Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


Girl,

quote:

“I'm not familiar with [sign in to see URL], but the only sites I can find that seem to corroborate their headline are well-known for their extreme bias. Can you find a neutral (or at least fair) source that corroborates their claim?”



Uh, The Hill? Pretty left-wing. There’s a great gulf between us if you don’t know about this. Maybe it would be more useful to explore that? Where exactly do you get your information?

quote:

“You do realize that "The Bonfire of the Vanities" was satire, right?”



Bonfires is “satire”? Bonfires is laugh out loud funny at times, but to relegate it with one word, “satire” is like saying Dickens was just a satirist. Bonfires is an outstanding piece of social commentary relevant to modern history.

quote:

The Bonfire of the Vanities, by Tom Wolfe (1987): In many ways, the New York City of the 1980s — sprawling, crime-ridden, out of control — has passed into history. Yet Tom Wolfe’s grand novel of this place and time holds up because human nature — greedy, lazy, concupiscent, and beset by status anxiety — hasn’t changed a whit, nor has the tumultuous energy of the city that never sleeps. Wolfe created a huge and vivid gallery of New York types, high and low, who were fully human. (His aim was that of Dickens, to write about every level of society.) At the center is Sherman McCoy: preening, eaten by insecurity, and terrified of his wife, his mistress, his boss, and the nemesis that awaits him as punishment for an act of cowardice. And there are so many other characters who persist as recognizable types, including slothful journalists, trophy wives, career-pushing prosecutors, snobbish nannies who lord it over their less well-heeled clients — all ground through the gears of a tight and perfectly turning plot. Wolfe despised arty, introspective fiction and sought to write a panoramic, large-scale, 19th-century-style novel that would realistically portray 20th-century urban life in all its rollicking glory and sordidness. He succeeded so well that some of the turns of phrase he coined — “Mas¬ters of the Universe,” “social X-rays” — are fixtures of American English more than 20 years later. Sherman McCoy will live forever as one of 20th-century America’s most distinctive fictional characters, and researchers will be consulting Wolfe’s book for centuries to find out what New York was — and is — really like.


[sign in to see URL]

Anyway, to get back to the chase.

Trump is a billionaire that had sex with lots of women . . . but he isn’t and wasn’t a sexual predator (the topic of this thread, sort of). The Left’s fit of puritanism is because they want to weaponize everything against Trump. On policy he’s great (have you seen the black unemployment rate! Trump has already gotten back the $1000 of income the average black family lost under Obama! He how about the billions in bonuses and raises millions of Americans are getting because of the Trump tax cut!).

That’s why the Left has to shout “sh*thole” time after time (it is apparently the first time they've heard the word), and smugly acknowledge his racism. So stupid.

If the Left didn’t have double standards, it wouldn’t have any standards at all. The Right has had it's full of that logic.


Last edited by RedQ, 1/14/2018, 8:42 pm
1/14/2018, 3:27 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


Part 1

>LESIGNER GIRL WROTE:
>This statement is inaccurate. Bonobos aren't our ancestors. Both bonobos and chimpanzees are our cousins.
The Pan genus consists of Pan troglodytes (common chimpanzees) and Pan paniscus (bonobos). The last common ancestor between Pans and Homos existed millions of years before the last common ancestor between bonobos and chimps.

>>JAEGER PREVIOUSLY WROTE:
This is significant because bonobos, unlike the chimps, are extremely promiscuous and even "hyper-sexual." In other words they like to have sex a lot.

JAEGER WROTE:
So you disagree with the findings of Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha in their book, SEX AT DAWN?! If so, you are either uninformed about anthropologists' latest research or would you please present me with some more recent research so I can up-date myself.

>Bonobos and chimps enjoy sex. The females in both species are particularly promiscuous, while male chimps are more aggressive than male bonobos, and they are more likely to attack each other over a potential mate, kind of like the 'alpha' males in our own species.

My understanding is: IF we are more directly descended from bonobos, THEN we do more than "enjoy" sex, we are !@#$ crazy about it. In other words, we are promiscuous to the point of "hypersexuality." And this expressly includes women, even nuns. As evidence for instance, the authors in SEX AT DAWN contend that human female breasts are way larger than they have to be. They are thus over-sized merely to attract men for sex. And bear in mind, sex is NOT for reproduction, as 21st Century Man thinks, it's MOSTLY for bonding, recreation. And as added evidence for this supposition why do even 21st Century human women moan and scream so loud when having sex, especially with more than one man at a time -- the norm for about 195,000 years? They are screaming and moaning loudly so other males in the tribe will hear them and join in. It took the sperm from all the males in the tribe to make a pregnancy.

If the anthropologists are right, women today love to !@#$ every male in the tribe but the nuns and their mothers have brain washed them into thinking its wrong. The church and state of today have brainwashed everyone into being
quiet little sexually-repressed hypocrites, if not stingy with sex. No wonder so many men are just taking what they want.

>Now, on the topic of sexual harassment: Yes, I think most women do love to !@#$, but as equals, and not treated like mere objects that exist for the sole purpose of pleasing someone else.

I agree with this. If a women doesn't WANT to be treated like a piece of meat -- and millions DO, according to women's profiles that can be seen at hundreds of fetish and BDSM sites all over the net -- then men have no right to treat her like a piece of meat. That's abhorrent. And women are not for the sole purpose of pleasing "men" -- the word you may have been looking for.

>I know your mention of bonobos and chimps was brief, but I latched on to it because it's so much easier to show the biological relationship between Pans and humans than it is to explain a complicated issue like sexual harassment,

Not really. There is a very simple, if not rational explanation: again, the women in today's society aren't "giving" the men in today's society enough sex, thus the men are "harassing" the women. What percentage of men are harassing and what percentage of women withholding is irrelevant.

That's the simple part. To understand the reason this is happening is more complicated, as you say. In short, one must consult some human history in terms of biological history.

As far as biological history, the DNA of males and females is essentially identical. And unless you can show me academic-quality studies that supplement or refute the studies cited in SEX AT DAWN, I am going to continue to rely upon what I posited in my OP, that Nature designed human males and females to be promiscuous, if not hypersexual.

Unfortunately, over the centuries the church and the state entered the picture and vilified sex to serve their various purposes -- another discussion. Given this, "fornication under consent of the king" could only happen if a couple had what could be called a "!@#$ license" -- i.e., a "Marriage license." But somewhere along the way a male-dominated society began to treat women unfairly. Probably started with property right in the first city states. Women were labeled "sluts" if they demonstrated their natural promiscuity by disobeying property "rights" of the male, whereas men were considered "studs." Later, women were not paid as much in the labor force as men and they were denied certain opportunities. Women also sustained the liabilities of unwanted pregnancies, while males fled from their parental responsibilities. Society and the church looked the other way as these travesties happened and things got worse until we arrive at today where certain men treat women as sexual objects. At some point women started silently rebelling. They were even forced to use sex as a "political weapon" their reasoning something like this: "if males won't given me more money, I won't give them more sex". This was probably the unspoken mantra of millions of women across the nation who had entered the workforce because they had to pay fiat currency-generated interest payments on their credits cards, car loans and mortgages. And birth control pill popping-women had lots of Fed-generated debts, especially black women who had no dads at home most of the time.

So where Marx failed, in his call for "workers of the world to unite," cultural Marxists have been able to get minorities AND "women of the world to unite." And to the degree men of the world harass, rape, don't pay, don't baby-sit, treat like meat -- they are simply not going to get fucked. And worse, the hoards of pissed off women across the nation are going to call forth and enlist all the pussy-whipped men in the realm to crucify any of their associates deemed a pussy-disrespecting, male-witch.

>and because it demonstrates that you are basing your opinions on false premises and a skewed perspective.

No, my study stands unless you produce one that invalidates it.

>Sexual harassment and assault have always been an issue,

Not for the 195,000 years prior to the agricultural revolution. Or weren't you there?

>but a lot of women just accepted it, because it was considered 'normal' in our society,

Well that's sad. Maybe women should have spoken up sooner -- or have they been participating in too many benefits?

>and they didn't want to be seen as outcasts.

I don't think that's the only reason. As much as 50% of the women in Hollywood probably have little or no problem !@#$ Harvey Weinstein-type producers if they can get on an Oscar-winning picture.

>There is more to it than that, but it's a complex issue.

Not really that complex.

>The thing is, seeing women come forward gives other women the courage to come forward, and that's what we're seeing right now.

Well this is good. I in no way condone this treatment of women. Sure it's fucked up that women are using sex as a political hammer over men but so what, men deserve it and they pulled it in. Frankly I think Harvey Weinstein should go to jail. I think that any woman who wears an overly provocative dress should also go to jail.


Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/14/2018, 11:37 pm
1/14/2018, 11:11 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


Part 2

>Women aren't hating men more and more. That's just your perspective.

"Just," as in I'm "just" a male? Are you "just" a bigot?

>The fact is, more women are coming forward with their experiences because they are finally seeing that they're not alone,

Why were they such cowards? You don't paint a very robust picture of the female sex given they have essentially the same DNA as males. Maybe fewer females are affected than the Mainstream Media is spewing.

>and that they don't have to just accept things the way they are.

Or, maybe if they gave men MORE sex the men would give them LESS harassment. Remember the "free love" of the 1960s? I'm sure few in the #metoo movement do.

>Also, the women who come forward with those experiences aren't saying they hate all men.

You too have "allitis."

>They're saying this particular man did this, and what he did was wrong.

And they are assuring us that no victim precipitation was involved. Just like Madonna didn't !@#$ her way to the top.

>They may not even hate the men who did it, but simply want to help them see the error in their ways,

It's a power trip. The woman has the sex and the man has the money. He says, "!@#$ me". She says, "pay me." It's a Mexican stand off. Only thing is -- if all the women in the world went on sex-strike -- Nature provides a remedy. Males were made stronger so they could break the strike in order to save the species. This is a brutal little truth you will never see on CNN yet one all women are quite aware of. And it probably pisses women off as much as it pisses men off that women formed governments to protect them from the raping males of the civilization. Ironically, every time a war is fought to protect from raping males of some new Nazi Germany, even more women than ever are raped DURING the war ... and especially the women of the losing side AFTER the war.

>find support for themselves, and/or help other women know they're not alone, and that they don't have to just grin and bear it when they're being treated like a piece of meat.

Blah, blah, blah...

>Famous people aren't the only ones being called out for sexual harassment and sexual assault, either. They're just the ones we hear about, because they're famous. Of course the media will latch on to a story about Weinstein or Franken, while totally ignoring the traveler in the hotel, who answers his door naked when housekeeping comes to clean their room. What else would you expect?

So you consider the human body ugly? Nature's finest creation, ugly? Seems like the church and the nuns have perverted your innocent, aesthetic senses.

>Socrates has been credited with saying that good men do bad things because they don't know any better. I would change that to say good people do bad things, but 'men' is appropriate in this particular case. Some men have known better their whole lives, because they had good role models.

The only reason I don't answer the doors naked (although I DID answer one in a bathrobe once) is because I try to follow a simple golden rule: "Do NOT do to others what you do NOT mind them doing to you." On the other hand, I wouldn't mind it if you came to my door naked and you had a nice ass. If a fat ass I would mind it.

>Some men didn't know any better before, but learned later on or are starting to learn.

They need some nun-training.

>I believe people like Trump, who brag about sexually assaulting women, are in the minority,

So saying "they will let you touch their pussy" is an assault? Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution you can not use free speech to consensually seek to touch a woman's pussy?

>and there is no help for them, but I think the #metoo movement has helped a lot of good men see the error in their ways, and hope to see this momentum continue.

metoo.

Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/14/2018, 11:52 pm
1/14/2018, 11:12 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


quote:

RedQ wrote:

Girl,

quote:

“I'm not familiar with [sign in to see URL], but the only sites I can find that seem to corroborate their headline are well-known for their extreme bias. Can you find a neutral (or at least fair) source that corroborates their claim?”



Uh, The Hill? Pretty left-wing. There’s a great gulf between us if you don’t know about this. Maybe it would be more useful to explore that? Where exactly do you get your information?



My apologies, Red. I missed that in the small print of the quoted text. I don't trust extremely biased sources on either side of the aisle, but The Hill is only slightly left of center, and they do seem to be reliable.

After googling Lisa Bloom documents, I see that The Hill and several other sites on both sides of the aisle have reported on this. I have been so busy with my full-time career plus Runboard plus work I do for a non-profit organization plus trying to find some time to myself, that I haven't kept up on who is who in all of these news stories that keep coming out every day.

Now that I have looked it up, here's what I'm reading:

1) She was on Harvey Weinstein's defense team, only to quit the case after so many accusations were made against him. Question 1: Did she quit representing him because she believed he would lose, and she didn't want her name on that loss? Or maybe she was convinced that he was guilty, and couldn't live with herself if she helped him beat the charges. Or, maybe there's some other reason why she quit his case. Also, what was her reason for taking the case in the first place? Was it for her reputation? Did she initially believe he was innocent, only to have her doubts about him later as a result of all the accusations?

2) Lisa Bloom has represented other women who have accused rich and famous people like Bill Cosby and Bill O'Reilly. Did she want to help these women because she believed them? Did she do it to build her reputation? Was there some other reason to represent the accusers in these cases? Has anyone taken the time to investigate and find the answers to these questions?

3) She claims she was offering money to help women relocate and/or go into hiding if they feared for their safety from backlash. These women would absolutely be subjected to some pretty harsh backlash, including death threats and rape threats, by many Donald Trump supporters if they testified against him. But was this Bloom's motivation? Did Bloom spell it out clearly that she was only looking for actual victims to come forward when she (as she claims) offered to help protect them with money she was collecting from donors? I'm not a mind reader, but...

Considering these three points, what makes the most sense as to what her motivation could be? Why would she defend Weinstein (then quit when so many different women came forward), then solicit donation money to pay women to testify against Trump?

Why would she jeopardize her career -- and even her very freedom -- by paying women to commit perjury and attempt to frame a narcissistic, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted billionaire President? Because, you know, this does seem to be what you're implying. What would be her purpose for this, and why would she consider it worth so much risk?

Finally, I would like to see the actual documents so I can make up my own mind about her motivation, instead of having it filtered through news sources that may or may not have it right, which is why I used the word, "documents" in my search. I even checked The Smoking Gun for Lisa Bloom, but it doesn't look like they have obtained copies of those documents to share with the world.

If you can obtain copies of the documents that might explain why Lisa Bloom was offering money to anyone who testified against Trump (to protect the alleged victims, or to get rich?), I would love to see them.

quote:

quote:

“You do realize that "The Bonfire of the Vanities" was satire, right?”



Bonfires is “satire”? Bonfires is laugh out loud funny at times, but to relegate it with one word, “satire” is like saying Dickens was just a satirist. Bonfires is an outstanding piece of social commentary relevant to modern history.



]False equivalence. In order for it to be like saying Dickens was just a satirist, I would have to say that Tom Wolfe is just a satirist, and I never made that claim. Just because an author writes something in one genre, that doesn't mean everything they write has to be in that same genre.

I said this one particular novel you mentioned was satire, and that is all I said about that.

I have never read Bonfire of the Vanities, and don't remember if I have ever seen the movie, so all I have to go on are reviews. I even saw where one poster at some board somewhere said it's not satire, but it started out as satire. [sign in to see URL]? Another person said it's not satire, but went on to say things about it that actually define satire. So, although I can't say with any real certainty that's it's satire, because I've never actually read the thing, it definitely sounds like satire to me, even when reading reviews by people who claim it's not satire.

quote:

Anyway, to get back to the chase.

Trump is a billionaire that had sex with lots of women . . . but he isn’t and wasn’t a sexual predator (the topic of this thread, sort of). The Left’s fit of puritanism is because they want to weaponize everything against Trump.



Puritanism? We're not trying to reform the Church of England. In fact, I'm not even religious nor theistic, for that matter. As much as I despise Trump, I don't want anyone to lie to get him out of office. His own actions should be enough, but sadly, the guy "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody", or cause an all-out global nuclear war, and not have to pay for his crimes.

Yes, Trump screwed a lot of women. Many of them may have consented to it, and others may not have, or they may have agreed begrudgingly, out of desperation, believing he would dig them out of some shithole situation they are in. Some of they may have even been turned off by him, but were hoping to share in his fortune, or whatever. Many non-billionaires have screwed a lot of women, and many of them may or may not have been sexual predators. So what was your point with this?

quote:

On policy he’s great (have you seen the black unemployment rate!



Obama's policies (which the Republicans fought him every step of the way on) decreased the unemployment rate overall.

quote:

Trump has already gotten back the $1000 of income the average black family lost under Obama!



Citation, please.

quote:

He how about the billions in bonuses and raises millions of Americans are getting because of the Trump tax cut!).


You mean that temporary tax cut poorer Americans are getting that will expire, while tax cuts for the wealthy have no expiration date? Are you referring to the "tax" bill that basically repealed the Johnson Amendment, so PACs can now qualify for 501(c)(3) status and churches can still be tax-free while supporting their favorite political candidates both financially and through shows of support? You mean that temporary tax cut that also came with so much other baggage that... Nope. I'm not going to get in to all that other stuff here.

quote:

That’s why the Left has to shout “sh*thole” time after time (it is apparently the first time they've heard the word), and smugly acknowledge his racism. So stupid.


We all knew he was racist. What's funny is the fact that "Boo hoo! Obama said something mean about Fox viewers!" was basically Fox's top headline the other day.

quote:

If the Left didn’t have double standards, it wouldn’t have any standards at all. The Right has had it's full of that logic.


I don't know how to respond to this without sounding mean. I will say this, though. Trying to get liberals to unite behind any particular cause, or even getting them to go out and vote, can be like trying to herd cats. Some care about these things, some care about those things, and some just have so much of a 'live and let live' attitude that they don't understand the need to actually go out and VOTE so people can have the RIGHT to live and let live. So people have the RIGHT to marry someone they love. So people have the RIGHT to decide if and when to get pregnant and give birth. So people have the RIGHT to not die of conditions that would be easily preventable or treatable if the large corporations that employ them didn't pay them such shitty wages without medical insurance for all their hard work.

Actually, those who have such a 'live and let live' attitude are more Libertarian, whom many informed liberals vehemently disagree with, including myself. To me, a Libertarian is basically someone who says, "I've got mine, !@#$ the rest of you." But that's a whole different topic that I don't really have time to get into.

You think liberals have double standards, but I think conservatives are the ones with double standards. How can someone be "pro life," but not care about life after it's born? A lot of conservatives are so eager to outlaw contraceptives and abortion, but unwilling to help with prenatal care, unwilling to help struggling families with small children, unwilling to help the elderly, are unwilling to help our veterans (homeless or not) deal with the mental scars of sending them to war, and so eager to keep the death penalty, when so many innocent people have been executed for someone else's heinous crime(s)? I could go on, but I won't.

I don't see liberals having double standards. I see different liberals having different standards, because we tend to put more thought into our beliefs, instead of believing everything we're spoon fed. I am not trying to be cruel when I say this. There are several factors that determine how an individual forms their beliefs; some are biological, and others are greatly determined by the influences in their life while growing up. In other words, it's a combination of both nature and nurture.

This reply is already a lot longer than I intended, so I'll stop here.

James, I'll try to read your posts later. For now, I need to catch up on some other things.


Last edited by Lesigner Girl, 1/16/2018, 2:33 am


---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Website Creation Tutorials
1/16/2018, 2:31 am Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


>James, I'll try to read your posts later. For now, I need to catch up on some other things.

I read your argument with RedQuist. I would suggest you divorce yourself from any and all political parties -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and even "Independent." The framers called them "factions" and advised against them.

You pointed out the inconsistencies on the Right, and you are not wrong. I, for instance, hate war but love abortions, so what am I, a Dem or a GOPer?

Lastly, might take a look at two of my films that explore political parties: SPOILER and ORIGINAL INTENT, both up as free public services at [sign in to see URL]



Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/16/2018, 1:50 pm
1/16/2018, 1:50 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


quote:

I don't see liberals having double standards. I see different liberals having different standards, because we tend to put more thought into our beliefs, instead of believing everything we're spoon fed. I am not trying to be cruel when I say this.



Hi Girl, We here are refuges from [sign in to see URL] where certain thoughts could not be voiced, certain ideas could not be expressed.

Really, I thank you for your long post, because it expresses the Left in today's America quite well.

I would like to use Escape Velocity as a vehicle for Steemit. KurzweilAI was in some ways a failure, because it couldn't provide a mission for it's participants. Because you have a stake here, maybe you could help? Maybe we can put money in your pocket?

My thought is a debate, to begin between you and me, but there are several others here that can provide lively input.

I often hear right wingers describe how they started out on the Left. If I put enough effort into it, I'm sure I can swing you at least a bit.

Up to the challenge?

P.S. Sebastian Gorka tonight quoted a radio show guy as saying "if the Left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all." Are they reading?





Last edited by RedQ, 1/16/2018, 11:48 pm
1/16/2018, 9:03 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


So RedQuist, Have you made any money over at Steemit? Give me your cell or call me on the phone.

Last edited by RedQ, 1/17/2018, 7:11 pm
1/17/2018, 6:18 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


James, I'll give you a call. Red

Will Sat. afternoon work?

Last edited by RedQ, 1/18/2018, 5:13 pm
1/17/2018, 7:13 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


Sure. Anytime after 3p Eastern. Did I give you my number?

Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/18/2018, 6:30 pm
1/18/2018, 6:28 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Don't Men and Women Want to Have Sex Anymore?


Yes. I deleted it. You can use the PM function here for personal communications, like phone numbers.

Last edited by RedQ, 1/18/2018, 8:46 pm
1/18/2018, 8:43 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top