OT government



Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0ae32e02-5df9-4074-a10f-61c693b50995@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

{snip}

>> Why do you think everyone
>> is lining up to criticize the on-going "war" in Iraq
>
> Because its the 'in' thing to do now. Certainly not because you know
> anything about the problems.

>> Why do you think GWB has the lowest approval rating of any
>> president -- ever?
>
> Because of the media. This is the result of an almost entirely Liberal
> media.

80% /admit/ to voting for Democrats. Bet it's even higher.

>> You criticize social welfare programs, and look,
>> we have a gigantic one going in Iraq. How could Gore or Kerry have
>> done worse?

> If we had bombed Iraq and left you'd sure as hell have seen a whole
> lot worse situation than we're seeing now. The Sunnis and Shiites are
> beginning to govern TOGETHER. Of course the US media is doing just
> about everything possible to hide that but the fact is that within a
> couple of years Iraq will be self sufficient and a shining example of
> democracy in the middle east.

Unless Obama sabotages it under orders from Reid/Pelosi. Just watch.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:0ae32e02-5df9-4074-a10f-61c693b50995@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> {snip}
>
>>> Why do you think everyone
>>> is lining up to criticize the on-going "war" in Iraq
>>
>> Because its the 'in' thing to do now. Certainly not because you know
>> anything about the problems.
>
>>> Why do you think GWB has the lowest approval rating of any
>>> president -- ever?
>>
>> Because of the media. This is the result of an almost entirely Liberal
>> media.
>
> 80% /admit/ to voting for Democrats. Bet it's even higher.
>
>>> You criticize social welfare programs, and look,
>>> we have a gigantic one going in Iraq. How could Gore or Kerry have
>>> done worse?
>
>> If we had bombed Iraq and left you'd sure as hell have seen a whole
>> lot worse situation than we're seeing now. The Sunnis and Shiites are
>> beginning to govern TOGETHER. Of course the US media is doing just
>> about everything possible to hide that but the fact is that within a
>> couple of years Iraq will be self sufficient and a shining example of
>> democracy in the middle east.
>
> Unless Obama sabotages it under orders from Reid/Pelosi. Just watch.

That's what I'm worried about Bill.

Neither Obama, Clinton nor McCain give me the slightest feeling that they
aren't really planning to cut and run.

While Obama is a horrible example of everything negative about Liberalism, I
still can't bring myself to vote for McCain since I'm convinced that he
would destroy this country.

I guess I'm going to have to write in Mitt Romney.
 
On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Of course the US media is doing just about everything
> possible to hide that but the fact is that within a couple of years Iraq
> will be self sufficient and a shining example of democracy in the middle
> east.

Yeah, blame the "media". It can't possibly be that the ideology was
flawed to begin with. Nope, that can't be it. Gotta find a
scapegoat...

I am dumbfounded by the ignorant wishful thinking you display here.
In 5000 years of recorded history in Mesopotamia, there has never been
a functional democracy, and only since the early 20th century was
there such a thing as "Iraq". The only thing uniting any of the
parties in-country is the desire to get the U.S. OUT. Well, except
for the connected few that benefit from our being there.

Your knowledge of history mirrors your knowledge of political systems
and ideology. That is to say, virtually non-existent.

E.P.
 
On Jun 1, 6:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:0ae32e02-5df9-4074-a10f-61c693b50995@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> {snip}
>
> >>  Why do you think everyone
> >> is lining up to criticize the on-going "war" in Iraq
>
> > Because its the 'in' thing to do now. Certainly not because you know
> > anything about the problems.
> >> Why do you think GWB has the lowest approval rating of any
> >> president  -- ever?
>
> > Because of the media. This is the result of an almost entirely Liberal
> > media.
>
> 80% /admit/ to voting for Democrats.  Bet it's even higher.
>
> >> You criticize social welfare programs, and look,
> >> we have a gigantic one going in Iraq. How could Gore or Kerry have
> >> done worse?
> > If we had bombed Iraq and left you'd sure as hell have seen a whole
> > lot worse situation than we're seeing now. The Sunnis and Shiites are
> > beginning to govern TOGETHER. Of course the US media is doing just
> > about everything possible to hide that but the fact is that within a
> > couple of years Iraq will be self sufficient and a shining example of
> > democracy in the middle east.
>
> Unless Obama sabotages it under orders from Reid/Pelosi.  Just watch.

A "shining example of democracy"? Dream on. The best we could hope
for is a confessional government like Lebanon. But allocating
political offices based on religion or ethnicity is not a democracy.
Just wait until the Kurdish call it quits. There is no model for real
democracy in the Middle East, and IMO it is more likely that the
country will become like post-civil war Lebanon, unless, of course, a
great cat-herder like Sadam comes back to power -- then it will become
Iran.

Tom is right that I am not a government insider or the intellectual
equivalent of our highly placed government officials -- but even with
my pea brain, I correctly predicted the current mess based solely on
my experience with the culture and from a general understanding of
Middle East history. I am still waiting for someone to show me that
my government has exercised superior intellect and has a grand plan
that will make the world a better place for the citizens of the
United States and not just a few shareholders of government
contractors. We can rant and launch personal attacks, crucifyl the
liberal media, etc., etc., but that does not substitute for evidence
that the government actually got it right, and the naysayers got it
wrong. I don't think there is anyone who still defends the attack on
Iraq, being that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The only
open issue is whether staying in Iraq improves anything. I am open to
considering any evidence that the Republican plan of a multi-decade
occupation at tax-payer expense is good for America. -- Jay Beattie.
 
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ae779512-4056-4475-b4f9-964b9aa0047d@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am still waiting for someone to show me that
> my government has exercised superior intellect and has a grand plan
> that will make the world a better place for the citizens of the
> United States and not just a few shareholders of government
> contractors.

Tell me something Jay, how many commanding generals did Lincoln go through?
 
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>
>Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?

He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into Iraq
at all.
 
"Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
>>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>>
>>Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?
>
> He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into Iraq
> at all.

Even though it was growing more and more evident that in order to maintain
his position he was sooner or later going to have to deliver WMD to Al
Qaida?

Regardless of the BS about Iraq not getting along with Al Qaida the fact is
that they were again and again trying to come to some sort of agreement.
Even mortal enemies will act in concert when it benefits them both.

Look, no intelligence is perfect and a great deal of our intelligence in
that area was lost when the Democrat controlled congress passed laws
forbidding using graft or criminals to obtain intelligence and we then had
to try to use phone tapping and the like to gather intelligence.

The upshot of this is that we had half-assed intelligence and the
intelligence we did have suggested that Saddam had a whole lot more up his
sleeve than he actually did.

Do you suppose we could take chances on his NOT having poison gas technology
after what happened in Japan?

To read the people here you'd think that intelligence gathering is perfect
and easy and that we always have sufficient knowledge of what's going on
elsewhere behind closed doors and we NEVER have to take chances because we
have perfect plans.

Do you actually believe that sort of garbage?
 
"Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
>>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>>
>>Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?
>
> He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into Iraq
> at all.

Also I'd like to remind you that ALL of the Arab countries in the middle
east have declared enmity with Israel. And if we do not contain these
countries that Israel may eventually be forced to react with a nuclear
weapon which could trigger WW III?

The USA doesn't have the ability to stand clear of that mess without having
even greater risks.
 
On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:47:18 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>And of course you know this because of your close affiliation with them? Oh,
>that's right - you read Democrap propaganda and actually believe it.

No Tom, I know this because I'm an intelligent creature who looks for
hard facts and objectively observes what goes on in the world. I don't
put any more stock in Democratic propaganda than I do Republican. I
look for facts and events.

You, OTOH, are acting as an ideological bigot. No offense, but you
have already assumed that since I don't like the current Republican
Party and the select group now controlling it that I am a Democrat.
You're wrong.

<snip anti-leftist talk show like rabble>

>We're in real trouble this election - there are now controlling groups of
>Democrats in the House and Senate. Any of those elected to President will be
>for the insane spending of money that is destroying the American dollar.
>This will also destroy the Social Security payments making them essentially
>worthless and forcing "retired" people to work the rest of their lives.
>
>Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.

Pardon me? Here's a test: Name the two Presidents and their party who
ran up the largest deficits in US history and generated huge
recessions by their unlimited borrowing and spending, nearly
bankrupting the country. Next, name the only President in recent
memory who balanced the budget.

You're highly ideologically biased Tom. You say that it's about "the
man" but you're clearly not looking at facts - you're spouting party
rhetoric.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>> com> wrote:
>>>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
>>>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?
>>
>> He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into
>> Iraq at all.
>
> Even though it was growing more and more evident that in order to
> maintain his position he was sooner or later going to have to deliver
> WMD to Al Qaida?
>
> Regardless of the BS about Iraq not getting along with Al Qaida the
> fact is that they were again and again trying to come to some sort of
> agreement. Even mortal enemies will act in concert when it benefits
> them both.

Don't take your word for it -- look at what Hillary said on the Senate floor
before casting her vote for the war, AND what Bill made the official policy
of the US late in his second term. (Both readily found via Google in
seconds.)

"The Clintons Lied; People Died" -- ever hear THAT being chanted?

> Look, no intelligence is perfect and a great deal of our intelligence
> in that area was lost when the Democrat controlled congress passed
> laws forbidding using graft or criminals to obtain intelligence and
> we then had to try to use phone tapping and the like to gather
> intelligence.
> The upshot of this is that we had half-assed intelligence and the
> intelligence we did have suggested that Saddam had a whole lot more
> up his sleeve than he actually did.
>
> Do you suppose we could take chances on his NOT having poison gas
> technology after what happened in Japan?
>
> To read the people here you'd think that intelligence gathering is
> perfect and easy and that we always have sufficient knowledge of
> what's going on elsewhere behind closed doors and we NEVER have to
> take chances because we have perfect plans.
>
> Do you actually believe that sort of garbage?

Repeat things often enough and they become "the truth".

BS
 
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:44:21 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>Regardless of the BS about Iraq not getting along with Al Qaida the fact is
>that they were again and again trying to come to some sort of agreement.
>Even mortal enemies will act in concert when it benefits them both.

You know, I didn't think there were people ignorant enough to still
spout this nonsense. Shut off the talk radio and go do some research
before you comment again on this issue.

>Look, no intelligence is perfect and a great deal of our intelligence in
>that area was lost when the Democrat controlled congress passed laws
>forbidding using graft or criminals to obtain intelligence and we then had
>to try to use phone tapping and the like to gather intelligence.

More nonsense. The Bush Administration had plenty of intelligence.
They just ignored anything that was contradictory to what they wanted
to do.

>The upshot of this is that we had half-assed intelligence and the
>intelligence we did have suggested that Saddam had a whole lot more up his
>sleeve than he actually did.

Total BS. See above.

>Do you suppose we could take chances on his NOT having poison gas technology
>after what happened in Japan?

Too non-sensical to comment on.

>To read the people here you'd think that intelligence gathering is perfect
>and easy and that we always have sufficient knowledge of what's going on
>elsewhere behind closed doors and we NEVER have to take chances because we
>have perfect plans.

Ignoring any intelligence that contradicts your predefined plan and
ignoring the long standing concepts of intelligence evaluation is not
the same as making a bad decision based on good intelligence. This was
an agenda, pure and simple.

Don't believe that? Here's one simple one for you to start with: Why
did the administration seek to discredit Wilson (Plame) when Wilson
reported that the African nuclear connection did not exist? Let me
know when you have any answer except "doesn't fit our agenda".

>Do you actually believe that sort of garbage?

Look in the mirror. You are so biased that you can't even tell fact
from fancy.
 
On Jun 2, 12:44 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
> >>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
> >>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?
>
> > He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into Iraq
> > at all.
>
> Even though it was growing more and more evident that in order to maintain
> his position he was sooner or later going to have to deliver WMD to Al
> Qaida?

That speculation is tenuous, at best. At worst, it's an outright
piece of propaganda.

> Regardless of the BS about Iraq not getting along with Al Qaida the fact is
> that they were again and again trying to come to some sort of agreement.

Actually, not. The meetings were few (if any), and the emnity between
the fundementalists and the secular Saddam very large.

Evidence points to Saddam actually wanting to present a credible
threat to his nearest threat - Iran.

> Even mortal enemies will act in concert when it benefits them both.

Except that delivering WMD to the western world is a death sentence
for whomever does it. Not much "benefit" there.

> Look, no intelligence is perfect and a great deal of our intelligence in
> that area was lost when the Democrat ...

Ah, yes - the pointing of the finger at someone else - hey look, it
wasn't me, it was *them*!

> The upshot of this is that we had half-assed intelligence ....

Yet another reason for caution, rather than uninformed action.
Screwing up, then blaming someone else for the screw-up is not an
adult way to conduct one's business.

> Do you suppose we could take chances on his NOT having poison gas technology
> after what happened in Japan?

Yes. Especially considering the level of technology Iraq possessed.

> To read the people here you'd think that intelligence gathering is perfect....

Straw man. Learn some logic, Tom.

> Do you actually believe that sort of garbage?

No. It's a weak position you assigned to try and strengthen your
argument. Anybody with half a brain can see it a mile away.

So far, all you've done is regurgitate propaganda. Have you thought
at all about any of this?

E.P.
 
"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You, OTOH, are acting as an ideological bigot. No offense, but you
> have already assumed that since I don't like the current Republican
> Party and the select group now controlling it that I am a Democrat.
> You're wrong.


Followed by:

> Pardon me? Here's a test: Name the two Presidents and their party who
> ran up the largest deficits in US history and generated huge
> recessions by their unlimited borrowing and spending, nearly
> bankrupting the country. Next, name the only President in recent
> memory who balanced the budget.

The truth is that Reagan inherited the economic effects of Jimmy Carter and
you're more than willing to blame it on him instead of the proper person.
That is what is ideological. I have a clear view of Reagan and most of it is
good. Though something obviously happened in between the point where he said
that we HAD to balance the budget and when he actually formed one. But of
course you aren't willing to believe that there is any knowledge in the
world that YOU personally don't own.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Bush made some grave errors in spending. I
might remind you that so do most moderates when they get in office.

As for Clinton's budgets - you really are acting the clown. Clinton
inherited the huge economic growth of the Reagan revolution and he couldn't
even pay back one dollar on the national debt. And dumb jackasses pretend
that somehow that was a GOOD thing and that the economic growth was
Clinton's. Somehow you seem to never comment on Clinton's ejecting most
blacks from the White House staffing or putting incompetents into important
offices. We never see fools such as yourself commenting on Clinton's letting
known Chinese agents into the White House freely without having to undergo
normal security routines.

The people wanted Clinton and they got him. Now you want to pretend that he
was good for the country even after seeing the corruption, crime and
outright bribery that went with him.

> You're highly ideologically biased Tom. You say that it's about "the
> man" but you're clearly not looking at facts - you're spouting party
> rhetoric.

Sorry Charley by I'm not a member of any "party". And I have a great deal
more interest in facts than you've shown you're even capable of
understanding.
 
"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Don't believe that? Here's one simple one for you to start with: Why
> did the administration seek to discredit Wilson (Plame) when Wilson
> reported that the African nuclear connection did not exist? Let me
> know when you have any answer except "doesn't fit our agenda".

You talk about "knowing" and yet print that? Here's the report from the
Senate Select Committee:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

After Wilson made all sorts of wild claims it turns out that the notes of
the meeting between Wilson and the CIA showed almost none of what he
claimed.

Furthermore, Wilson claimed he submitted a written report which was an
outright lie.

By all means carry on telling us how much attention you pay to actual
knowledge.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Don't believe that? Here's one simple one for you to start with: Why
>> did the administration seek to discredit Wilson (Plame) when Wilson
>> reported that the African nuclear connection did not exist? Let me
>> know when you have any answer except "doesn't fit our agenda".
>
> You talk about "knowing" and yet print that? Here's the report from
> the Senate Select Committee:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm
>
> After Wilson made all sorts of wild claims it turns out that the
> notes of the meeting between Wilson and the CIA showed almost none of
> what he claimed.
>
> Furthermore, Wilson claimed he submitted a written report which was an
> outright lie.
>
> By all means carry on telling us how much attention you pay to actual
> knowledge.

Richard Armitege leaked Plame's name. Why isn't he in jail or wasn't
investigated? BECAUSE SHE WASN'T COVERT. She lied under oath to Congress
(told contradictory stories), yet no one ever even /hinted/ at charging her
with contempt much less perjury. And her hubby is a /documented/ liar.

Libby lost a career and reputation and fortune because he didn't remember
who /didn't/ tell him something. It's pathetic what's going on in this
country.

BS
 
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:46:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
[lots snipped]
>Richard Armitege leaked Plame's name. Why isn't he in jail or wasn't
>investigated? BECAUSE SHE WASN'T COVERT. She lied under oath to Congress
>(told contradictory stories), yet no one ever even /hinted/ at charging her
>with contempt much less perjury. And her hubby is a /documented/ liar.

Hahaha. Two reactionary nuts arguing with each other.
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:46:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
> [lots snipped]
>>Richard Armitege leaked Plame's name. Why isn't he in jail or wasn't
>>investigated? BECAUSE SHE WASN'T COVERT. She lied under oath to Congress
>>(told contradictory stories), yet no one ever even /hinted/ at charging
>>her
>>with contempt much less perjury. And her hubby is a /documented/ liar.
>
> Hahaha. Two reactionary nuts arguing with each other.

My guess is that you don't even know what "reactionary" means.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:46:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> [lots snipped]
>>> Richard Armitege leaked Plame's name. Why isn't he in jail or
>>> wasn't investigated? BECAUSE SHE WASN'T COVERT. She lied under
>>> oath to Congress (told contradictory stories), yet no one ever even
>>> /hinted/ at charging her
>>> with contempt much less perjury. And her hubby is a /documented/
>>> liar.
>>
>> Hahaha. Two reactionary nuts arguing with each other.
>
> My guess is that you don't even know what "reactionary" means.

Ol' JFT can't even tell I was agreeing with you, and merely amplifying a few
points.

He never could read for comprehension; good to know nothing's changed.

Bill "stop believing MSNBC, Floggittodeathlinson" S.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:46:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> [lots snipped]
>>>> Richard Armitege leaked Plame's name. Why isn't he in jail or
>>>> wasn't investigated? BECAUSE SHE WASN'T COVERT. She lied under
>>>> oath to Congress (told contradictory stories), yet no one ever even
>>>> /hinted/ at charging her
>>>> with contempt much less perjury. And her hubby is a /documented/
>>>> liar.
>>>
>>> Hahaha. Two reactionary nuts arguing with each other.
>>
>> My guess is that you don't even know what "reactionary" means.
>
> Ol' JFT can't even tell I was agreeing with you, and merely amplifying a
> few points.
>
> He never could read for comprehension; good to know nothing's changed.
>
> Bill "stop believing MSNBC, Floggittodeathlinson" S.

Nor that I was agreeing with you as well. John has the capacity to think but
seldom exercises that ability.
 
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:03:15 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:46:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> [lots snipped]
>>>> Richard Armitege leaked Plame's name. Why isn't he in jail or
>>>> wasn't investigated? BECAUSE SHE WASN'T COVERT. She lied under
>>>> oath to Congress (told contradictory stories), yet no one ever even
>>>> /hinted/ at charging her
>>>> with contempt much less perjury. And her hubby is a /documented/
>>>> liar.
>>>
>>> Hahaha. Two reactionary nuts arguing with each other.
>>
>> My guess is that you don't even know what "reactionary" means.
>
>Ol' JFT can't even tell I was agreeing with you, and merely amplifying a few
>points.
>

Ooops. I don't read Kunich ever anymore, so I missed that. I guess
it's not so funny then -- two reactionary nuts agreeing with each
other is just sad.
>He never could read for comprehension; good to know nothing's changed.
>
>Bill "stop believing MSNBC, Floggittodeathlinson" S.

Sorni, I posted some of the sources I use for news of the world and
have repeatedly asked you for where you get your news, with no answer.

So where do you get your news Bill? Where do you get your news?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Roughest road surface the government will induce you to ride on?
Replies
16
Views
776
Cycling Equipment
Michael Press
M
Top Bottom Back