Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for RollinThundr

Real Name RollinThundr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 5, 2009, 08:31
Total Comments 2460 (Senior)
User ID 54946
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Older >


News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
8. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Apr 25, 2013, 08:37 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 22:07:
Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

"The Justice Department is helping private companies evade federal wiretap laws," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which obtained over 1,000 pages of internal government documents and provided them to CNET this week. "Alarm bells should be going off."

Those documents show the National Security Agency and the Defense Department were deeply involved in pressing for the secret legal authorization, with NSA director Keith Alexander participating in some of the discussions personally. Despite initial reservations, including from industry participants, Justice Department attorneys eventually signed off on the project.

Hope and change, my ass.

But but OBUMA GONNA PAY MY MORTGAGE! I told you guys that you were all a bunch of suckers. Too bad you didn't listen. All hail emperor Obama 2016!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
23. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 24, 2013, 10:24 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 12:50:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 12:21:
To be fair I haven't looked into who put this bill forward. But I'm willing to bet it was democrats. Gotta have some more tax dollars to spend.

Wrong again - as usual.

Difference being, I actually admit when I'm wrong. Something you or Beamer seem to be incapable of.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Star Trek: The Video Game
24. Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Trek: The Video Game Apr 24, 2013, 09:11 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 21:51:
The review for "Star Trek" was merely a two word review which simply read....

Are there games that you actually like? Or do you think you're edgy by hating on everything?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > "Strong Possibility" Relic to Make Dawn of War 3
18. Re: Apr 23, 2013, 22:01 RollinThundr
 
TurdFergasun wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 16:13:
Flatline wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 13:59:



I'll agree DOW2 wasn't an RTS. It was more of a Real Time Tactical game. They "fixed" this somewhat with the second expansion but I didn't particularly feel like it needed to be fixed. On it's own the game was fine. Tagging it Dawn of War 2 was the biggest mistake. I can clearly see the evolution though of DoW2 though, since Company of Heroes had almost no base building at all and focused on the units and combat, it was a natural extension to more or less ditch bases altogether.

It's funny, my memory of DOW1 was incredibly plain and unremarkable. I just didn't enjoy it much. Whereas DOW2 left a far stronger, more memorable experience. I played the shit out of it through Dark Crusade, but it always felt dry and bland. I played it because I didn't have a comparable RTS to play instead. And I love me some 40k.

coh1 had quite a bit of base building, are you sure you even played it? what it didn't have was traditional resource gathering, but if you played for US or Germany you had nearly as many buildings to build as you would have in starcraft or command and conquer games. They should have made a different game altogether for people as yourself who don't even seen to want a real RTS in the first place. Tactical RPG's shouldn't be replacing proper RTS games to appease to the shortest possible attention span with a penchant for shiny objects and bright colour palletes.

This ^^ Not that series like DOW are bad, they do what they set out to do fairly well. They're just not actual full on real time strategy games and more like move your troops around and kill things games.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
50. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 23, 2013, 17:31 RollinThundr
 
BitWraith wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 08:50:
There's a reason why educated people tend to be liberal. It's because they're educated.

When most of the professors are liberals what do you think they're going to teach students? Conservative values, or make white kids feel shame about being white like at the University of Wisconsin? No liberals are no smarter than anyone else, they just think they're morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 23, 2013, 12:21 RollinThundr
 
To be fair I haven't looked into who put this bill forward. But I'm willing to bet it was democrats. Gotta have some more tax dollars to spend.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
49. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 23, 2013, 08:50 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 20:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:47:
That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.

Guess you missed the part where it said....

"Exxon’s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans."

That's entirely indicative of ALL lobbying by the elites. It's all right there in black and white and you're still not grasping it, huh? Wow. Just boggles the mind.

Um, Exxon doesn't account for every company in the world. You're misreading your own quote sparky.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
46. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 20:33 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 20:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:47:
That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.



No I didn't miss that part at all, but what I said went right over your head. Democrats get plenty of lobbying from various groups and corps as well. Pretending they cater to no special interest groups is absolutely comical.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
44. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 18:47 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:26:
Here's what the GOP does for the elites versus the working stiffs....

Exxon/Chevron's record profits

While 2012 might not be a banner year for Big Oil profits, it wasn’t a bad one either. With just BP left to announce 2012 earnings, Big Oil earned well over $100 billion in profits last year, while the companies benefit from continued taxpayer subsidies. Average gas prices also hit a record high last year, showing how a drilling boom may help oil companies’ profit margins, but not consumers’ wallets.

ExxonMobil — now the most valuable company in the world, passing Apple — earned $45 billion profit in 2012, a 9 percent jump over 2011. Meanwhile, Chevron earned $26.2 billion for the year. In the final three months of the year, the companies earned $9.95 billion and $7.2 billion respectively.

Here are the highlights of how Exxon and Chevron spend their earnings:

ExxonMobil

Exxon received $600 million annual tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.

Exxon’s oil production was down 6 percent from 2011.

In fourth quarter, Exxon bought back $5.3 billion of its stock, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.

Exxon’s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans.

The company spent $12.97 million lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.

Exxon is moving ahead with a project to develop the tar sands in Canada.

Chevron:

In October, Chevron made the single-largest corporate donation in history. Chevron dropped $2.5 million with the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC to elect House Republicans.

The bulk of Chevron’s federal contributions came from the super PAC donation, for a total of $3.87 million for the 2012 cycle. 85 percent went to Republicans.

Chevron spent $9.55 million lobbying Congress in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Chevron paid 19 percent U.S. taxes last year (half of the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent), and received an estimated $700 million in annual tax breaks last year.

Chevron was fined $1 million for a refinery fire that sent 15,000 Richmond, California residents to the hospital. Though the company faces $10 million in medical expenses, Chevron earns it back in a couple of hours.

With Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips reporting $35 billion in combined profit in 2012, BP is the last company left to announce its profits for the year.

That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
43. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 18:33 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:38:
Certainly cuts should be made, but they should be made not because of the debt or deficit, they should be made because they're just downright wasteful. Bloated military programs that continue for years or decades without any progress, for example. Subsidies to businesses that are reaping record profits (and have been for decades). But we need to spend more in other areas also in order to keep up growth long term. We have to improve our education system and that costs money no matter which way you look at it. Certainly lots of things we're doing now aren't effective, but they don't change by having less money available in the system as a whole. Likewise expanding infrastructure spending saves money and generates revenues in the long term. We need a high-speed transit system that is affordable and efficient. Maintaining the highways is extremely expensive and has a lot of secondary costs that go with it. (real) High speed rail with dedicated right-of-ways would benefit freight and personal transit. It doesn't have to be like Amtrak which is a dying relic. It can be faster, cheaper, and easier, but we have to invest now. And finally we need to fix our power infrastructure. Dependence on oil and coal is crippling us and will be the weight around our neck that sinks us. We need to stop funding them and make sure functional alternatives are in place. Solar (PV and thermal) is viable, even at current efficiencies. (Current technology) Nuclear is safer and ultimately cheaper as a provider for base-loads, but we have to get rid of the NIMBY attitude and approach it rationally, not as a favor to industry pals.

More and better health care reform would have a significant effect as the cost of it is far too high and the ACA doesn't actually deal with that in a meaningful way. The key problem is the insurance companies have every incentive for prices to go up and such make no effort at controlling them. This forces people into a Faustian bargain where they must take insurance to avoid paying the rate-sheet prices but are still being charged 10x - 100x more than the services actually cost to provide. On top of that the insurance industry adds a "moving money around, but mostly into our pocket" tax for facilitating the transaction. A single payer public system would be able to control prices and would cost *substantially* less than both what we're paying now in total as a society AND less than just what we pay into Medicare now. To cover everyone in the country. This means a lot more money to spend on real goods and services instead of invented schemes that add zero value. Providers would compete on service and people would have real, open choices as to who to visit for their care.

But a lot of this doesn't really mean much or have a chance of happening if wages aren't raised to match the increase in productivity over the last 30 - 40 years. For decades wage levels followed closely to productivity increases, and then in the 70's "magically" stopped. Productivity increased greatly but wages stagnated. If wages were closer to what they should be relative to productivity the tax base would increase immensely and we'd almost certainly have a surplus even at current tax and spending levels. But as it is now, the majority of people (in the "developed" world and the US) have less and less money to spend each year which means businesses have fewer customers and are more likely to go out of business. This ultimately shrinks the economy and puts on a path of ruin. When most people have no money to spend on anything but food and shelter, any business that doesn't go directly to that will be unsustainable. When most people start having to choose between food and shelter, I suspect we'll start seeing a lot more riots and violence which does good for no one.

/rant

Well when we stop focusing on bullying and social issues in schools and start teaching kids basic reading, math, etc, we'll improve in that regard, it's not money. Schools get plenty of it, and they are extremely efficient at taking the money they get and spending it on things they don't need. It's more so the absolute ineptness and quality of teachers and college professors who are more interested in indoctrinating kids into being liberals than actually teaching them anything.

I agree healthcare reform was needed, instead what we got was an utter abuse of the commerce clause and an unconstitutional health care bill that will end up costing everyone more for health insurance across the board. Yay for progress?

Perhaps if we stopped printing money like the world was going to end tomorrow, raises in the costs of living would match what people are actually earning. Not that I don't think wage increases aren't needed, they certainly are. But there are reasons inflation is at the level it is.

There are areas that have already spent millions building high speed transit, guess what? No one uses it. Which goes back to the whole spending for the sake of spending. Politicians love spending money, especially when it isn't theirs.

This comment was edited on Apr 22, 2013, 18:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
39. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:15 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:01:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 15:47:
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.

Actually, it would make a dent. The deficit in 2012 was approximately 1,100 billion.
According to the IRS, the top 1% earned 1,300 billion in 2009.

So, that's a dent. But also ludicrous. Obviously no one wants them paying 100%, and it ignores the fact that tax is paid on a marginal rate basis, something too many people discussing taxes don't understand, plus taxes are important for a health of spending power perspective and this is the stronger argument for a raised marginal tax rate.

I'm not arguing raising taxes btw. Just that raising taxes on the rich alone isn't going to really do much without making massive cuts to spending across the board.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
37. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 15:47 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
35. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:47 RollinThundr
 
nin wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:45:
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).


dunderdunderderpa!


Nin: Whines about trolls while trolling as hard as he can. Good on ya douchecanoe.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
34. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:46 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).

Fair enough I may have been confusing the two. Still though, perhaps we should start paying that 16.8 trillion rather than burying ourselves in more of it. Granted that would make too much common sense for the current crop of polititians (both R and D) to put into action.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
30. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:13 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:24:
LittleMe wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:22:
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:09:
Yes, the market supports prices being through the roof and athletes being paid extreme salaries.
Much like the market supports the goods you buy being manufactured in China and the US-based CEOs being paid extreme salaries.

Well a big contributor to our manufacturing base moving to China is, imo, due to Fed (reserve) policy and our Federal debt. The Chinese and many other countries own a huge amount of our debt. Yes, it's a market force, but it's centrally planned and managed. So this isn't free-market economics at work in this case. It's anti free-market economics at work.


8%. China has 8% of our debt.

Your analysis of the cause is incorrect.

Try 26% of our debt is owed to China, it's far higher than 8% not sure who's ass you're pulling that number out of.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
29. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:12 RollinThundr
 
Creston wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:20:
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:09:
So, don't like it - don't buy it?

More like: Don't want to pay 200 - 450 dollars? How about you spend 50? Seriously, 450 bucks? Do you get lapdances while watching the game? I've been to 8 different ballparks, have never spent more than 25-35 bucks on a ticket, and have always had great seats. Yes, you can spend that much if you want to, but don't act like a family has no other choice BUT to pay that much if it wants to see a ballgame. (admittedly this is MLB only. I don't think the NBA has any such deals, nor does the NFL.)

Can't we turn that around to why we're saddled with tons of shitty microtransaction based games? Because the market supports it?

I think EA and its ilk are at least smart enough to realize that microtransactions are a source of income. You are perfectly free to buy the games without MTs in them.

Of course, sometimes it doesn't work out quite right. See: the Yankees 2012 playoff home games and all the empty seats.

Which is actually a perfect example of what I said. Ballparks charge what the market will bear. The Yankees believed their market would bear $2500 seats. The market proved them (largely) wrong, leading to them lowering their prices for most of their season tickets and single-seats this year.

Creston

Most NHL franchises do the same thing, tickets to go to a Boston Bruins game for example are expensive solo since Mr. Jacobs (he owns the building along with the concessions along with the team itself) is a greedy asshole, but they do offer family packs which knocks the price per ticket down to more reasonable dollar amounts.

As for MT's when people stop buying them, publishers will stop putting them in games. So far that hasn't been the case. And really as long as they're not cutting chunks of the game to sell as DLC I'm fine with it. No one is forced to buy boosts, or whatever via MT's. No one at EA or <insert publisher here> is holding a gun to your head forcing you to pay more than the cost of admission.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Metaverse
16. Re: Saturday Metaverse Apr 21, 2013, 11:38 RollinThundr
 
killer_roach wrote on Apr 20, 2013, 22:06:
TurdFergasun wrote on Apr 20, 2013, 21:24:
doesn't help when governments vilify science, continually slash education budgets, and lower the standards along with them.

Except they aren't slashing education budgets. They're still expanding at rates well in excess of inflation. The only "cuts" have been in the rate of growth.

That being said, the amount of that money that actually goes to teaching isn't expanding much - most of that added money goes to facilities and administration.

Trust me, schools = liberals = we love to spend. The town I work for the school system is constantly looking for more money than they have for the sake of spending it on shit they don't even need. And it happens everywhere I'm sure. Using Sped money and their IT budget like it's a personal slush fund for the district is generally frowned upon I would think.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
15. Re: Morning Tech Bits Apr 19, 2013, 13:38 RollinThundr
 
nin wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 11:49:

These [Windows 8] stories are so full of it. When Vista was released, all the nerds fell all over themselves on the internet bitching about how terrible it was. So, Microsoft reboxes it and sells it as Windows 7, and all of a sudden everyone loves it.

I bought Vista - thought it was a little clunky at first, but it was OK. I bought Windows 7 and thought "this is the exact same thing. It's just as clunky."


Quite the revisionist history. If you can't tell the difference between vista and 7, you might want to get your eyes checked.


Did he honestly just call windows 7 "clunky"?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Homeworld IP Sold; Kickstarter Refunding Pledges
26. Re: Homeworld IP Sold; Kickstarter Refunding Pledges Apr 19, 2013, 13:24 RollinThundr
 
killer_roach wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 12:26:
Creston wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 12:20:
EA bought the Homeworld IP and is going to turn it into a 3rd person shooter with QTE Microtransactions.

Creston

I highly doubt EA is the buyer. They've been reasonably quiet on the acquisition front lately, the IP doesn't really hold much value with their development studios, and it'd be just as easy for them to create a similar game from scratch without paying for the name. Seeing as their new CEO seems allergic to spending money, after all...

Well you see this would give the usual suspects another reason to hate on EA for the sake of it, so I'm sure they have their finger's crossed.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Capcom Plotzes - Issues Profit Warning; Cancelling Games
28. Re: Capcom Plotzes - Issues Profit Warning; Cancelling Games Apr 18, 2013, 20:21 RollinThundr
 
Fantaz wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 19:39:
Cutter wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 19:05:
Jivaro wrote on Apr 18, 2013, 12:25:
Devil May Cry: Emo Edition

Lol!
Don't laugh, you've offended the emo crowd.


I see alot of slit emo wrists by the time this thread goes by the wayside.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2460 Comments. 123 pages. Viewing page 43.
< Newer [ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo