon the employee's rights, and would result in a scarier outcome than offering, but not requiring, condoms for Catholic employees.

Remember that this affects employees only, not religious institutions.

Patrick   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 7:23am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 38

The GOP says

Iwog you and all Liberals have lost all hope and sight of what is real.
You can shit in a can and call it dinner, it doesn't mean we have to eat it.

Was that clear enough for you, or do you need a paragraph to break down each syllable?

Seems like you're deliberately trying to insult them...

leo707   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 7:34am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 39

uomo_senza_nome says

It is funny, they don't want Obama. But they'll bring in potential candidates who'll do much worse than Obama in reality. They just don't want to accept the reality.

I don't think it is so funny that they don't want Obama. I don't want Obama, for numerous reasons he has been a disappointment as a president.

But, yes, they don't realize that every -- yes, I am including Ron Paul -- GOP option would drive this country further and faster into the ground than Obama. My hope is that in 4 years we are not yet past the tipping point in our problems, and that the 2016 pres. will affect positive change.

I would love to vote against Obama, but a write in for Spongebob is a more useful vote than voting for any of the GOP options.

TPB   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 7:39am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 40

You don't think it's not insulting to be told that an inflated health insurance by more than 40% since the health care bill was passed, to have it be called "Universal Health Care"?

Or to be asked who are you voting for, then to be told you're in favor of a litany of crap that has nothing to do with the outcome of who I vote for. Nor does it establish that those accomplishments were indeed merit of any accolades or anything to attribute to Obama?

Or the selective lucidity, they are good at deducing what you said when you didn't, but can't seem to grasp your other points?

uomo_senza_nome   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 7:41am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 41

leoj707 says

I don't want Obama, for numerous reasons he has been a disappointment as a president.

I completely get the fact that they don't want Obama. I wouldn't either, for a number of reasons. Which is why I think reasonable citizens choosing not to vote is a brilliant thing. Making a choice means you are supporting the status quo. Iwog is supporting the status quo and (somewhat :)) blind to the corruption and cronyism of the banksters.

leoj707 says

But, yes, they don't realize that every -- yes, I am including Ron Paul -- GOP option would drive this country further and faster into the ground than Obama.

I agree. Ron Paul would make an excellent foreign policy director, but not a president.

leoj707 says

but a write in for Spongebob is a more useful vote than voting for any of the GOP options.

Don't write in anybody. That's the best option.

TPB   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 7:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 42

...Didn't vote.

CL   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 8:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 43

American in Japan says

How will the candidate of your choice be an improvement over Obama? What policies will be implemented...? Please be specific. I have my criticisms of Obama , incidentally, but I want to know who is better and why.

Crickets?

clambo   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 9:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 44

Romney would be a fine president. He has had executive experience on the highest level below president (governor). He has also had *successful* business experience in the private sector.
However, it's not rocket science how to try to improve the economy.
Romney is so far the only candidate who says he supports E-verify. This would make it difficult for employers to hire illegal aliens.
Romney does not have a sweeping tax reform plan, so he may be unsatisfactory for some conservatives.
Romney also does not spout sweeping "moral issues" like Santorum.However, most people do not want to hear any nonsense from elected people about "values" unless they are talking about American values.
I doubt we'll see Romney traveling the world to apologize for the USA and he surely won't be bowing and kowtowing to his foreign lessers either. We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes.
Rewarding failure and sloth is not a way to get Americans working again. Punishing success, capital and investment is not either.
Making worthless wasteful (mal)investments in solar schemes, electric cars and windmill boondoggles is not going to be repeated.

CL   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 10:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 45

Not attacking here, but much of what you've said is rhetoric.

To summarize:

1) Governors are good. (All Governors have the requisite experience?)

2) Promises to be tough on undocumented workers (Obama has deported more than Bush). Do Romney's promises mean anything?

3) Romney is not palatable to conservatives

4) Romney is distrusted by the evangelicals, a large part of the GOP coalition

5) Saudi what? Bandar Bush? This is almost so inconsequential as to not warrant a response. But, again, because you doubt something doesn't make it so. Political promises are often broken, but with Romney you are guaranteed of it, since he's been on both sides of every issue!

6) Rewarding failure and punishing success was what happened PRIOR to the bubble bursting. Unless we believe that Wall street brigandage is "success"?

7) How is pioneering new technology less preferable to subsidizing old energy sources? Take battery technology--as batteries become stronger, lighter, more durable and contain more capacity, all of the devices that depend on them benefit.

This is an endorsement of Romney? He made his money through brigandage!

Nomograph   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 11:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 46

The GOP says

...Didn't vote.

You voted for McCain; you posted all about it. You STILL need a box of kleenex every time someone mentions Sarah Palin.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Tue, 14 Feb 2012, 12:54pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 47

If Romney wants the nomination, he should liquidate all his assets and buy guns for every neonazi and neoconfederate in America to prove his conservative credentials.

EightBall   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 1:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 48

CL says

Can Jehovah's witness businesses deny blood transfusion coverage for their employees? Or can Christian Scientists deny surgery or drug coverage?

Believers can still refuse treatment, right? But employees aren't forced to believe what their employers believe.

I'd say THAT infringes upon the employee's rights, and would result in a scarier outcome than offering, but not requiring, condoms for Catholic employees.

Remember that this affects employees only, not religious institutions.

Pregnancy is not a disease and not covering the pill on an insurance policy doesn't prevent anyone access to the pill. You're comparison isn't fair and is disingenuous.

Let's put this awful law in the hands of the other side - suddenly HHS Secretary Palin decides that insurers must cover abstinence education as a benefit. Who would be crying foul then? If Sebelius can giveth, it can (and much more) be taken away. Why would we let what is covered and what is not covered be politicized like this? It's ridiculous. This is why the "death panel" argument is so plausible in many people's minds. This is why the law needs to be fully repealed or thrown out by the SCOTUS. We waited until it was passed to see what was in it - and now we know it is a turkey.

So, one of the main arguments for this albatross was that people were going bankrupt on medical bills - and one of the solutions is to mandate the pill be covered by a religious institution that preaches against contraception? Really? A little overreaching don't you think? The Democrats had their chance to do this right and they blew it from my perspective.

freak80   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 1:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 49

Cloud,

You're beating a dead horse. Obama has banksters in the administration. We get it. So will Romney if he becomes President.

The democrats are the only ones that even think of taxing the rich to help prevent an aristocracy. Guess who blocked any tax increases for the super rich? Oh yeah, that's right. The republicans.

If you don't want Obama in the White House, who do you want in there? It's not enough to just be against something. Suggest a positive alternative.

iwog   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 1:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 50

The GOP says

iwog says

If you don't believe in universal health care, that's a reason to vote for a Republican.

Really mandated inflated insurance premiums are "universal healthcare"?

Iwog you and all Liberals have lost all hope and sight of what is real.

You can shit in a can and call it dinner, it doesn't mean we have to eat it.

Was that clear enough for you, or do you need a paragraph to break down each syllable?

William E Baughb

Universal health care is the ideal. Obamacare (or Newt Gingrich care) is the first attempt to move us in that direction.

If you want to go in the opposite direction, if you want rich people to live 20 years longer on average than poor people, vote Republican.

TPB   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 2:00am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 51

wthrfrk80 says

The democrats are the only ones that even think of taxing the rich to help prevent an aristocracy. Guess who blocked any tax increases for the super rich? Oh yeah, that's right. The republicans.

That whole thought is as backwards as the Reagan era "Trickle Down economics". Taxing the Rich more doesn't explain how that will create more jobs and imporove the plight of the middle class. If it's just about creating a better "Poor on the dole" system. Then I say no thanks.

Teach a man to fish and all that. I'd much rather have the fish comeback, so I can catch them myself, that to be feed Long John Silvers on Donald Trump's dime.

iwog   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 2:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 52

The GOP says

That whole thought is as backwards as the Reagan era "Trickle Down economics". Taxing the Rich more doesn't explain how that will create more jobs and imporove the plight of the middle class. If it's just about creating a better "Poor on the dole" system. Then I say no thanks.

Of course it does. It's a zero sum game and all money gets spent in the hands of the government.

How can you not understand this?

clambo   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 2:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 53

cl I am not saying rhetoric. I am saying facts.
The one standing candidate who said he would enforce E-verify to try to prevent illegal aliens from working here was Romney. He said it often in debates.
The other candidates have no executive experience compared to Romney. Governor is an executive office.
Poor people will always live shorter lives than rich. On the average, richer people are smarter and do not become obese, drunks, and they do healthy activities rather than be obese couch potatoes.
I am in the minority that Romney care doesn't bother me because this was an attempt in Mass. to get more people insured who could afford to buy insurance, and an attempt to not let them leech off everyone else.
I personally know illegal aliens here who have tens of thousands of dollars stashed at home, have built houses back in mexico, and they pay not one thin dime for their health care.

leo707   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 2:44am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 54

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease and not covering the pill on an insurance policy doesn't prevent anyone access to the pill. You're comparison isn't fair and is disingenuous.

Surgery, drug coverage and pregnancy planning are not always life threatening or "necessary", but access to medical care improves health and increases the likelihood of a positive outcome.

Not covering surgeries or drugs does not prevent access to them either. However, for low income people the financial hurdle can effectively prevent access to any medical care including family planning.

Anyway, the point is whether or not a religious belief can be used to restrict health care options to an employee -- who may not share the same beliefs.

I find CL's comparison to be both fair and ingenuous.

EightBall says

Let's put this awful law in the hands of the other side - suddenly HHS Secretary Palin decides that insurers must cover abstinence education as a benefit. Who would be crying foul then?

Oh, this is an easy question; I am surprised that you don't know the answer...

-- NO ONE --

Yes, no one would be crying foul if insurers were required to cover abstinence education. I don't think that there is anyone -- anyone sane that is -- would would not agree that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. The problem arises when people want to teach abstinence exclusively at the expense of sex-ed. This is a foolish position, and we currently know that abstinence only education leads to equal if not higher levels of STDs and teen pregnancy just in the kids who "accept" the pledge. This says nothing to the other kids who are denied a comprehensive sex-ed.

leo707   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 2:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 55

The GOP says

Teach a man to fish and all that. I'd much rather have the fish comeback, so I can catch them myself, that to be feed Long John Silvers on Donald Trump's dime.

Yeah, but Trump already owns the lake with the fish, and all the game in the King's wood.

If he is feeling generous he may let you do a little hunting and fishing, and you only have to give him 90% of your catch.

HousingWatcher   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 4:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 56

I hope the lunch your eating right now meets federal nutritional guidelines cloud. Because you don't want to make the govternment angry, now do you???

EBGuy   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 4:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 57

Clambo said: We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes...
Making worthless wasteful (mal)investments in solar schemes, electric cars and windmill boondoggles is not going to be repeated.

Well, its either one or the other. We currently get almost 10% of our oil imports from the Saudis (exceeded only by Canada & Mexico, with some African nations rising quickly). I'd rather keep that money in house than send it overseas like you want to do.

leo707   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 6:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 58

"We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes..."

No, Romney just thinks that this guy, is a "prophet, seer, and revelator" of god's will on earth. i.e. - if this guy tells Romney to take a second wife, Romney does it. In fact if this guy tells Romney, "God wants me to marry your wife." Romney starts shopping for wedding gifts.

Oh, yeah... and Romney thinks that his underpants have magical powers.

EightBall   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 6:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 59

leoj707 says

Anyway, the point is whether or not a religious belief can be used to restrict health care options to an employee -- who may not share the same beliefs.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff. Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options. Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

CL   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 7:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 60

http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/how-mormons-and-scalia-prove-that-obama.html

"In United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing unconstitutional in requiring an Amish employer to withhold and pay Social Security taxes for his workers even though “the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs.”

Here’s how they put it:

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

leo707   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 7:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 61

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease.

Right, I thought we covered this. Neither is a broken bone, sprained ankle or tape worms, but they are all health issues.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff.

If it abstinence only education programs have taught us anything it is that people have sex. Regardless of whether or not you feel that your god(s) don't want them to. You might not want to admit it but we are born addicted to sex. It is a basic human drive much stronger than people want to admit. It is entirely unrealistic to expect people to not engage in sexual activity, and that without proper precautions, pregnancy is a result.

EightBall says

Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options.

Yes, it is. Birth control is a health care option, and while it may be difficult for those in an ivory tower to understand, the price of the pill will effect the health care choices of poor people.

EightBall says

Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

So you are suggesting the solution to expensive birth control like the pill is to provide cheap abortion pills in vending machines?

Yes, yes... it is funny how people so opposed to abortion don't actually want to do anything to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that will result in abortions.

iwog   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 8:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 62

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff. Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options. Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

The pill is cheaper than a pregnancy. Far cheaper. Like 100 to 1 cheaper, especially for a cesarian birth.

This makes birth control very much a health issue.

thomas.wong1986   Wed, 15 Feb 2012, 9:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 63

Newt in 2012, with the option to vote for Mitt Romney.

Anything but Obama, frankly will do.. even Ron Paul.

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »

American in Japan is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net