The Christine O'Donnell Thread

[quote name='thrustbucket']Cutting taxes can't happen without cutting spending first. If that's part of a candidates platform then I'm for it.[/QUOTE]

Cutting taxes has happened plenty of times without cutting spending. It's been, more or less, that same way the entirety of your life on this planet.

You're both waiting for the great pumpkin of candidates at the same time you're a one-issue voter. It easily positions you to the high-and-mighty status of being dejected with every politician, but it's also a fairly lazy platform to rest on - one that neglects to consider the complex world we live in.

You were one of those people who didn't like the HCRA, in part, because it 'had too many words/pages,' yes? That says quite a bit about you.
 
[quote name='Survivor Charlie']That's why the whole witchcraft thing makes me laugh. If you're a Christian, then fundamental to the core of your beliefs should be one ultimate: only God can defy the laws of nature. In other words, witchcraft doesn't exist because only God has power that could be described as magic. So really, you're just dressing stupid and making a mess of a perfectly good alter. I don't see how any Christians could be offended by something so childishly petty. To me, it's a sign of insecurity in their own belief. "God is all powerful... unless you dress like a fool and spill a little blood on a pile of gravel with a pentagram on it... holy shit, he's powerless then!" Oooh, what next, did she use a Ouija Board too? I swear, the time is coming where a political scandal will be someone once passed notes in study hall in the 11th grade. Clearly that, not their stupid policies or total insanity is what disqualifies them from higher office.[/QUOTE]

Considering that Christian religions like Catholicism still perform exorcisms, I'm not sure that's accurate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Cutting taxes has happened plenty of times without cutting spending. It's been, more or less, that same way the entirety of your life on this planet.

You're both waiting for the great pumpkin of candidates at the same time you're a one-issue voter. It easily positions you to the high-and-mighty status of being dejected with every politician, but it's also a fairly lazy platform to rest on - one that neglects to consider the complex world we live in.[/quote]

I'm not a one issue voter. But I do see one or two issues being far and away the biggest problems this government has right now that needs fixing (Growing bigger and borrowing from our great grandkids).

If those two things don't get under control, and damn quick, your little 'complex world' you can't wait to find your highly educated highly experienced politicians to manage, won't really exist now, will it?

I can't honestly think up a list of political platform issues (or personal dirt) that I disagree with enough that a candidate would have that would override the above. Not in the next two years anyway.

You were one of those people who didn't like the HCRA, in part, because it 'had too many words/pages,' yes? That says quite a bit about you.
Click to expand...

Yeah? What's it say about me that it doesn't say for the rest of your dream-team democratic majority Congress that had to "pass it to see what's in it"?
If you don't see anything wrong with that, that says quite a bit about you.
 
O’Donnell’s campaign pays half the rent on her town house, which she argued is appropriate since she really lives elsewhere, in a location she needs to conceal from her opponents. She told The Weekly Standard that she returns at the end of the day to the town house “and then we have our team come out and check all the bushes and check all the cars” to see if she is being followed by someone who might jeopardize her safety. Her opponents, she added, are also “hiding in the bushes when I’m at candidate forums.”
 
"WE have to pass it so YOU can find out what is in it" is what Pelosi said.

You misremember her quote, which turns the meaning around entirely. It's a condescending thing for her to say, perhaps (i.e., "hey dumb americans, you don't know shit but you do understand lived experiences, so you'll find out what's in the bill once it's passed because you're too busy watching people playing kazoos on a waterbed on "america's got talent" to figure out what the bill actually is"). But it's a point I agree with, by and large.

We had a discussion - in the public, amongst respected members of the media as well as talking heads - over DEATH PANELS FROM THE GOVERNMENT - meanwhile, back at the ranch, the same media and talking heads virtually ignored the recission processes of the insurance companies we have now.

Modern politics is why we can't have nice things, and people have shit to do (even dumb shit) - which is why the "ignorance of the American voter" is one of the most reliable data points in any social survey. So, yeah, THEY do need to pass it so YOU can find out what's in it, by and large because your head is up your ass.
 
You may be right. But you also can't honestly say there were very many, if any, in our government that fully understood what was in that bill when it passed. And they even admit now that they really know to what extent it will cost in the long run.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You may be right. But you also can't honestly say there were very many, if any, in our government that fully understood what was in that bill when it passed. And they even admit now that they really know to what extent it will cost in the long run.[/QUOTE]
I bet a bigger portion of Republicans knew less than Democrats.
 
Dude, I love this quote from last nights interview on Hannity.

"I fell behind on my mortgage. I had a pro bono client that to me was very important. I worked 18 hours a day. It was a disabled woman who the courts ruled to remove her feeding tube, so it was truly a life or death case. So when her father came to me he said "I can't pay you but will you help me save her life?' And you can't say no to that."
Click to expand...

Dude, she's not a lawyer! She finished her college degree in the last few months. What friggin pro-bono work did she do working 18 hour days?

Read this politico story.

Kristin Murray, who left her position in the state party to serve as one of several campaign managers for O’Donnell during that race, said warning bells went off in June 2008 when the two were discussing cell phone plans.

"She told me that she thought Joe Biden tapped her phone line," she said.


Several former aides said that as the Republican National Convention approached, O'Donnell became convinced she could land the coveted role as keynote speaker — the speech was ultimately delivered by former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani — and booked an expensive trip to St. Paul on that premise.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm not a one issue voter. But I do see one or two issues being far and away the biggest problems this government has right now that needs fixing (Growing bigger and borrowing from our great grandkids).

If those two things don't get under control, and damn quick, your little 'complex world' you can't wait to find your highly educated highly experienced politicians to manage, won't really exist now, will it?

I can't honestly think up a list of political platform issues (or personal dirt) that I disagree with enough that a candidate would have that would override the above. Not in the next two years anyway.[/QUOTE]

It is painfully obvious that she's stealing campaign money for personal expenses.

That's not personal dirt. That's theft.

It doesn't matter what your personal politics are here - you want to let the fox in the henhouse because she lies so good.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow.

WOW.

I mean, really. As much as depascal has preached and preached in the Mosque threads about religious tolerance and understanding.

Then, he posts this?
If this is what you truly believe "witchcraft" is, then... wow.

This is about as awesome as "muslim=terrorist".[/QUOTE]

Then enlighten me on witchcraft. Tell me about your personal experiences and then I can tell you my personal experiences and not just shit I looked up on Wiki. I know Wiccans don't sacrifice but in her quote she says she used to creep off to "blood stained" altars.

What does this tell you? First of all, she didn't practice Wicca. Second, the kids she used to mess around with were possible sick satanists that just love to abuse small animals and fuck around.

Care to retort, Bob?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Then enlighten me on witchcraft.[...]
Care to retort, Bob?[/QUOTE]

No need.

You made a broad-based comment about witchcraft, then defended your comment based on the actions of a few who claim to practice it.

Sounds pretty awesome to me.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You may be right. But you also can't honestly say there were very many, if any, in our government that fully understood what was in that bill when it passed. And they even admit now that they really know to what extent it will cost in the long run.[/QUOTE]

No, he's not. He's right about the text of the quote - however, Pelosi made this statement at 2010 NACo to a crowd of 2,000-ish elected (and otherwise) government officials. She wasn't making this statement to dumb Americans. She was telling other government employees that this bill, that was so easily worded and accessible to lay people that all you had to do was read the bill to figure it all out* that Congress needed to pass the bill so they could find out what was in it.

*and by 'figure it all out', I mean we're still finding all kinds of fun things in the bill, like the 1099 business. You know, that weird 1099 requirement that has absolutely nothing to do with health care and creates a burden on small businesses. Sure glad we're finding this kind of stuff once the bill has passed.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Dude, she's not a lawyer! She finished her college degree in the last few months. What friggin pro-bono work did she do working 18 hour days? [/QUOTE]

The truth is I can't tell if she's lying or if she's delusional. There is a difference.

The whole "I check my bushes and my fence and all the shadows for counter-operatives" and paranoia about having her phone tapped, and all the other crazy shit this woman has spewed...

This is someone who is seriously mentally ill. I'm not joking, this is not an attempt at being funny here. I'm dead serious: this woman is mentally ill. I truly don't believe she realizes she's lying. She claims socialists are creating mice with human brains, she's dabbled in Satanism, she's paranoid about being followed...

How is nobody talking about what is now plainly obvious to me: she truly, honestly suffers some form of mental illness. She likely has her whole life.

It just hit me... she said gays suffer from "Identity Disorder." Where do you think she heard that term from? Do you know what Identity Disorder is? It's inability for someone to recognize truth in their own life. Like say, for example, if you handily lost every single county in the previous election but convince yourself you won two of them or, at the very least, tied them. That falls under Identity Disorder.

I'm not joking, it all makes sense now. I do not believe Christine O'Donnell has the natural curiosity in her to independently learn that there is something in this world called "Identity Disorder." Someone had to have told her she had it.
 
Mentally disturbed? Check.
Pathological Liar? Check.
Possibly totally delusional? Check.
Running for U.S. Senate? Check.

I'm sorry, where is the news here? Is there something out of the ordinary I missed?

Besides, after the past 3 years, I'd think experience with the dark arts would be an important credential for our elected leaders.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No need.

You made a broad-based comment about witchcraft, then defended your comment based on the actions of a few who claim to practice it.

Sounds pretty awesome to me.[/QUOTE]

What? All I said was that her "witchcraft" doesn't compare to Obama's drug use. She doesn't even practice Wicca but you guys rushed in to somehow prove that I practice selective salvation on religions I like. I wish I could defend her previous practices but they don't fall under any religion other than dumb ass kids sneaking off in the woods.

Does that now qualify as a religion in your eyes?
 
[quote name='depascal22']What? All I said was that her "witchcraft" doesn't compare to Obama's drug use. She doesn't even practice Wicca but you guys rushed in to somehow prove that I practice selective salvation on religions I like. I wish I could defend her previous practices but they don't fall under any religion other than dumb ass kids sneaking off in the woods.

Does that now qualify as a religion in your eyes?[/QUOTE]

Whatever you say, ol' chum.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Besides, after the past 3 years, I'd think experience with the dark arts would be an important credential for our elected leaders.[/QUOTE]

Fact is, you don't need supernatural powers to pull the wool over the eyes of American conservatives. All you need is a big flag, a mighty cross, and a thousand overfed idiots carrying "down with socialism" signs.
 
[quote name='depascal22']What? All I said was that her "witchcraft" doesn't compare to Obama's drug use.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't, drug use is a far more serious and dangerous thing to get involved with. Drug use can destroy your life.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Moderate drug use can ruin your life just the same.[/QUOTE]
Moderation is about knowing your limits and not allowing it to interfere with day to day living. Moderation is not abuse.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Moderation is about knowing your limits and not allowing it to interfere with day to day living. Moderation is not abuse.[/QUOTE]

Except I've seen far too many people start out with mild-moderate drug use thinking they can handle it, and have it spiral out of control into abuse, dependence etc. Drugs can be a very slippery slope, and even someone with great willpower with mild-moderate drug use can easily slip into abuse or dependence. You only think this can't happen until it happens to you or a good friend/family member of yours.

It is laughable, and in several ways a disservice to the younger folks on this board, comparing the dangers of drugs to the actions of a group of teenage "witches."
 
[quote name='Ruined']Except I've seen far too many people start out with mild-moderate drug use thinking they can handle it, and have it spiral out of control into abuse, dependence etc. Drugs can be a very slippery slope, and even someone with great willpower with mild-moderate drug use can easily slip into abuse or dependence. You only think this can't happen until it happens to you or a good friend/family member of yours.

It is laughable, and in several ways a disservice to the younger folks on this board, comparing the dangers of drugs to the actions of a group of teenage "witches."[/QUOTE]
Mild-moderate use is different from addiction. It's the difference between having a couple cigarettes once every month when drinking with friends and smoking 2 packs a day. Will power doesn't mean squat when you need to take a leak after having a couple beers.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Except I've seen far too many people start out with mild-moderate drug use thinking they can handle it, and have it spiral out of control into abuse, dependence etc. Drugs can be a very slippery slope, and even someone with great willpower with mild-moderate drug use can easily slip into abuse or dependence. You only think this can't happen until it happens to you or a good friend/family member of yours.

It is laughable, and in several ways a disservice to the younger folks on this board, comparing the dangers of drugs to the actions of a group of teenage "witches."[/QUOTE]

:roll:

Smoking pot and trying cocaine isn't that big of a deal and much more common than having a date with a witch on a satanic altar.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Except I've seen far too many people start out with mild-moderate drug use thinking they can handle it, and have it spiral out of control into abuse, dependence etc. Drugs can be a very slippery slope, and even someone with great willpower with mild-moderate drug use can easily slip into abuse or dependence. You only think this can't happen until it happens to you or a good friend/family member of yours.

It is laughable, and in several ways a disservice to the younger folks on this board, comparing the dangers of drugs to the actions of a group of teenage "witches."[/QUOTE]

Yeah drug abuse is a serious problem. Satanism is mostly a fiction designed to scare Christian sheep into attending church and obeying religious leaders.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']:roll:

Smoking pot and trying cocaine isn't that big of a deal and much more common than having a date with a witch on a satanic altar.[/QUOTE]

Commonality doesn't equal less dangerous.

A kid running into traffic is more common than a date with a witch on a satanic altar, which one is more dangerous?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Commonality doesn't equal less dangerous.

A kid running into traffic is more common than a date with a witch on a satanic altar, which one is more dangerous?[/QUOTE]

Back to the question at hand - what makes the satanic date so safe?

Taking a drug like cocaine is certainly risky and stupid. But I also don't think much of a high-school girl who thinks it's a good idea to trapse into the woods with a satanist for a midnight dinner on a blood-spattered altar.
 
Who gives a fuck? Seriously? She's a creationist, she thinks science is for elites. We should be more concerned about that.

Although I don't think she is going to be an anomaly if she joins Congress. Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the Republican Primaries during 2007 wasn't there some debate where every Republican candidate admitted they were creationists?

edit: k totally wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

it was Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo

So although there are already a few in Congress, we should do our best to prevent more people who believe science is a hoax and it's for elites.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think it's funny that Ruined thinks we have children that come to the vs. board.[/QUOTE]

After rereading Knoell's posts, he might be onto something there.
 
[quote name='IRHari']So although there are already a few in Congress, we should do our best to prevent more people who believe science is a hoax and it's for elites.[/QUOTE]

I don't think people who completely shun science and technology are so bad. By that I mean the Amish.

What I can't stand are the hypocritical fundie and evangelist Christians who are more then happy to enjoy all of the technological marvels and medical advances wrought by science, only to turn around and bite the hand that just fed them.

Chrisitans, if you hate science so much, move out into the countryside and till the land like our ancestors. Seriously, if you're going to live in a city and use technology like cell phones and antibiotics, the least you could do is to show some goddamn respect to the scientific geniuses who made your way of life possible.

As far as I'm concerned, for being so mind-blowingly idiotic Sam, Mike and Tom should be forced to campaign in a horse-drawn buggy. For campaigning they can post their policy at the town square and hire a town crier for advertising purposes. But none of this new-fangled ungodly TV or internet, none of these airplanes or luxury bus rides - that satanic awfulness should be reserved for the candidates that endorse science.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I don't think Knoell or anyone else here is going on coke binges because I said it's better than "witchcraft."[/QUOTE]

Yeah but I do wonder about his age. What I mean is that has a rigid black-and-white view of the world that seems uninfluenced by fact. I hope that will change as he matures.
 
[quote name='camoor']Chrisitans, if you hate science so much, move out into the countryside and till the land like our ancestors.[/QUOTE]

Likewise, people who hate those dirty, evil rich folks should quit their jobs and stop working for them. Stop making products and services and selling your work to them (and taking money from them!).

Have some courage to stand up for your beliefs.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Likewise, people who hate those dirty, evil rich folks should quit their jobs and stop working for them. Stop making products and services and selling your work to them (and taking money from them!).

Have some courage to stand up for your beliefs.[/QUOTE]
You're right. We should string them up just like the communists did during the Cultural Revolution. Don't worry. Once the movement has grown to a certain point, we'll break out the pitchforks. Except this time, we'll take out those that support them too.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Likewise, people who hate those dirty, evil rich folks should quit their jobs and stop working for them. Stop making products and services and selling your work to them (and taking money from them!).

Have some courage to stand up for your beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Can't speak for the other progressives but I don't hate rich folks. In fact I rather admire many of them such as Soros and Buffett. I just want the rich to pay more taxes, and I vote for politicians who support that policy.
 
[quote name='camoor']Can't speak for the other progressives but I don't hate rich folks. In fact I rather admire many of them such as Soros and Buffett. I just want the rich to pay more taxes, and I vote for politicians who support that policy.[/QUOTE]

I have the same view of the affluent. I don't care that they're rich and I admire how some of them (like Mark Cuban) used one great idea and a lot of luck to make billions. I do know that they should pay more because they get the most benefits. Take a drive through the ghetto and then tell me that project living on welfare is equal to everyone else. Tell me that the welfare mother has a standard of living even close to someone in a gated community.

Bob, you complained that people weren't equal. You said we believed that certain people should get more of a vote. I say it already happened. They have the money and affluence to buy the guys that we elect. They can shape policy like no one else can.

That's why conservative politicians are bemoaning the plight of the rich. They eat lunch with them, go to fund raisers, sit in the same luxury boxes at football games, and go to the same gun clubs. Our politicians are surrounded by the affluent and, therefore, associate with their needs and wants. I have no idea why you love them so much Bob and Knoell since the richest guy that shops at Wal-Mart are the same middle managers that the really rich fire by e-mail.
 
UB, your CEO makes more in an hour then you and your fellow shelf jockeys will see in a year. Yet you stick up for the rich and their ridiculous tax loopholes every chance you get.

Is your opinion of your worth that low?
 
[quote name='camoor']UB, your CEO makes more in an hour then you and your fellow shelf jockeys will see in a year. Yet you stick up for the rich and their ridiculous tax loopholes every chance you get.

Is your opinion of your worth that low?[/QUOTE]

Actually, I don't really stick up for "tax loopholes". Remember the Kerry thread where everyone supported him and his use (abuse?) of tax loopholes? It's the same topic where we discovered depascal also cheats the tax system, skipping out on his "fair share" of taxes - not even my using loopholes, but just flat out stating "I'm not paying this tax money I owe into the government, let them come after me if they want it."

As for the CEO of Walmart, congrats for him.
But yes, I do think the government should treat us all equally. Period.

[quote name='depascal22']I have the same view of the affluent. I don't care that they're rich and I admire how some of them (like Mark Cuban) used one great idea and a lot of luck to make billions. I do know that they should pay more because they get the most benefits. Take a drive through the ghetto and then tell me that project living on welfare is equal to everyone else. Tell me that the welfare mother has a standard of living even close to someone in a gated community.

Bob, you complained that people weren't equal. You said we believed that certain people should get more of a vote. I say it already happened. They have the money and affluence to buy the guys that we elect. They can shape policy like no one else can.

That's why conservative politicians are bemoaning the plight of the rich. They eat lunch with them, go to fund raisers, sit in the same luxury boxes at football games, and go to the same gun clubs. Our politicians are surrounded by the affluent and, therefore, associate with their needs and wants. I have no idea why you love them so much Bob and Knoell since the richest guy that shops at Wal-Mart are the same middle managers that the really rich fire by e-mail.[/QUOTE]

Then I would recommend not voting for the rich guy. How much time do you think Obama and Kerry spent in the ghetto in the last two years (not surrounded by cameras for a photo op)?

I did not complain that people aren't equal. I complained that the government isn't treating everyone equally.

How the heck does standard of living = benefits?

[quote name='camoor']Can't speak for the other progressives but I don't hate rich folks. In fact I rather admire many of them such as Soros and Buffett. I just want the rich to pay more taxes, and I vote for politicians who support that policy.[/QUOTE]

So, I assume you work for Soros and Buffet and do not support any of the rich people that you feel aren't fair?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, I assume you work for Soros and Buffet and do not support any of the rich people that you feel aren't fair?[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you what I don't do. I don't bend over to the rich chanting "Thank you sir may I have another"

BTW your beloved CEO takes advantage of almost every tax break imaginable. Walmart would be a break-even business without government tax breaks, and on top of that the CEO enjoys all of the loopholes that the rich typically enjoy. And all you can say is "congrats for him".

Besides you never answered my question. Is your opinion of your business-worth so low that you believe a year of your life is not worth an hour of the CEO's time?
 
In another move that will raise further questions about Christine O'Donnell's embellishment of her education record, she claims she studied at the University of Oxford -- but a look at her actual record shows this is at best an exaggeration and at worst an outright falsehood.

O'Donnell's LinkedIn bio page lists "University of Oxford" as one of the schools she attended, claiming she studied "Post Modernism in the New Millennium." But it turns out that was just a course conducted by an institution known as the Phoenix Institute, which merely rented space at Oxford.

What's more, the woman who oversaw Phoenix Institute's summer program at Oxford tells me O'Donnell's claim about studying at Oxford is "misleading."

By itself, O'Donnell's Oxford claim might not matter too much. But the larger context is that O'Donnell has already been nabbed fudging her education record not once, but twice. She claimed for several years to have graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson Unversity, but she actually obtained her bachelor's degree last summer. And in a lawsuit she suggested she was trying for a Master's degree courses at Princeton -- but subsequently acknowledged she hadn't taken a single Princeton graduate course.
 
This is how Odonell's Linkedin page reads.
Education
•Fairleigh Dickinson University
•Claremont Graduate University
•University of Oxford
Click to expand...

On a couple WaPo comments pages, there have been people defending that she didn't actually "lie" about anything. But come on, that's blatantly intended to mislead people about her educational background.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Her education (or lack thereof?) is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

That's your opinion.

I want to know how someone who knows nothing about the law is supposed to represent their state in Congress. I'd be surprised if she had the most basic understanding of Robert's rules of order.
 
Two more updates.

First, remember when I mentioned that after the 2006 election she was approached by the party to get involved more locally and turned the party down because she felt that it was God's plan for her to be a US Senator.

Here's video proof that it's what she realy thinks. She literally thinks she's been choosen by God to be a US Senator.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/odonnell-god-wont-let-me-quit-the-senate-race-video.php

Talk about hubris. I swear, It's all O'Donnell all the time.

Secondly, here's the response from the O'Donnell camp regarding the Oxford flap.

"There have been reports that I have released false information on a LinkedIn profile under my name. This is categorically untrue. I never established a LinkedIn profile, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf. I have always been clear about my educational background. I completed undergraduate work at Fairleigh Dickenson University. After my undergraduate work, I completed a summer program run by the Phoenix Institute, at the Institute's Oxford University location. The Institute runs programs around the world at various universities, and participants study issues of human dignity. I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA. We would encourage LinkedIn to remove this profile."
Click to expand...

And then from the WaPo.

As the person who first reported yesterday on the Oxford claim on O'Donnell's LinkedIn profile, let me be clear: I asked O'Donnell's spokesperson, Diane Banister, for comment on the profile's Oxford claim last Friday. Banister never once claimed the profile wasn't put up by O'Donnell. Indeed, in response to my inquiry, Banister justified the claim on the LinkedIn profile by pointing to O'Donnell's stint at Phoenix University.

Nor did O'Donnell's spox dispute that the LinkedIn profile was hers when I again emailed her yesterday to let her know I was close to publishing. And, needless to say, O'Donnell hadn't taken any steps before today to get the profile taken down, though it's possible she didn't know about it.
Click to expand...

And I love this line from an anonymous commenter.

So she is claiming the LinkedIn profile is unauthorized? So someone just happened to know all of that information about her and decided to put up a LinkedIn profile, complete with 94 contacts, just for snicks?

Must have been done by one of those guys hiding in her bushes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top