Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Everything Political

Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby ryguy » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:58 pm

I've created this thread so that we can discuss the decisions (good or bad) of the new President.

It appears that the first round of decisions will be who he will surround himself with over the next four years. These are the critical times when those decisions will have a tremendous influence over the administration's policies over the next four years.

Just heard today he's chosen Robert Gibbs as the White House press secretary. He's fairly young, 37. The following is from Yahoo News

Gibbs — a 37-year-old native of Auburn, Ala. — became familiar to viewers during the campaign for his sunny steeliness during frequent appearances on morning shows and A-list cable news programs.

From his July promotion announcement: “Robert Gibbs, one of Senator Obama’s longest-serving and closest aides, has been elevated to Senior Strategist for Communications and Message, taking on a broader strategic portfolio for the Fall campaign while continuing to serve as senior communications aide travelling with Senator Obama.”

The "podium job" makes the White House press secretary instantly famous around the world as the face and voice of Washington.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby MikeJamieson » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:23 pm

Probably a good choice. Like the article mentioned, many of us became very familiar with him over the many months, especially from seeing him a lot on Morning Joe.

John Podesta was picked to help with the transition. That choice has many UFO buffs excited!!! (I was snooping around and saw disclosure hopes going through the roof in some places.)

I'm still thinking he'll stick with most of the middle class tax cuts as a necessary stimulus measure. The immediate funding of widespread infrastructure rebuilding projects should not only create new jobs right away but obviously create revenue flowing back into the coffers (from the many who had been unemployed, but now working on rebuilding infrastructure). Unemployment rate is now over 6%.

Some regions are already poised to deploy massive solar and wind (and here, geothermal) farms. Northern Nevada and the Sacramento capital corridor already have general plans accelerating all that. Obama's 10 investment proposal would jumpstart that sort of thing in so many other areas. In addition to likely seeing new technologies surface in commercial enterprises (funded by the venture investment capital fund Obama will set up for risky startups).
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Barack Gore - Here Comes Global Warming!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:26 pm

Here is another prediction I made MANY months ago...and it was not at all hard to see. But now we see how Obama is, indeed, beholden to certain Dem Party elements on a topic that is distinctly based on "bad (incomplete) science":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27628719/

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.


This is the first indication of Barack Gore being our new President. No doubt there will be more...

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.


Hmmm...."liberal advocacy group"...you mean AlGore, right? :lol: And also it is interesting to note that one of the many Bush Bashes was "secrecy". And so this transition team which is responding to "liberal advocacy groups" is "not permitted to speak about the inner workings." Who wants to spin this one as being "change" from Bush? Change TO Gore, yes... but the tactics are starting out the same, aren't they? The change is simply that Republicans are left out in the "secrecy" and the Dems are in on the secrets. So much for reaching across the aisle, eh?

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.


There is the magic word that gives AlGore a big stiffy (not to mention financially benefits his company that deals in carbon credits!). Let's just ignore the scientific data that shows us that the "warming trend" was not only NOT a warming trend, but that the last 7 years of data show a cooling trend! (I will post an update in my AGW thread that shows this data).

Once again, I do not enjoy being right about these predictions. But really anyone could see it coming. Obama will be a surrogate for a Gore presidency, at least in how he addresses the fallacy of "Anthropocentric Global Warming".

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.


This makes me just positively sick. They are saying politics should not interfere with "scientific advice", but it is clear that "advice" is not only biased, but it ignores whole heaps of scientific data that does not vet their AGW beliefs. They are kidding themselves.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.\

The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.


Well, Ryan, I am afraid to report to you (through statements like the above) that the "centrist" approach you were HOPEing for is already showing its true motives. I am certain there will be more data in the coming months that will indeed show we have swung almost 180 degrees in the opposite direction, and that would suggest we are not only in an out-of-phase oscillation, but it could well show us we are in a divergent oscillation. The stock market is already showing divergent oscillations in its up-down amplitude swings.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.


One thing that is not in doubt is that such standards will significantly add to the cost of cars. In an economic climate such as we are in, we want to try to encourage spending to kick start the market...not depress it! I do not see the need to force such high standards on the market, especially when we have seen that the market itself had responded to high oil prices by more people buying fuel efficient cars like the Prius and other hybrids or alternate fuel vehicles.

And finally:

Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.

"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."


If they are embracing AlGore's biased science, I don't think they have even begun to "get it".
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:26 pm

Well, this New York Times article from the day before seems to foreshadow what that Washington Post article is talking about…

Obama team weighs which issues to tackle first
Expansive campaign promises take back seat to the economy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27611106/

With the economy in disarray and the nation’s treasury draining, President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers are trying to figure out which of his expansive campaign promises to push in the opening months of his tenure and which to put on a slower track.

Mr. Obama repeated on Saturday that his first priority would be an economic recovery program to get the nation’s business system back on track and people back to work. But advisers said the question was whether they could tackle health care, climate change and energy independence at once or needed to stagger these initiatives over time.

[snip]

“Every president is tempted to take on too much,” said one Obama adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “On the other hand, there’s the Roosevelt example and the L.B.J. example, which suggest an extraordinary president can do an awful lot. So that’s the question: Is it too risky for the president to be ambitious?”

Much of the issue may be out of Mr. Obama’s hands. The $700 billion financial bailout threatens to push the deficit into the stratosphere. “The poor man has his hands tied by the economic and financial mess we have right now,” said John Tuck, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan. “I don’t know what his options are. They’re very, very limited.”

Specifically the pressure from left wing Congressional leaders that you predicted…

At a news conference Friday and again in a radio address on Saturday, Mr. Obama signaled that he intended to move quickly to address the nation’s financial problems, despite any obstacles. “I want to ensure that we hit the ground running on Jan. 20,” he said on Saturday, “because we don’t have a moment to lose.”

The argument for an aggressive approach in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson is that health care, energy and education are all part of systemic economic problems and should be addressed comprehensively. But Democrats are discussing a hybrid strategy that would push for a bold economic program and also encompass other elements of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform, even if larger goals are put off.

Congressional leaders want to move swiftly in January to pass a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program — a plan vetoed by President Bush — as a step toward the broader coverage Mr. Obama promised. Likewise, Democrats plan to incorporate his proposed middle-class tax cuts in the economic legislation or pass them in tandem. And Mr. Obama could increase investment in alternative energy as a down payment on a far-reaching climate plan.

“I believe it would be important to show fairly early on that change is here,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the House Democratic leadership. “One of the very visible ways to show that would be to pass some of the bills George Bush vetoed.”

The good news is it appears Obama has already decided tackling the global warming “crisis” per Gore’s agenda should take a back seat to developing renewable energy sources…

Energy and Economy, Intertwined
“I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade.”
OCT. 31, DES MOINES

On energy and climate change, Mr. Obama’s focus has shifted markedly over the course of the year as the economy has weakened.

An earlier proposal put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gases, requiring industry and utilities to buy credits from the government to emit carbon dioxide. That plan would produce hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue and drive up the cost of energy for everyone.

Mr. Obama is now emphasizing a program to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar and biofuels, and to encourage energy conservation in homes, offices and public buildings. He would also provide substantial financial help to the auto industry to develop high-mileage and electric cars.
JOHN M. BRODER

We’ll see if he can resist the pressure and get Congress to wake up to the reality of the situation without stepping on too many toes. :)

[fingers crossed]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

First Sign of Hypocrisy

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:39 pm

Access Denied wrote:We’ll see if he can resist the pressure and get Congress to wake up to the reality of the situation without stepping on too many toes.

[fingers crossed]


Yes, I agree that one can always have HOPE that you can trust someone to do what they said they were going to do. I mean, Obama promised CHANGE and so you certainly should HOPE that he delivers his CHANGE. But let me again call attention to an ironic truth that I was referring to about the "change" we are seeing so far:

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: And also it is interesting to note that one of the many Bush Bashes was "secrecy". And so this transition team which is responding to "liberal advocacy groups" is "not permitted to speak about the inner workings." Who wants to spin this one as being "change" from Bush?


1) Barack promised CHANGE from Bush policies.
2) Bush was criticized for "secrecy" in making decisions.
3) Barack taking advice from a "secret liberal think tank".
4) Bush and Barack Both Begin with B! :roll:

So much for CHANGE. Do the same thing your Party criticized in the last Party when it was in Power.

All so predictable.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

California...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:25 pm

And here is something interesting to highlight about something said in that article I quoted above:

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.


Slight correction in the above: It was a California government agency, which was auspiciously fronted by another one of those "liberal think tanks" that was "seeking permission." It was NOT the people of California. If you still believe in this nation that it is We The People who do the talking and asking, and that our government should follow our decrees, then let's have a look at what the People of California said in this last election:

Nov 05, 2008

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

By Noel Sheppard

Californians by very wide margins defeated two green initiatives that anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in the media and in legislative houses across the fruited plain should take heed...but will they?

To begin with, Proposition 7 would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

Proposition 10 would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Much to the likely chagrin of Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his global warming sycophants in the media, these measures went down, and went down in flames:

Proposition 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Yes 3,294,158 35.1%
No 6,102,907 64.9%

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes 3,742,997 40.1%
No 5,581,303 59.9%


So now the question goes to the Obama Nation: Should the PEOPLE of California be allowed to do what they want, or are they going to be subject to the wants of a "liberal think tank"? Again, no fair blaming Bush and saying "but all he did was follow the conservative think tanks." You folks claimed Obama would bring change... so if George Bush did something (hold secret meetings with conservative think tanks to set policy), it would be hard to keep a straight face while the new administration does the same thing!

Also, in case folks haven't been paying attention, Detroit and the Big Three are on the verge of bankruptcy. New mandates that will cost them moola to meet, AND add cost to their products, is really NOT what they need right now to survive, much less prosper.

Another one of my predictions is that the more misguided of Obama's policies will actually drive the economy further into recession. This is one of those policies. If Obama really is making the economy Priority One, then the liberal AGW agenda MUST be given priority..... oh, about 1000! [-X

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby ryguy » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:43 pm

Both air pollution and our dependence on foreign oil is a serious concern, it should have us all scrambling to stop using combustion engines that add to carbon monoxide in the air. (See the other thread where I laid out that concern in detail). Any efforts by the government to cut emissions of those toxic fumes and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil should be absolutely embraced by the American people. Forget global warming, It's in the best interest of our health and our national security...
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:28 pm

ryguy wrote:Both air pollution and our dependence on foreign oil is a serious concern, it should have us all scrambling to stop using combustion engines that add to carbon monoxide in the air.


Agreed. Then it becomes even more imperative that AlGore and his troglodytes stop talking about CO2 as being a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Any efforts by the government to cut emissions of those toxic fumes and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil should be absolutely embraced by the American people. Forget global warming, It's in the best interest of our health and our national security...


Again, I agree...but that means Barack Gore has got to get the message RIGHT, which means not kowtowing to Gore and his "bad science" agenda. The Audacity of Hypocrisy would claim that Bush led us into a war in Iraq "for the wrong reason." It would not be much of a change for Obama/Gore to lead us down a road (reducing emissions and/or oil dependency) for the wrong reasons ("mankind is causing the globe to warm").

It is IMPERATIVE that we get the science right. And so far, AlGore is doing more harm than one man should be allowed to do with his biased science. The SUN is in charge here....not mankind. To think we can control global temp cycles with our minimal human effect, as compared to the sun, is BAD SCIENCE leading us to do something for the WRONG REASON.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Here Comes The Nonsense!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:07 am

Look at the name at the top left of this (alleged) Administration roster:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/obama.picks.jpg

I've been telling you people... here comes Al Gore the "Climate Czar"... and never was a more appropriate title selected to describe exactly what he is going to do. I told you that not only is Obama an idiot, but he is beholden to an even bigger idiot who bastardizes science for his own political agenda.

We're effed. But go ahead, Ryan... spin away!

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby ryguy » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:11 pm

Call it spin or not, at least I gave Bush four years - you aren't even giving Obama a single day.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:20 pm

ryguy wrote:Call it spin or not, at least I gave Bush four years - you aren't even giving Obama a single day.


Nah, I wouldn't call that spin. Spin would be where you try to tell us why creation of a "Climate Czar" and making Al (I play a scientist in the movies) Gore the person to execute that position is somehow a "good thing" for the country and our economy.

The reality is, Ryan, that a president is graded by his decisions. I have no choice but to give him his full 1461 days. But looking at this, one of his first important decisions, I can not only see how bad it is, but it also reveals exactly what I have said all through our entire debate: Obama is not different, he is NOT change, he is just another Dem beholden to his Party Power Machine. And this appointment makes it clear. And if this comes to pass (and why wouldn't it?), we will now see Gore be able to continue his politicization of BAD science in such a way that it will affect all our pocketbooks...and not in a good way.

Mark my words. I've been right about several things now, especially how AGW was a setup to enforce (stupid) Dem economic ideas to turn us into a socialist-leaning state like those in Europe. And Al will just get fatter by peddling Carbon Credits.

This makes me sick.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:27 pm

Oh yes... and the new rumors of him potentially naming Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, of all people, should be a little more evidence of his starting out with some pretty poor decisions!

Or, are you now going to become a Hillary fan, Ryan? LOL.

Bye-bye centrist face...hello Dems-in-Power face. Just like he changed his mask when going from primary season to general election season. The consummate chameleon. :roll: Same old, same old.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby ryguy » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:12 pm

All rumors...so far he hasn't been stupid about the appointments. If he chooses either Al (what's Science?) Gore, or Hillary (oops...forget to put on my makeup) Clinton, I will concede to your points. But neither has actually happened yet, so give the man a chance to make a decision before damning him for a decision he hasn't even made yet, right?

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:10 am

ryguy wrote:All rumors...so far he hasn't been stupid about the appointments. If he chooses either Al (what's Science?) Gore, or Hillary (oops...forget to put on my makeup) Clinton, I will concede to your points.


Fair enough.

But neither has actually happened yet, so give the man a chance to make a decision before damning him for a decision he hasn't even made yet, right?


Of course. If he actually shows the independence to NOT appoint these yahoos to these positions, I will give him credit for pushing against his party's wishes.

:ppcrn (Also watching what job Howard Dean gets...)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Clinton People = Change?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:19 pm

Here we go... the data continues to come in that "change" was just a catchy campaign slogan and promise... but as predicted by this researcher, that was just a ploy to get your vote! Even the liberal-leaning CNN is pointing out what is going on:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/ ... index.html

Barack Obama pledged to bring "fundamental change to Washington" as he campaigned for the White House -- but as the president-elect fills out his administration, critics say they're seeing just more of the same.

More than half of the people named so far to Obama's transition or staff posts have ties to former President Bill Clinton's administration.


Nize. And if you thought that "political spin" was going to go away just because Obama promised "change", you can think again:

Lanny Davis, President Clinton's former special council, lobbied publicly for Obama to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate during the campaign. Despite what critics say, Davis says real change is about policy, not people.


Right. So that is why for the last 8 years the Dem attack calls against the Republican administration have all been aimed at PEOPLE (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.), rather than POLICY. See how the spin cycle is already being revved-up?

"What this conversation is about is laughable if you ask people in America what they care about. They care about the economy, jobs, education, health care. They don't care about whether somebody who fills a particular box is from a prior administration," he said.


Oh really? LOL. If that is so true then why did the Dem party not select Hillary? Can't have it both ways, Mr. Spinmaster! In case you forgot, the campaign slogan was "change". I don't think most Americans (esp. the ones who did NOT vote for Obama) would think that true change would come from the same old political operatives who served under Clinton.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Next

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests

cron